Emma Luca

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Fire Marshal Review Order regarding a property inspection order.

The inspection order required the applicant to remove an obstruction to a means of egress over an easement.

The applicant filed the appeal two days late, citing absence from home, caregiving responsibilities, and late receipt of the order.

The Commission granted the extension, finding that the applicant demonstrated apparent grounds for the appeal based on a dispute over the legal right of way, and provided a reasonable explanation for the brief delay.

The appellant hotel operator appealed a Fire Marshal's decision rejecting its Alternative Solution Proposal (ASP) under the Fire Code.

The appellant proposed using off-site supervisory staff available 24/7 instead of on-site staff.

The Fire Safety Commission first determined that the acceptable solution in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) of the Fire Code requires supervisory staff to be physically on site when the building is occupied.

The Commission then found that the appellant's ASP did not meet or exceed the minimum performance level intended by the acceptable solution, as it relied primarily on existing building features and did not adequately compensate for the absence of immediate on-site response.

The appeal was dismissed and the Fire Marshal's order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Order confirming an Inspection Order that required the removal of all resident belongings from a fire escape.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent brought a motion on consent to amend the order to only require the removal of 'combustible materials', aligning with the specific wording of the Ontario Fire Code.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the consent motion, amended the order, and extended the compliance date.

The appellant hotel operator brought a preliminary motion to determine the scope of its appeal before the Fire Safety Commission.

The appellant had submitted an alternative solution proposal after Toronto Fire Services rejected its initial fire safety plan, which allowed supervisory staff to be located off-site.

The appellant sought a ruling that the Commission had jurisdiction to determine whether its alternative solution proposal was actually an 'acceptable solution' under the Ontario Fire Code.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the fire official's original opinion on the acceptable solution.

The Commission held its authority under s. 26(6) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 was limited to assessing the sufficiency of the alternative solution proposal as an alternative to the acceptable solution.

The appellant condominium corporation requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision which found that storage lockers in its parking garage violated the Ontario Fire Code.

The appellant argued the Commission breached procedural fairness by not making individual locker owners parties to the appeal, and erred in its statutory interpretation of the Fire Code and Building Code.

The Commission dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that individual owners must initiate an appeal or seek party status to be included, and that no errors of law or fact were made in the original decision regarding fire separation requirements.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Fire Marshal review decision confirming an inspection order that required the removal of household items from wire-caged storage lockers located in an underground parking garage.

The appellant argued that the individual locker owners should have been made parties, that the storage complied with the Ontario Fire Code, and that an exemption applied because the lockers complied with the Ontario Building Code.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness in not adding the individual owners.

The Commission held that the Fire Code requires parking garages to be fire-separated from the rest of the building, meaning household items cannot be stored in unseparated lockers.

The Commission also found insufficient evidence that the lockers complied with the Building Code, as approved drawings only permitted bicycle storage.

The review decision was amended to expressly permit bicycle storage and to extend the compliance date.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that dismissed her appeal of a Fire Marshal's Review Order for lack of jurisdiction.

The original decision found the appeal moot because the underlying Fire Code violation had been remedied by the landlord.

The appellant argued procedural unfairness and errors of mixed fact and law, asserting she had not complied with the order and feared future prejudice in tenancy matters.

The Commission dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no procedural unfairness and confirming that the dispute was moot and outside its jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed an Order of the Fire Marshal confirming an Inspection Order that required her to remove combustible materials from a means of egress.

By the time of the appeal, the fire safety issue had been remedied, but the appellant wished to proceed to address alleged procedural fairness issues and to clear her name.

The Fire Safety Commission brought a motion to determine its jurisdiction.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the fire safety issue was moot and that it lacked the statutory mandate to grant the remedies sought by the appellant, such as conducting a systemic review or clearing her name.

The appellant tenant brought a motion for costs against the respondent fire services, alleging the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith by informally suggesting an appeal was no longer necessary shortly before a scheduled case conference.

The appellant claimed $1,000 for mental distress and for having to attend the case conference.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding the respondent's actions in updating the Commission on the status of the inspection order were entirely proper and did not meet the high threshold for a costs award under the Common Rules.

The appellant appealed a 2021 Inspection Order and an Authorization to Close issued by Toronto Fire Services regarding a residential building.

The Fire Safety Commission rescinded the 2021 Inspection Order and the Authorization to Close, finding them redundant because a previous Commission order requiring the same work was still in effect.

The Commission also found that the appellant was not in violation of the previous order at the time of the inspection, as the number of tenants in the upper unit had been reduced below the threshold required for the Fire Code's rooming house provisions to apply.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a Fire Marshal Order requiring the installation of a sprinkler system at an adult care facility.

