FIRE SAFETY COMMISSION

Tribunals Ontario

COMMISSION DE LA SÉCURITÉ-INCENDIE

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Citation: 2708836 Ontario Inc. v. Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management, 2021 ONFSC 11

Date: 2021-10-15

Appeals under section 26(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.4

Between:

2708836 Ontario Inc. Appellant

and

Ontario Fire Marshal and Emergency Management Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

PANEL: Susan Clarke, Vice Chair Paul Stopciati, Member Rocco Iamello, Member

APPEARANCES: For the Appellants: Cynthia Hall, Director; Reagan Hall, Property Manager For the Respondent: Inspector Andrew Bak, Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management

Heard by video conference: August 19, 2021

A. OVERVIEW

1The appellant, Cynthia Hall, representing Quetico Lodge & Conference Centre (owned by 2708836 Ontario Inc.) requested a review of two inspection orders issued by the respondent for the Pine Ridge Residence (the “Building”). The inspection orders treat the Building as part of a hotel establishment. The Building is a multi-unit residential building within the Quetico Lodge & Conference Centre complex located at 1130 Highway 633, Atikokan (the “property”), in the District of Rainy River (a territory without municipal organization).

2The appellant believes the Building is exempt from the inspection orders because it is operating as a boarding, lodging and rooming house and not as a hotel. She submits that if the building occupancy had been correctly classified, that the inspection orders would not apply. One of the inspection orders address compliance with a requirement of the Ontario Fire Code¹ (the “OFC”) for a “fire protection system” (suppression) and “exhaust ventilation system” for a new cooking operation installation, and the other inspection order addresses interim measures until the systems were constructed.

3The reason cited by the Inspector for the Inspection Orders is that Room 110 has been converted from a room providing sleeping accommodations into a kitchen containing cooking operations that produce smoke or grease laden vapours. The Inspector also notes that the two residential stoves have been installed with exhaust hoods which are not ventilated in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Building Code (the “OBC”).

4The appellant submits that the standard referenced in one of the orders, National Fire Protection Association Standard 96 “Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations”² (“NFPA 96”), has an exemption that could be applied, and that all but one of the four criteria is satisfied. The appellant has asked for approval of the fourth criterion.

5The Fire Marshal referred the matter to the Commission for a hearing pursuant to section 25(4)(a) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act³ (the “FPPA”).

B. ISSUES

6The Commission identifies the following issues:

1. Does OFC Article 2.6.1.12., Division B requiring an exhaust system and fire protection system apply to the cooking operation in room 110 in the Building?

2. Does the exemption in NFPA 96 section 1.1.4 apply to the Building such that an exhaust system and fire protection system would not be required for the cooking operation in Room 110 in the Building?

3. Should the Commission confirm, amend, or rescind Order 21-005?

4. Should the Commission confirm, amend, or rescind Order 21-004?

C. RESULT

7The Commission:

1. Finds that OFC Article 2.6.1.12., Division B applies to any building regardless of occupancy type, and that whether the current use of the Building is a hotel or a boarding, rooming, lodging occupancy is irrelevant. The requirements apply to Room 110 in the Building.

2. Finds that the exemption in NFPA 96 Section 1.1.4. does not apply to the Building because the OFC contains language that states that where there is a conflict between provisions of the OFC and those of a referenced document, the provisions of the OFC prevail.

3. Rescinds Order #21-005 as the order is based on FPPA clause 21(1)(g), “to remedy a contravention of the fire code”, and the respondent has failed to prove that a contravention has occurred.

4. Confirms Order #21-004 on the basis that the order is based on FPPA 21(1)(f) to do anything respecting fire safety, and the respondent has provided sufficient evidence that the measures ordered are necessary to reduce the risk of fire and address the issue of the non-working fire alarm system and the remoteness of the Building from a responding fire department.

D. THE ORDERS

8On April 26, 2021, Fire Protection Advisor Andrew Bak (the “Inspector”) of the Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management (the “OFMEM”) conducted an inspection of the Building. He served Inspection Order #21-005 upon the owner of the property, 2708836 Ontario Inc., citing s. 21(1)(g) of the FPPA. Order #21-005 required compliance with OFC Sentence 2.6.1.12.(1), Division B, for cooking operations producing smoke or grease-laden vapours, including:

1. Cooking operations in the Pine Ridge Residence Room 110, be provided with a fire protection system in accordance with NFPA 96, “Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations.

