Court File No. 1060 999 24 188 -00
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
IN THE MATTER OF THE PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT R.S.O. 1990
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
(Municipality of Arran-Elderslie)
v.
GEOFFREY TIMPSON
R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T
(In-Person)
DELIVERED BY HER WORSHIP JUSTICE OF THE PEACE S. BALL
on September 25, 2025 at WALKERTON, Ontario
Appearances:
E. Davis Municipal Prosecutor
Geoffrey Timpson Self-Represented
BALL, J.P.: (Orally)
Good afternoon. We've just concluded the trial for Geoffrey Timpson. He was charged under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act; six counts under that Act. There are two different offence dates. The first offence date being August 26th, 2023, and the second offence date being September 20th of 2023. The first two counts relate to the offence date of August 26, 2023. And counts three, four, five, and six relate to the offence date of September 20th, 2023.
In this trial, the prosecution had two witnesses. We heard from Chief Inspector Bell and we also heard from Chief Tiernan. Both witnesses testified in a very clear, concise, and credible manner. The prosecution provided a book of evidence totalling 161 pages, which included many documents, photos of the defendant's property; the defendant's property located at 103-105 1st Avenue South in Chesley, Ontario. That is the property that was subject to the charges with respect to the six counts before the court today.
Count number one was that Geoffrey Timpson was charged being the owner of 103-105, which was a multi-unit complex in Chesley, Ontario, allowed combustible materials to accumulate in or around a building in such quantity or such location as to create a fire hazard. Namely failed to prevent the accumulation around the rear egress into, or egress, excuse me, into a fire hazard.
With respect to count number two, also offence date August 26, 2023, Mr. Timpson was charged in relation to 103-105 1st Avenue South in Chesley, Ontario did commit the offence of being the owner of that property, failed to maintain a means of egress in good repair and free of obstructions. And with respect to count three, four, five and six, that's what Chief Tiernan spoke of.
So with respect to the first two counts, Chief Bell addressed those. He specifically testified that he has been with the fire services, working with fire services for 42 years. With respect to August 26, 2023, he told the court that he conducted the inspection with respect to counts one and two. His notes, that he took on that date or shortly thereafter, were handwritten and also typed. His notes were qualified and he used them to refresh his memory only.
The court was informed that Mr. Timpson was the owner of the property and Mr. Timpson had admitted that he does own that property at the said location. Chief Bell told the court that his first involvement with Mr. Timpson was in 2016. That was when he had received a fire alarm complaint. And this was when Mr. Timpson was in the process of purchasing that property.
We went through in great detail in this trial in the book of evidence that was submitted by the prosecution. Tab one, page five was where we started. That was the owner of the property, defendants listed that he was the owner of the property. Page eight shows the location of the property. Page 10 was a picture of the front of the building showing that it's both commercial and residence. Tab three, Mr. Chief Bell testifying to counts one and two.
Chief Bell explained the events leading up to counts one and two and how those charges came about. August 25th of 2023, he had received a call regarding a complaint at 103 and 105 Unit A or also known as Unit 4, which is the same. It's now referred to as Unit 4 but at the time was referred to as Unit A. The concern was that there were combustibles in areas, multiple combustibles, blocking exits to the building. On August 26 of 2023, Chief Bell went to the subject property. Tab five, page 19 shows a picture of the rear of 103-105. Chief Bell entered through the rear door. That was on page 20. The, in the picture it showed the door was ajar. That is a common area, not a dwelling home, so it was fine to enter. Chief Bell also explained the rights of entry, that he was able to enter at any reasonable hour without use of force, without warrants. Page 21 showed wires hanging from the ceiling, drywall leaning up against the wall. Page 22 showed the door leading to 103 to the two apartments. Page 23 showed the tag on the fire extinguisher with no documentation. Page 24 showed the sheet of drywall leaning against piles of combustibles and wires hanging from the ceiling; also showed the cabinet, which was behind, doors leading to the residential unit. The cabinet was blocking the doors. Showed piles of wood, combustible products, lots of them in the room.
Chief Bell explained that the difficulty with the piles of wood, not only that they were combustible products but also anyone with, certainly, if anyone was trying to exit the area would have difficulty if they were in the dark trying to manoeuvre around the various different piles of wood. I would also note it would be very difficult with someone with mobility issues to be able to exit in the event of a fire or emergency.
With respect to page 25, it showed a picture of the door leading to 103 where there were open ceilings and stuff hanging. Page 26, another residential suite or A, again now also known as Unit 4. There were more combustible materials. Page 27, the fire extinguisher outside Unit A door was not maintained; it had not been charged on the date. Page 28, again showed the fire extinguisher not fully charged. Page 29, there was water leaking outside of the door A. Page 30, water leakage around the smoke alarm. Page 31, looking to the rear leading outside to the right was, it showed the common laundry room, showed the amount of combustibles impeding exiting the room.
Individuals having to exit would have to, need to walk around the items. Again, very difficult if anyone had to exit in the dark or anyone with mobility issues. Page 32, the door was open. Again, Chief Bell, he told the court he knocked, but did not have to use any force to enter because the door was open; there was no response so he entered. There was nothing secure. Page 33, the door was ajar a bit and the rear door exits to the hallway.
