OFSC 2020

The Kitchener Fire Department appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal that rescinded an Inspection Order issued to the owner of a heritage building.

The original order required the owner to conduct a Life Safety Study under section 21(1)(f) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.

The Fire Safety Commission confirmed the Fire Marshal's decision, finding that a Life Safety Study is a compliance option specific to Part 9 of the Fire Code and cannot be ordered as a general remedy under section 21(1)(f).

While acknowledging potential fire safety issues regarding building exits, the Commission declined to make a new order due to insufficient evidence regarding Building Code requirements.

The appellant fire department appealed a Review Decision by the Fire Marshal that rescinded an Inspection Order requiring the respondent hospital to re-install fire doors (closures) between a third-floor elevator vestibule and an adjacent corridor.

The Inspector found the doors had been removed without a building permit, contrary to the Fire Code and Building Code Act.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the closures were part of a required fire separation and had been removed without a permit.

The Commission revoked the Review Decision and ordered the respondent to re-install the closures to ensure fire safety.

The Kitchener Fire Department appealed a Fire Marshal Review Order that rescinded an Inspection Order against the respondent homeowners.

The homeowners rented out eight bedrooms in their single detached dwelling to students.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the property functioned as a boarding, lodging, and rooming house under section 9.3 of the Fire Code, rather than a single family dwelling, based on factors such as individual rent payments and locks on bedroom doors.

Because the basement had only a single means of egress, the Commission amended the Inspection Order to require the removal of the two basement bedrooms for fire safety reasons.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal's review decision confirming an inspector's order regarding her residential property.

The property, originally designed as a single-family dwelling, was being used as a two-unit dwelling with an unregistered basement apartment.

The inspector ordered the appellant to either revert the residence to a single-family dwelling or obtain a building permit for a two-unit dwelling.

The appellant argued that physical modifications she made to the property mitigated the fire risk, rendering it compliant with the Fire Code without a building permit.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the modifications did not satisfy section 2.1.2.2 of the Fire Code and the property remained a fire hazard because its use was contrary to its original design and no building permit had been obtained.

The applicant fire department applied for an order under s. 33(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act to authorize it to carry out work required by an Inspection Order issued to the respondent, who had accumulated a large amount of combustible materials in her home.

The respondent's son indicated a plan to clear the materials, but progress was delayed by the COVID-19 Emergency Order.

The Fire Safety Commission found that there was a bona fide intention to comply and granted an extension of time, ordering that if the respondent failed to comply within 30 days of the lifting of emergency restrictions or by July 2, 2020, the applicant would be authorized to enter and complete the work at the respondent's expense.

Toronto Fire Services appealed a decision of the Fire Marshal rescinding an inspection order issued to the respondent property owner.

The order required the owner to replace windows surrounding third-floor balconies to protect occupants using the balconies as areas of refuge during a fire.

The Fire Marshal had rescinded the order because the balconies were previously approved as a compliance alternative.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the previous approvals exempted the building from strict retrofit requirements, the inspector's broad powers to order fire safety measures justified requiring protection for the third-floor windows directly exposing the balconies.

However, the Commission found that windows on lower floors did not require protection given the building's fire alarm system and protected primary exits.

The Commission amended the Fire Marshal's decision to require protection only for the third-floor windows, while allowing the owner to submit alternative compliance options.

The appellant appealed five inspection orders relating to five residential properties used to house its international employees.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the properties were being operated as boarding, lodging, or rooming houses rather than single dwelling units.

The Commission confirmed the inspector's orders, finding that the living arrangements, lack of proper lighting, cooking spaces, and emergency exits posed serious fire safety risks, and amended the compliance timelines.