2. Cooking operations in the Pine Ridge Residence Room 110, be provided with exhaust ventilation systems installed in accordance with NFPA 96, “Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations.

with a compliance date of August 16, 2021. The Order was also served on Cynthia Hall, a Director of 2708836 Ontario Inc., and Reagan Hall, the property manager for the Building.

9On April 26, 2021 the Inspector served Inspection Order #21-004 on the same owner and representatives, citing s. 21(1)(f) of the FPPA. Inspection Order #21-004 required compliance with several temporary measures for fire safety including installing portable fire extinguishers, keeping combustible items away from stove elements, installing notices advising against cooking with oil or deep fat frying, attending to cooking, cleaning schedules for the cooking equipment, and adding responsibilities to the existing fire watch duties already in effect for the property because the fire alarm system wasn’t working. A compliance date of May 24, 2021 was given.

10The property is described in the inspection orders as:

Twenty buildings of combustible construction including three buildings that have sleeping accommodations for the travelling public or recreational purposes and contain between 22 and 24 rooms per building. The property also has a large conference hall, dining hall, leisure/resource center, staff housing and service buildings and meets the application statement of OFC article 9.9.1.1., Division B as a hotel establishment.

E. EVIDENCE

Applicant’s Evidence and Submissions

11The appellant’s position is that the exhaust system and fire-protection system required in Order #21-005 are not required for several reasons, the primary ones being:

• The building is not a hotel, and therefore not subject to the requirements of Sentence 2.6.1.12.(1).
• If the Commission deems that the requirements of the OFC-referenced standard NFPA 96 do apply, the exemption in section 1.1.4. of the standard must be considered. There are four conditions, and the Building satisfies all of these but the “approval by the Authority Having Jurisdiction” (the “AHJ”). She submitted a proposal to the OFMEM which was refused and asks the Commission to consider the proposal.

The building occupancy type

12To support the appellant’s first position, that NFPA 96 is not applicable because the building is not being used as a hotel, Ms. Hall explained that there is a 5-year lease agreement with Resolute Forest Products (“Resolute”) to house a portion of its workforce. To support this position, the appellant states that the building is “not open to the travelling public and is not being used for recreational purposes”, and as such OFC Section 9.9 addressing hotels is not applicable and instead Section 9.3 Boarding, Lodging and Rooming Houses is applicable.

13The appellant is requesting the Commission to rule that the occupancy of the building is a boarding, rooming, lodging residential occupancy and that compliance with NFPA 96 is not required.

NFPA 96, section 1.1.4. exemption

14To support the appellant’s second position, that section 1.1.4. may exempt the cooking operation in Room 110 as all but the fourth criterion are satisfied, the appellant provided a description of the criterion:

1. Only residential equipment is being used.
2. Fire extinguishers located in all kitchen areas are in accordance with NFPA 10, “Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers”.
3. The building use is not an “assembly occupancy” (NFPA definition); and
4. Acceptance of the cooking operation is subject to the approval of the AHJ, which in this case would be the OFMEM.

15To support the first criteria in the exemption the appellant submits the stoves in Room 110 are not a commercial cooking operation. The appellant noted that the two residential stoves installed in Room 110 are for resident use, that the cooking does not create significant amounts of grease-laden vapours, and hourly routine inspections and twice-weekly cleaning of the stoves are completed by cleaning staff.

16The appellant states that the cooking operation in Room 110 produces steam or heat but not grease-laden vapours and is therefore a “class 2 cooking operation” as defined by the NFPA. The hood installed above each stove is a “Type II Hood”, as referenced in the NFPA standard, designed for heat and steam removal and other non-grease applications. Ms. Hall testified that additional measures have been taken to ensure that cooking operations do not produce grease-laden vapours, and that there is no evidence of any cooking that produces significant amounts of such.

17Ms. Hall testified that Room 110 contains fire extinguishers, satisfying the second criteria of the exemption, and that the Building is a residential occupancy and not an assembly occupancy, satisfying the third criteria.