Counts number, count one was with respect to combustible materials. Count number two was with respect to the obstructions. Chief Bell told the court that he spoke with one of the tenants. The tenant had informed him that the materials were, there weren't as many as usual. He had had a brief conversation with a tenant with respect to the smoke alarm.
The - with respect to egress relating to combustible materials, that is the responsibility of the owner to ensure under the code that there are no combustible materials, certainly not blocking any exits or entrances in or out of the building. It is the responsibility of the homeowner unless there is a written agreement otherwise, which could be an example where a superintendent may be responsible if that is the agreement between a superintendent and a homeowner.
Chief Bell cleared his inspection at 10:20 hours on August 26, 2023. He then sent a text message to Mr. Timpson regarding the concerns that he found. On August 27, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., the defendant and Chief Bell spoke on the telephone. Chief Bell told the court that the defendant had told him he would get an electrician, and then Bell stated he would follow up.
Chief Tiernan was also involved. He was involved with respect to counts three through six. Chief Bell did tell the court that there were prior issues of this property since 2016, since Mr. Timpson took ownership. Chief Bell explained to the court that their fire department in Arran-Elderslie focuses on education first before any charges are laid. They focus on education prior to enforcement. Chief Bell told the court that he had been involved more than four times due to complaints. And this time Part III charges were laid because of Mr. Timpson struggling with compliance, repetition of the problems. Chief Bell told the court that they had educated him but the problems were still arising and there was a history of non-compliance.
Part I tickets had been issued three years ago in 2022. Tab 11, pages 160 and 161 showed the part one tickets from 2022 that were issued. Those were recently paid this year, three years later. Mr. Timpson provided cross-examination of Deputy Chief Bell. He asked a few questions. He asked about the August 25th, 2023 response to the complaint of Gabrielle's(ph) mother. That was who made the complaint. Mr. Timpson also asked Chief Bell if he was mandated to notify the owner of any complaints. Chief Bell told the court he is not under any obligation to notify the owner. They must assess the complaint prior to connecting with the homeowner.
Mr. Timpson had asked Chief Bell if there were any fire calls between the years of 2016 and 2023. Chief Bell told the court that no, there were no fire calls during those years. Mr. Timpson had used the example of any pots on fire and no, there were no fire concerns during those years. Mr. Timpson then, his final question for Chief Bell, was wanting to confirm if there were front entrances to the building. We had been discussing the rear exit of the building. Chief Bell stated that, yes, there are front entrances without any difficulties.
The second witness and final witness for the prosecution was Fire Chief Steve Tiernan. He has been a Community Management Coordinator since November 2021 with the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie, and he has 17 years with the Fire Department. He spoke about counts three through six, specifically offence date September 20th, 2023. Chief Tiernan was on duty. Again with respect to the defendant's address 103-105 1st Avenue South in Chesley, Ontario. Pat Johnson was with Chief Tiernan with respect to the property inspection. Chief Tiernan's notes were qualified and he used them to refresh his memory only. His notes were handwritten and typed. It was again shown at Tab one, page five that Geoffrey Timpson is the registered owner of the property address.
Chief Tiernan stated that he had been involved in the past with respect to this defendant and the property. He spoke about June of 2022. That's when Chief Tiernan was called by the OPP with respect to fire concerns. We referred to Tab two, page 10, showing pictures of the building. Tab three, page 13, Chief Tiernan testified to counts three, four, five and six. Count three was with respect to the fire extinguisher.
Specifically, Mr. Timpson being the owner of 103-105 1st Avenue South in Chesley, Ontario failed to ensure each portable extinguisher has a tag securely attached, that shows maintenance and recharge schedule, servicing agency and signature of person performing service. Count number four, again on or about the 20th day of September 2023 at the said property, did commit the offence of while being that owner of that property failed to maintain a smoke alarm in operating condition in accordance with the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.
Regarding count number five, again same offence date September 20th, 2023 at the same said property in Chesley, Ontario, did commit the offence of while being the owner of that property failed to make records available for examination by the chief fire official. And finally with respect to count six, again the same offence date September 20th, 2023 at the same said property in Chesley, Ontario, did commit the offence of being the owner of that property, failed to maintain carbon monoxide alarms in operating condition. And again, these are all pursuant to the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.
Chief Bell had called Chief Tiernan regarding the complaints of the fire code issues. An inspection date was set up to meet with the defendant, Mr. Timpson. Pat Johnson had set up that date and coordinated it with the defendant. They met with Mr. Timpson, entered through the rear of the building first. It was shown that the extinguisher was not maintained or serviced properly. The combustibles were hindering the egress area. Page 37 spoke about the monthly records regarding the fire extinguisher checklist of the defendant.
Chief Tiernan explained to the court that a checklist that must be maintained by a defendant must show the location of the extinguisher, the tag must be initialled, or a record book of monthly inspections. This is required by the fire code. Page 38 showed the blue tag, but no initials, confirming it had not been inspected. No proper monthly checks. That was also shown on page 39.
