FIRE SAFETY COMMISSION
FILE: 9349/FSC
CASE NAME: Tsui v. City of Vaughan Fire Services
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 26(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4, and the Ontario Fire Code, O. Reg. 213/07
Eric Tsui Appellant
-and-
City of Vaughan Fire Services (Richard Sawdon, Fire Prevention Inspector) Respondent
ORDER AND REASONS
ADJUDICATORS: Tammy O'Neill, Vice-Chair, Presiding Doug Ritcey, Member Isaac Lallouz, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Richard Sawdon, Vaughan Fire and Rescue Services
Heard in Toronto: May 7, 2015
ORDER AND REASONS
I. ORDER
1This hearing is an appeal by Eric Tsui (the “Appellant”) of the Review Decision of the Fire Marshal's delegate dated January 12, 2015 (the “Review Decision”), of the Office of the Fire Marshal to the Fire Safety Commission.
2The Review Decision upheld and modified the Inspection Order (the “Order”) made by Richard Sawdon of Vaughan Fire and Rescue Services (the “Respondent”) with respect to the premises located on Rutherford Road, Unit 1, Vaughan, Ontario (the “premises”) owned by the Appellant.
3It is the decision of the Fire Safety Commission (the “Commission”) to uphold the Review Decision as set out below.
II. BACKGROUND
4Inspector Richard Sawdon of Vaughan Fire and Rescue Services (the “Inspector”) conducted an inspection of the premises on June 30, 2014, and served an Order on a representative of the Appellant, under the authority of section 21 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 (the “Act”). The Order was made pursuant to clause (g) of Subsection 21(1) of the Act.
5Under section 25 of the Act, the Appellant filed a request for a review of the Order, as received by the Fire Marshal on July 16, 2014.
6The Order indicates the following reasons (extracted) for the work prescribed:
The building and/or the premises are in contravention of the Ontario Fire Code O. Reg. 213/07.
7The Order served by the Inspector identifies the following work to be done:
APPENDIX A – It is ordered that:
DIV B 6.5.1.5.(1) No obstruction shall be placed so as to interfere with the effectiveness of water discharge from sprinklers (Front Entry).
DIV B 6.7.1(1) Maintenance and testing of portable extinguishers shall be in conformance with NFPA 10. “Portable Fire Extinguishers”
DIV B 1.1.1.2.(3) Any appliance, device or component of a device that does not operate or appear to operate as intended when checked, inspected or tested as required by this code shall be repaired or replaced if the failure or malfunctioning of the appliance, device or component would adversely affect fire or life safety (ceiling tiles Room 3).
DIV B 2.4.1.5. Lint traps in laundry equipment shall be cleaned to prevent the accumulation of lint that creates an undue fire hazard.
8The Order prescribed a compliance date of July 30, 2014.
9The Fire Marshal’s Review indicates, “No additional information in support of the appeal was received from the Appellant“.
10In the Appellant’s request, he agreed to comply with the items #2 to #4 of the Inspector’s Order and stated that he was only requesting a review of item #1 relating to the water discharge from sprinklers. The Fire Marshal received additional information in support of the Order from the Inspector prior to the review.
11On January 25, 2015, the Appellant submitted an appeal of the Review Decision to the Fire Safety Commission.
III. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION
12The Commission may confirm, amend or rescind the Review Decision of the Fire Marshal or make such other order, as the Commission deems appropriate.
IV. ISSUE
13The issue the Commission must decide is whether the measures contained in the Fire Marshal's Review Decision of the Fire marshal’s delegate are necessary to ensure fire safety on the land and premises that are the subject of this appeal.
V. THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Appellant
14It is the position of the Appellant that the obstruction of ceiling-mounted sprinklers resulted from the construction from a vestibule located at the front door of the premises. Further, it is the Appellant’s position that the wall installed in the front entry forming a vestibule does not interfere with the effectiveness of water discharge.