18To satisfy the fourth criterion, the appellant proposed alternative measures to compliance with NFPA 96 in a letter to Inspector Bak on July 7, 2021. These included installing a pull station in Room 110, and installing a residential kitchen suppression system, approved by Canadian Standards Association and Underwriters Laboratories of Canada. The proposal was refused by OFMEM Operations Manager Tawnya Roberts, in a letter dated July 21, 2021. The appellant asks the Commission to approve the proposal. The two letters were submitted by the respondent.

19Ms. Hall noted that a book containing cooking rules is in Room 110 for the residents, and that they must sign the book when they enter. The cooking rules require that residents clean up after themselves. Ms. Hall testified that Resolute’s employees are required to review the building fire safety plan.

20In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Hall acknowledged:

• The property has a dining room providing meals to residents either registered for a meal plan or paying for individual meals.
• She doesn’t know the number of single purchase resident meals currently taken in the dining room.
• She doesn’t know what the residents cook in Room 110, or if the grill is being used.
• The building has capacity for 24 residents, but so far there are only 10 residents. Of these, two residents have meal plans.
• The kitchen in Room 110 is not intended for use by all residents all the time.
• Cleaning protocols do not include ductwork, fans, or the hood filters.

Respondent’s Evidence and Submissions

21The respondent’s position is that the exhaust system and fire-protection system required in Order #21-005 are required for several reasons, the primary ones being:

• The volume of cooking in Room 110 will produce significant amounts of smoke or grease-laden vapours, with a potential use of 24 residents cooking 3 meals per day each;
• The exhaust hood ventilation is new, and does not meet OBC requirements; the materials and bends are such that grease deposits will accumulate, and the runs do not have clean-out access points; and
• The volunteer fire department response is limited.

Volume of Cooking

22The Inspector testified that in the inspection of the Building conducted on April 26, 2021, the door to Room 110 had stickers labelling the room as the common room and kitchen. At that time Room 110 contained two residential style stoves with hoods above, but no ducting. Room 110 also contained 2 refrigerators, a chest freezer, dishwasher, and cupboards. There was also a table, couch, and television. There were cooking pots on the elements and a pot with food remnants. He noticed a strong odour of cooking and grease. He also noted a container of olive oil on the counter.

23The Inspector testified that he found another kitchen under construction on the second floor, but not yet in use.

24The Inspector explained that smoke and grease-laden vapours can be created by cooking with any food product containing oil and animal fats, including chicken noodle soup, bacon, and pork chops. He noted that fires involving cooking oils burn faster and are more difficult to suppress. The Inspector described in detail how the wet chemical suppression system required in an NFPA 96 system works to control fires, noting that regular ABC fire extinguishers are insufficient to put out a fire. He pointed out that untrained persons using extinguishers could cause the fire to flare up and cause injury.

25The Inspector testified regarding his concerns regarding cooking operations within the residential building, describing the Ontario statistics of cooking fires in residential occupancies: 52% of all cooking fires occurred where cooking was left unattended; 71% of all cooking fires occurred in residential settings. He also expressed his concerns with potential risk factors in the Building such as unsupervised cooking, cooking at night, or cooking after consuming alcohol.

Ventilation

26The Inspector advised that when Fire Protection Advisor Brad Welyki (“Welyki”) conducted a follow-up site visit on June 30, 2021 to determine compliance with Order #21-004, he found that exhaust ventilation for the stove exhaust hoods had been installed, including a horizontal run connecting the hoods and venting directly outside. He expressed his concern that the exhaust hoods are not adequately ventilated in accordance with the requirements of the OFC or OBC. This issue is not addressed in either order but is a factor in why the Inspector believes compliance with the orders is necessary.

27The Inspector testified that he believed the installed hood system was insufficient to extract combustible deposits, and that the current system relied on people to turn the fan on. He noted that the ducting found in the June 30th inspection was flexible and ribbed and would result in grease deposits, and that deposits could accumulate wherever there were changes in direction. The current ducting had no access points to do inspections or maintenance. The Inspector went on at length to describe the advantages of an NFPA 96 system over the existing ducting system.

