OFSC 2018

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 appellant appealed an Inspection Order requiring it to remedy the audibility levels of the fire alarm system in its older residential building.

The appellant argued that the Office of the Fire Marshal exceeded its jurisdiction in creating the audibility Guideline, and that the Fire Department unlawfully fettered its discretion by treating the Guideline as a mandatory regulation.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the OFM had the statutory authority to issue the Guideline, the Guideline was permissive rather than mandatory, and the Fire Department appropriately exercised its discretion.

The Commission concluded that the Inspection Order was necessary to ensure fire safety and confirmed the order.

The appellant, operating an addiction recovery centre, appealed four inspection orders issued by the respondent fire department.

The orders required the installation of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, the submission of a fire safety plan, and the remediation of various Fire Code contraventions including damaged fire separations and obstructed means of egress.

The Fire Safety Commission confirmed the requirement for smoke alarms and a fire safety plan, finding them necessary to ensure fire safety regardless of the building's specific occupancy designation.

The Commission also confirmed most of the Fire Code remediation measures, but rescinded the requirement for a carbon monoxide detector and a metal dryer vent, and amended certain measures relating to fire separations and egress obstructions.

The appellant brought a motion seeking production of inspection orders issued to 102 other properties by the respondent.

The appellant argued these documents were relevant to show that the respondent's inspectors treated a fire alarm acoustics guideline as mandatory.

The tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering the production of inspection orders that specifically dealt with acoustic issues related to fire alarm systems, subject to redactions for privacy.

The Office of the Fire Marshal brought a motion to intervene in an appeal regarding a fire safety inspection order.

The appellant challenged the inspector's jurisdiction to enforce technical guidelines issued by the Fire Marshal.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the motion, adding the Fire Marshal as a party limited to the issue of its jurisdiction to make the guideline and its effect on fire inspections, without the right to argue the merits of the underlying appeal or augment the record.

The Greater Sudbury Fire Services brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of an Inspection Order pending an appeal by the appellant.

The fire department argued the stay should be lifted so it could proceed with prosecution due to the appellant's failure to comply with a previous consent order to obtain a building permit.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant's failure to comply with the consent order did not give rise to an issue impacting the interest of public safety sufficient to warrant lifting the stay under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The appellant, a tenant growing medicinal marijuana in an industrial building, appealed two inspection orders issued by the Halton Hills Fire Department under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.

The orders required various measures to address alleged fire safety hazards and Fire Code contraventions, including repairing fire separations, removing plastic tarps, and addressing ventilation and sprinkler issues.

The Fire Safety Commission reviewed each item, finding that some measures, such as repairing concrete block walls and ceiling membranes, were necessary for fire safety.

However, the Commission rescinded other items, finding that certain walls were not required to be fire separations and that lack of a building permit for approved electrical work was not a fire safety compliance issue.

The orders were confirmed in part, amended in part, and rescinded in part.