15The Appellant’s position is that no additional protection is required, as the removal of the door from an interior doorway to the vestibule would enable a sprinkler head further inside the unit to reach parts of the vestibule. The Appellant proposed that the ceiling that has been constructed above the vestibule forms no more of an obstruction to the overhead sprinklers than a piece of furniture such as a table or a cabinet.
16The Appellant submitted that sprinklers are not required and indicated that in his research including internet searches, he cannot find any standard that requires sprinklers especially to cover a small area such as a vestibule which he estimates it to be about one square meter. The Appellant further submitted “the Inspector is taking an overly broad view of the rule” based on the Inspector’s own interpretation and not necessarily one that is found in any standard. He further stated that the implementation of the Order would create financial hardship and disruption for this location and that since it operates as a Spa, the business is not a high risk.
17The Appellant submitted that the Commission should apply reasonableness to the interpretation of regulatory requirements and submitted that the effort and impact of removing the ceiling above the vestibule to facilitate better sprinkler coverage would be disproportionate to the negligible increase in fire safety that would result.
The Respondent
18It is the evidence of the Respondent that the premises is on the ground floor of a 2-storey strip plaza and that the building is completely sprinklered. The Inspector’s opinion is that, although he had not made a determination of whether there is a requirement to sprinkler the building, it would be highly unusual for a builder to sprinkler a building if not required by the Building Code.
19The Respondent submitted photographic evidence showing the vestibule erected under the main ceiling area of the premises that did not have sprinkler protection within the vestibule. He testified that the wall mentioned by the Appellant is not a fire safety concern. The main concern is the recently constructed vestibule ceiling which poses an obstruction to sprinkler discharge and which constitutes a fire hazard to the building and a threat to the safety of the occupant(s) and emergency responders.
20The Respondent confirmed that the main area in which the vestibule has been erected was adequately protected by the sprinklers that provided proper coverage for the entire area prior to the erection of the vestibule.
21The Respondent submitted a copy of sections from the NFPA #13 Standard (the “Standard”) covering the requirements that apply to sprinklers. He stated that, in a sprinklered building, the Standard indicates that “Sprinklers shall be installed throughout the premises”.
22The Respondent pointed to different sections of the Standard, in particular section 8.1.1(7) which lists examples of items that do not require sprinklers namely: “Furniture, such as portable wardrobe units, cabinets, trophy cases”. He also highlighted section 8.15.1.1 “Concealed Spaces Requiring Sprinkler Protection”, and indicated that even small, partly enclosed areas such as closets require sprinkler protection.
23The Respondent stated that sprinkler water that might reach the vestibule through an open doorway would be insufficient to control a fire. He further stated that a sprinkler system is designed to control a fire until the fire department arrives and that the system could fail to perform that function if the design is modified.
VI. REASONS
24The Commission accepts the evidence of the Respondent and notes, in particular, the evidence of the Inspector supplemented by photographs.
25Further, the Commission agrees with the Respondent’s interpretation of the Standard in the facts of this case and finds that the sprinkler system obstruction caused by the vestibule ceiling creates a fire safety hazard.
26The Commission does not accept the submissions of the Appellant that the resulting modification of sprinkler coverage has not compromised the fire safety measures of the original sprinkler system design. The Commission does not accept the evidence of the Appellant that sprinklers are not required.
27The Commission concludes that the measures contained in the Review Decision are necessary to protect the safety of occupants and emergency responders in the event of a fire emergency and are necessary to ensure fire safety on the land and premises that are the subject of this appeal.
VII. ORDER
28The Commission confirms the Review Decision of the Fire Marshal that the vestibule of the premises must be sprinklered and amends the compliance date in the Review Decision to require compliance by the Appellant no later than July 10, 2015.
Tammy O’Neill, Vice-Chair, Presiding
Doug Ritcey, Member
Isaac Lallouz, Member
Issued: June 12, 2015