28The Inspector explained that in territories without municipal organization in Ontario, such as where the Building is located, there is often confusion regarding the application of the requirements of the OBC. Unincorporated areas in Ontario do not require building permits, but renovations are still required to comply with OBC requirements. He explained that an Appendix note to OBC Part 9 requires that in a kitchen where smoke or grease-laden vapour exceeds that of a household, such as this one, NFPA 96 applies. He added that the volume of cooking in the Building is in excess of a household, and the amount of smoke or grease-laden vapour is significant and the only way to mitigate it is through installation of NFPA 96 systems as required in OFC Article 2.6.1.12.

Fire Department Response

29The Inspector testified that the response time of the closest fire department is 30-40 minutes. He noted that it is a volunteer department with limited equipment, staffing numbers and training, performing only exterior firefighting, and not rescue operations.

30In response to the appellant’s position regarding the Building not being a hotel, the Inspector stated that the property meets the OFC definition of a hotel establishment⁴ comprising the twenty buildings on the property and including the Building.

31In response to questions from the Commission, the Inspector provided the following:

• While the current fans must be manually turned on by residents during cooking, this does not differ from exhaust kitchen hoods with suppression hoods except that those fans are turned and left on.
• During the inspection there was no evidence of smoke or grease-laden vapours, even though there was evidence of cooking.

32Welyki testified that he inspected the property on April 26 and 27, 2021, and returned on June 30, 2021. He confirmed the Inspector’s testimony and noted that in the initial inspection the residential hoods had no ducting and were not vented to the outside.

33Welyki testified that he found records that staff checked the kitchen hourly and Room 110 was cleaned once weekly. He testified that he was told that the fire watch was in place because the current fire alarm wasn’t operational. He took photographs of the hood filter and the range tops and inside the ovens on June 30th but was unable to photograph the interior of the ductwork because there were no openings to facilitate this. In response to questions from the Commission he stated that he did not observe a heavy grease build up in the fan area and gave his opinion that it was because it was cleaned weekly.

34The Inspector supported his testimony with a series of photographs from the April 26 and 27, 2021 inspections, showing the interior of Room 110 with the cooking equipment and ventilation system, and the entrance door. Photographs were taken of the interiors of the two refrigerators and the chest freezer.

F. ANALYSIS

35Section 26(6) of the FPPA authorizes the Commission to confirm, amend or rescind the orders of the OFMEM or make such other order as the Commission deems appropriate.

Issue 1: Does OFC Article 2.6.1.12., Division B apply to Room 110 in the Pine Ridge Residence?

The Law

36OFC Subsection 2.1.1. Scope and Application describes the scope of Section 2.1, Division B which set out the general requirements for the fire safety of persons and buildings and include the elimination or control of fire hazards in and around buildings.

37Articles 2.1.1.2. and 2.1.1.3. respectively describe the application of the requirements in Section 2.1, and the exemptions. There are no exemptions for the application of Article 2.6.1.12.; it applies to all buildings.

38Article 2.6.1.12. reads in its entirety:

(1) A cooking operation producing smoke or grease-laden vapours shall be provided with an exhaust system and fire protection system in accordance with NFPA 96, “Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations”.

(2) Despite Sentence (1), an existing exhaust or fire protection system may be approved.

(3) Sentence (1) does not apply to

(a) An individual suite of residential occupancy, or

(b) A cooking operation producing insignificant amounts of smoke or grease-laden vapours that are controlled by other approved measures.

(4) In a hotel establishment regulated by Section 9.9, a cooking operation that meets the requirements of Article 9.9.2.19. is deemed to be in compliance with Sentence (1).

Analysis

39The Commission finds that OFC Article 2.6.1.12., Division B applies to Room 110 in the Building. This finding is based on an assessment of the Application statements in Subsection 2.1.1. including Articles 2.1.1.2., and 2.1.1.3. which summarized, describe that Section 2.6 (Service Equipment) applies to buildings without exception.

40The Commission considered the wording in OFC Article 2.6.1.12. which provides a compliance alternative in sentence (4) for hotel establishments where cooking operations meet the requirements of Article 9.9.2.19. The meaning is that if a hotel building already has the specified measures in Article 9.9.2.19., it is deemed to comply with Article 2.6.1.12. As the installation in Room 110 is new, this compliance alternative would not apply. It is important to note that Article 9.9.2.19. does not include construction requirements, which are more appropriately included in the OBC which addresses new construction.