Page 40 showed the smoke alarm missing the battery that was in the basement. It was not properly working, as this was a battery-operated smoke alarm missing the batteries. Page 41, the carbon monoxide alarm. It showed an expired date. It is a requirement of the fire code to have non-expired alarms. Page 42 showed at the bottom of the stairs the fire extinguisher. Showed a 2020 tag. Nothing updated. That was with respect to the Part I charge in 2022. It had showed the last maintenance of March of 2020.
At the top of the stairwell in 105 Building, there was no tag on the fire extinguisher and no way to tell if there were any inspections. There were no records. Page 103, Tab nine, Chief Tiernan stated, he is the chief fire official and spoke about on Tab three, page 13, the photographs relating to count three, photographs from Tab seven page 43, count four, page 40, count five, page 37. These are the exact pages showing no records, failing to maintain smoke alarm, failing to make records available, which there was the also charge in 2022 of failing to make the records available, and now again in 2023. Chief Tiernan – excuse me - told the court that a log or tag system needs to be for all fire extinguishers. Count number six, page 41, failing to maintain the carbon monoxide. It was outdated.
September 20th, 2023, Mr. Timpson let Mr. Tiernan into the building. Mr. Tiernan, or Chief Tiernan spoke to his inspection powers, how he can enter without warrants at a reasonable time of day and inspect buildings with respect to complaints. Chief Tiernan completed his inspection, left the property on September 20th of 2023. He reviewed Chief Bell's notes and the previous encounter from 2025[sic] or excuse me, 2022 and the lack of compliance and then decided to issue the Part III charges. He also spoke about the background history from June of 2022 when the OPP had called him doing a welfare check because of a smoke alarm missing. Chief Tiernan told Mr. Timpson that apartments needed to be checked. Chief Tiernan went through the property. Not all of the tenants were home, but they had followed up two days later on June 26th, of 2022.
With respect to June 24th of 2022 and that expect[sic] inspection regarding the OPP conversation, there were various pages in the book of documents that we referred to or that were referenced regarding smoke alarms missing, inspected fire extinguisher on the floor. And again, Tab 11, pages 160 and 161 showed the tickets, Part I tickets, from June 26th, of 2022.
Mr. Timpson asked questions or cross-examination of Chief Tiernan. He asked if the drywall separations were corrected. He asked about, if anything had been corrected in his building. Chief Tiernan said that some of the separation issues had been fixed, but he also explained that monthly checks must still be maintained, fire extinguishers must be in good proper working order, as well as smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors. It was explained that this needs to be continual. Mr. Timpson had suggested that he does, or had informed that he does not have any gas or propane appliances in the building, therefore questioning carbon monoxide alarm. Chief Tiernan explained that is still the responsibility of the homeowner of a building. Certainly with tenants in the building, there must be carbon monoxide detectors.
Chief Tiernan did state that the defendant had never refused Chief Tiernan entry to the building. And again that there were no fire calls since he has owned the property. Chief Tiernan explained in detail why the charges were laid as they were. Again, the extensive review of the pictures and the explanation of the book of evidence explains the reasons for the charges.
I heard submissions from both the prosecutor and Mr. Timpson. Mr. Timpson feels that the Arran-Elderslie fire department does not work on education first. He feels that they react instead of preventing and educating. He also explained that he was not aware of the Part III structure and the process of once being charged under a Part III. He was only familiar with the Part I process where a ticket is given. And he had told the court that from those tickets that were issued in 2022, he just paid them this year, 2025.
He stated that he has owned the property since 2016. Mr. Timpson also told the court that between the years of 2021 and 2023, he has worked in Halliburton. He also worked in Orillia. He was not always around, he was working construction, he was away for approximately six months. He also explained that he experienced vandalism in the common areas of the building for which he owns, including the fire extinguishers. Mr. Timpson told the court that he feels the Arran-Elderslie Fire Chiefs or Fire Department were not working with him.
I will state that the Arran-Elderslie Fire Department has definitely worked with Mr. Timpson. They coordinated meetings with him. They thoroughly inspected the property. They had more than one conversation with Mr. Timpson in person, by telephone, by text messaging. They had no other option but to issue the charges that are before the court today. They had issued Part I tickets three years ago which were just paid last month. He is the property of, the owner of the property. It is his responsibility to make sure that the building is up to code. I will also note that the Arran-Elderslie Fire Department could have charged him with more offences than what they did. So they were not exercising any abuse of power. Because I will note that Mr. Timpson felt that the charges were excessive but in fact they were not as they could have laid more charges.
Certainly being the owner of a building where there are tenants, there are certain responsibilities and certain responsibilities that every homeowner must comply with under the Code. With respect to all six counts, the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant chose not to testify on his own behalf. Therefore, due diligence does not apply. R v. W.(D. does not apply.
With respect to all six counts, there will be a finding of guilt and convictions will register. There is overwhelming evidence that the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. There'll be a finding of guilt and convictions will register with respect to all six counts. So I will hear submissions with respect to penalty, please. E. DAVIS: Thank Your Worship.
THE COURT: You're welcome.