Ontario Fire Safety Commission

The appellant property owner appealed an inspection order issued by the Brantford Fire Department regarding 23 Fire Code violations at an illegal lodging house.

The appellant did not dispute the violations but sought an extension of time to comply due to financial constraints and ongoing planning disputes with the city.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the appellant had not taken sufficient steps to achieve compliance and significant fire risks remained, a brief extension was appropriate to allow the appellant to commence compliance activities.

The inspection order was amended to extend the compliance date to June 30, 2026.

The appellant appealed two Fire Marshal Review Orders confirming Inspection Orders that required the appellant to either install a sprinkler system or reduce storage heights to 4.5 meters to comply with the Fire Code.

The appellant argued that the orders effectively required structural alterations, which is prohibited under s. 22(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 for buildings constructed prior to 1992.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the orders did not require structural repairs, as reducing storage height was a viable alternative to installing sprinklers.

The Commission also ruled that the orders remained enforceable despite the appellant corporation's recent amalgamation.

The appeals were dismissed, but the compliance date was extended.

The Fire Safety Commission initiated a reconsideration of its previous decision to correct the name of the Appellant.

The original inspection order was issued to Niagara North Condominium Corporation #32, but the appeal decision incorrectly named the former board vice-president as the Appellant.

Applying the principle from Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects and Rule 17(b) of the Common Rules, the Commission varied the decision to correctly name the condominium corporation.

The condominium corporation's own request for reconsideration to extend the compliance date for constructing a fire-rated storage room was dismissed as it was filed outside the 21-day time limit.

The Applicant fire service applied under s. 33 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 for authorization to remove excessive items from the respondent's home to bring it into compliance with an inspection order.

The Fire Safety Commission declined to authorize the work, finding the applicant failed to prove the respondent was unlikely to comply or that the current conditions posed a serious and immediate fire hazard.

Exercising its discretion under s. 33(5), the Commission rescinded the requirement for 3-foot egress routes and amended the storage height and clearance requirements to target specific fire safety hazards, such as smoke alarm operation and proximity to ignition sources.

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 condominium corporation appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision that confirmed an Inspection Order requiring the removal of recycling bins from a parking garage or the construction of a fire-separated storage room.

The appellant requested a 12-month extension to construct the storage room.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the appellant had delayed taking substantive steps initially, it had recently engaged an engineer and begun the planning process.

Balancing the need for time to complete the tendering and construction process against the ongoing fire safety risk, the Commission granted a four-month extension of the compliance date.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that ordered her to cease activities and remove workshop materials from a former place of worship.

The appellant raised 13 grounds for reconsideration, alleging procedural unfairness, jurisdictional overreach, and errors of law and fact.

The Commission found that the appellant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2, noting that the Commission did not violate procedural fairness, act outside its jurisdiction, or make errors of law or fact.

The request for reconsideration and the request for a stay were denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a motion decision that denied an extension of time to file an appeal.

The applicant argued that new evidence, including remedial work, correspondence, and a contractor quotation, justified reconsideration under Rule 18.2(d).

The Commission dismissed the request, finding that the evidence could have been obtained previously and did not meet the high threshold for reconsideration.

The applicant's alternative request for compliance directions was also denied, as the Commission's power to give directions under s. 26(3) of the FPPA is only available when an extension of time is granted.

The appellant filed a request for reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision regarding an order to remove combustible materials and create egress routes.

The appellant argued the Commission violated procedural fairness by not providing sufficient time to file materials and failing to accommodate accessibility needs, and sought to introduce new evidence.

The Commission dismissed the request, finding the appellant had sufficient time to file submissions, failed to serve the respondent, and did not establish that any new evidence could not have been obtained previously.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a Fire Marshal Review decision regarding an inspection order for his property.

The appellant filed his original appeal past the 15-day deadline and subsequently filed a motion for an extension of time 12 days past the 30-day statutory limit for such motions.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding the appellant failed to establish apparent grounds for the appeal or reasonable grounds for the delay, noting his explanations regarding feasibility studies and legal implications lacked detail and his intentions regarding the property had changed.

