FIRE SAFETY COMMISSION
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Division
COMMISSION DE LA SÉCURITÉ-INCENDIE
Division de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes
Appeal under section 26(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4
Between:
Christian Horizons Appellant #1
and
Frontenac Condominium Corporation #49 Appellant #2
and
Kingston Fire and Rescue Respondent
AMENDED ORDER ON CONSENT
Order made by: Marisa Victor, Vice-Chair
Date of Order: July 4, 2019
Appearances:
For the Appellant #1: Joseph Debono, Aaron Kurts, counsel For the Appellant #2: Christy Allen, Victoria Craine, counsel Vince Bennett, property manager For the Respondent: Sarah Gareau, counsel Ted Posadowski, Chief Fire Prevention Officer
ORDER
1These two appeals are related, and the parties consented to them being heard together. Frontenac Condominium Corporation #49 owns and operates the condominium building. Christian Horizons provides services to certain tenants of the condominium units who require attendant care.
2The respondent issued an inspection order on December 7, 2017 (the Inspection Order) pursuant so s. 21 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.
3The appellants appealed the Inspection Order to the Fire Marshal. In its Review Order, the Fire Marshal upheld items 1 and 3 and modified item 2 of the Inspection Order.
4The appellants appealed the Review Order to the Commission on the grounds that the disputed units subject to the Review Order were "care occupancy" units as defined in the Ontario Fire Code.
5Item 1 required compliance with OFC Sentence 2.8.2.1(1), Division B to submit a fire safety plan for care occupancy suites in the building.
6Item 2 required compliance with OFC Sentence 2.8.2.2(1) to provide sufficient supervisory staff for the timely evacuation of care occupancy suites.
7Item 3 required documentation verifying that the fire alarm monitoring system complied with specified standards.
8After several case conferences, the parties have resolved their dispute and these appeals.
9Pursuant to the case conference held on June 12, 2019, and on consent of the parties, the Commission amends the Review Order to rescind items 1 and 2 of the Inspection Order.
10The Commission also confirms that the respondent is satisfied that item 3 of the Inspection Order has been complied with, without prejudice to the position of the appellants that item 3 does not apply to the circumstances and the premises which were the subject of the Inspection Order.
11The appellants withdraw their appeal of item 3.
12The appeals are concluded.
Released: July 4, 2019
Marisa Victor, Vice-Chair