Jacqueline Mathurin

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal confirming an Inspection Order issued by Toronto Fire Services regarding his rooming house.

The Fire Safety Commission upheld the order, finding that the storage of personal items in the main floor public corridor contravened the Ontario Fire Code's prohibition on accumulating combustible materials.

The Commission also confirmed the building's classification under Section 9.5 of the Fire Code, requiring the installation of 20-minute fire-rated doors on three bedrooms and the protection of the basement exit stairway with a fire separation.

The appeal was dismissed, with amended compliance dates provided for the required work.

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.

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.