The order was served on December 22, 2020, but the notice of appeal and application for an extension were not filed until March 23, 2021.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding that under section 26(4) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, an application for an extension of time must be made within 30 days after the order is served.

Because the motion was filed two months after the statutory deadline, the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the extension request.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order and an Order to Close issued by Toronto Fire Services regarding the third storey of a property he co-owned.

The orders required the closure of the third floor until a second exit was provided, on the basis that the property was operating as a rooming house.

The appellant argued the property was a legal duplex and that a window provided a sufficient second exit.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the upper unit was occupied as a rooming house and was subject to Section 9.3 of the Fire Code, which requires two exits.

The Commission determined the window was not an acceptable exit.

The Commission amended the Inspection Order to provide a compliance option of reverting the unit back to a single dwelling unit, and confirmed the Order to Close due to the high risk to occupants.

Toronto Fire Services appealed a decision of the Fire Marshal rescinding an inspection order issued to the respondent property owner.

The order required the owner to replace windows surrounding third-floor balconies to protect occupants using the balconies as areas of refuge during a fire.

The Fire Marshal had rescinded the order because the balconies were previously approved as a compliance alternative.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the previous approvals exempted the building from strict retrofit requirements, the inspector's broad powers to order fire safety measures justified requiring protection for the third-floor windows directly exposing the balconies.

However, the Commission found that windows on lower floors did not require protection given the building's fire alarm system and protected primary exits.

The Commission amended the Fire Marshal's decision to require protection only for the third-floor windows, while allowing the owner to submit alternative compliance options.

The respondent, Toronto Fire Services, issued an Order to Close the third floor of the appellant's building, alleging it was an illegal rooming house lacking a second exit.

The appellant appealed to the Fire Safety Commission, which automatically stayed the order.

The respondent moved to lift the stay pending the appeal hearing, arguing it was necessary in the interest of public safety.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent had known of the risks for over a year and failed to establish an urgent need to displace the tenants before a hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision upholding an Inspection Order that required a second and separate exit for five bachelor apartments in its building.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the open hall and stairway area constituted a single exit, and residents of the bachelor units had to enter this space to access the fire escape.

As there was no direct access to a second exit, the Commission confirmed the order, finding a clear fire safety issue, and extended the compliance date.

The appellant, a tenant operating an auto body repair shop on the main floor of a mixed-use building, appealed an Inspection Order and an Order to Close issued by the Toronto Fire Services.

The orders were issued due to fire safety risks posed by the combination of the industrial occupancy and residential units on the second floor.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the orders were substantively necessary for fire safety, the Order to Close was invalid because the Fire Marshal's Extension of Delegation of Authority did not explicitly delegate the power to issue such orders to Deputy Fire Chiefs.

Consequently, the Commission confirmed the Inspection Order with a modified compliance date but rescinded the Order to Close.

The appellant, owner of an apartment building, appealed a review decision upholding an inspection order that required her to separate exit stairways from the remainder of the building with a 30-minute fire separation.

The appellant did not dispute the fire safety risk but argued that, as a small landlord, she should not be required to follow the formal alternative solution process under the Ontario Fire Code, which requires retaining an engineer or architect.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the alternative solution process is mandatory and cannot be waived.

The Commission confirmed the inspection order and provided amended compliance dates.

The appellant appealed a review decision upholding an inspection order that required him to reduce combustible materials in his home to maintain clearances from appliances and ceilings, and to provide clear access to exits.

The appellant did not dispute the fire safety concerns but requested more time to comply due to personal circumstances, including his wife's illness.

The Fire Safety Commission found the ordered measures necessary to ensure fire safety but amended the order to extend the compliance date.

The appellant appealed a review decision that upheld an inspection order requiring him to remove combustible materials from his apartment unit to maintain a 1-metre clearance from kitchen appliances, ceilings, and egress pathways.

The appellant, an artist who used his unit as a live/work space, argued the requirements were unnecessary and that he had complied with a previous verbal order.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the excessive accumulation of combustible materials posed a significant fire safety risk by acting as fuel, trapping smoke, and obstructing egress for both the occupant and emergency responders.

The homeowner appealed a decision of the Property Standards Committee confirming a municipal order requiring pruning of a hazardous tree located on the appellant’s property.

Evidence showed the tree’s trunk and roots straddled the boundary of three adjacent properties, raising issues of shared ownership under s. 10 of the Forestry Act.

The court conducted a de novo hearing under s. 15 of the Building Code Act and considered whether the maintenance order could properly require a single owner to bear the entire cost.

The court held that where a tree may be a boundary tree shared among adjoining properties, it was inappropriate to impose sole responsibility for maintenance on one owner without evidence of the neighbouring owners’ positions.

The committee’s decision was rescinded and the matter left to the municipality to address with all affected owners.