The appellant property owner appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision regarding an Inspection Order that required repairs to a building's fire alarm system.

The appellant did not dispute the required repairs but sought an extension of the compliance date to December 31, 2025, citing delays in obtaining specialized parts and skilled trades.

The Fire Safety Commission found the appellant made reasonable attempts to comply but determined that a delay to the end of the year would unnecessarily compromise fire safety.

The Commission granted a shorter extension to September 15, 2025.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order issued by the fire department regarding excessive combustible materials and obstructed egress routes in her residential unit.

The Fire Safety Commission rescinded the original items regarding egress routes and pile stability, finding they were not properly justified as fire hazards under s. 21(1)(c) of the FPPA.

However, using its powers under s. 26(6), the Commission issued new orders under s. 21(1)(f) requiring 0.61 m egress paths and 1 m clearance from the ceiling for smoke alarm operation.

The Commission also amended the order requiring 1 m clearance from ignition sources to specify the stove and water heater, and adjusted the compliance timelines.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Order confirming an inspection order that required the removal of an auto repair occupancy from a building classified as an assembly occupancy (a former place of worship).

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the appellant was not performing traditional auto repair, the space was being used as a workshop to modify automobile parts, introducing hazards not contemplated in the building's original design.

The Commission amended the order to explicitly require the cessation of workshop activities and the removal of all associated equipment, flammable liquids, and materials.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal's Review Order confirming an Inspection Order that required fire safety upgrades to a two-unit residential building.

The appellant argued she had complied with the order by evicting the tenant and converting the building back to a single-family dwelling, rendering the Fire Code provisions inapplicable.

The respondent fire service demanded a notarized letter of understanding guaranteeing the building would not be converted back.

The Fire Safety Commission found the appellant had complied with the order through the conversion and held there was no statutory basis under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act to require a notarized letter.

The appellant, a former tenant, appealed an Inspection Order issued by Cornwall Fire Services to the building owners.

The owners subsequently complied with the order, and the appellant's tenancy was legally terminated.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that the matter was moot as there was no live controversy remaining.

The Commission also found that the appellant lacked standing because he was not an 'aggrieved' person under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, as the order imposed no obligations on him and he was no longer a tenant.

The appellant, a tenant operating a licensed bar, appealed a Fire Marshal's Review Decision confirming an Inspection Order that required the removal of a combustible cotton batten product from the ceiling of the bar's main means of egress.

The appellant argued that applying fire-retardant spray and a plexiglass cover would be sufficient.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the product was a fire hazard and that the appellant failed to prove the fire-retardant spray met the required Fire Code standards.

The Commission confirmed the order to remove the product but extended the compliance date.

The Respondent requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that ordered him to install a complete sprinkler system in a building.

The reconsideration request was filed past the 21-day deadline and failed to include mandatory information required by Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Furthermore, the Commission found no merit to the Respondent's argument that a previously withdrawn appeal created res judicata.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondent property owner filed a request for reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that ordered compliance with Fire Code requirements for a second basement exit and a fire separation for an exit stair in a rooming house.

The respondent argued the Commission made incorrect findings and sought to introduce new evidence regarding his plans to demolish the building.

The Commission dismissed the request, finding that the respondent failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The alleged incorrect findings were not errors of law or fact, and the new evidence either could have been obtained previously or would not have changed the outcome.

The appellant fire service appealed a Fire Marshal review decision that rescinded an inspection order requiring the respondent to install a sprinkler system throughout a mixed-use building.

The Fire Safety Commission rescinded the review decision and reinstated the inspection order, finding that newly available documentary evidence from the time of construction confirmed a full sprinkler system was required.

The Commission ordered the respondent to install a complete sprinkler system within three months to ensure fire safety.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision confirming an Inspection Order for fire code violations at a rooming house.

The appellant did not dispute the violations but sought an extension of time to comply because he intended to demolish the building.

The Fire Safety Commission confirmed the order but granted a short extension of time for compliance, providing alternative options to reduce occupancy or demolish the building within the amended timeframes.