41The Commission has considered Ms. Hall’s testimony that the occupancy of the building is a boarding, lodging and rooming house subject to the requirements of OFC Section 9.3, and that this is important to her because this Section has no requirements for protection of cooking operations.

42The Commission has compared these three areas of the OFC – Article 2.6.1.12. and its application to all buildings, Section 9.3 for Boarding, Lodging and Rooming Houses, and Section 9.9 for Hotels. It notes that the application statements in Part 2 are clear that Article 2.6.1.12. applies to all (emphasis added) buildings. The Commission finds that Section 9.3 has no allowance for existing cooking operations, and there is no exemption for them in Article 2.6.1.12.

43The Commission finds therefore that Article 2.6.1.12. applies to the Building because it is not exempted, regardless of whether it is a hotel, or a boarding, lodging or rooming facility.

Issue 2: Does the exemption in NFPA 96 section 1.1.4. apply to the Pine Ridge Residence?

The Law

44OFC Article 1.5.1.2., Division A speaks to documents referenced in the OFC, such as NFPA 96, and states: “In the case of a conflict between the provisions of this Code and those of a referenced document, the provisions of this Code prevail.”

Analysis

45The Commission found earlier in paragraph [43] that the wording in OFC Article 2.6.1.12. is very specific about its application, and that it applies to all (emphasis added) buildings. The key requirement is in Sentence (1) where if a cooking operation produces smoke or grease-laden vapours, exhaust and fire protection systems are required. The remaining sentences are either compliance options or exemptions to Sentence (1): Sentence (2) allows existing systems to be approved by the Chief Fire Official, in this case the OFMEM. Sentence (3) exempts suites of residential occupancy (such as a dwelling unit), or cooking operations producing insignificant amounts of smoke or grease-laden vapours, controlled by other measures. Sentence (4) accepts hotel cooking operations where they are controlled by measures described in Article 9.9.2.19.

46NFPA 96 Section 1.1.4. is an exemption provision in the NFPA standard, and states that the requirement for an exhaust system and fire protection system does not apply to facilities where the following criteria have been met: only residential equipment is in use; fire extinguishers are located in all kitchen areas, in accordance with the referenced fire extinguisher standard (NFPA 10); the facility is not an assembly occupancy (NFPA defines this as “a gathering of 50 or more persons for deliberation, worship, entertainment, eating, drinking, …); and the AHJ has approved the installation.

47The Commission has compared the wording of OFC Article 2.6.1.12. with the exemption described in NFPA 96 Section 1.1.4. and finds that the exemption conflicts with the application of Article 2.6.1.12. While the NFPA exemption criteria include cooking facilities for gatherings of fewer than 50 people and using residential-type stoves provided fire extinguishers are present, OFC Article 2.6.1.12. makes no such exemption. It applies to any type of cooking equipment, residential-type or commercial, and to any size of gathering, the key criteria being whether the grease-laden vapours are significant. The only actual exemption the OFC makes is in clause 2.6.1.12.(3)(a) exempting a single suite of residential occupancy, presumably because the amount of grease-laden vapour produced is expected to be insignificant. Clause 2.6.1.12.(3)(b) permits cooking operations producing insignificant amounts of smoke or grease-laden vapors where they are controlled by other approved measures. This alone is similar to the fourth criteria in the NFPA exemption.

48We heard that the appellant made a request to the OFMEM to accept the exemption of NFPA 96 Section 1.1.4., and their proposal to add a listed residential top extinguishing unit as an alternative to the full protection required by the OFC, referencing an appendix note in the NFPA standard. The OFMEM refused to approve the request, pointing to the need for application of OFC Sentence 2.6.1.12.(1) where there are grease-laden vapours, and that the appendix note does not apply as it is not in the edition of the standard referenced in the OFC. The OFMEM stated further that various conditions that might have permitted the Inspector to use one of the other sentences in article 2.6.1.12. had not been met, and the fire extinguishers provided do not meet NFPA 10 referenced in the NFPA exemption. The OFMEM concluded that they do not accept the proposal in lieu of the required exhaust system and fire protection system.

49The appellant asked the Commission to review their proposal and accept it, assuming the role of AHJ. The Commission declines to make such an assessment and refers the appellant again to its determination that the exemption conflicts with the provisions of Article 2.6.1.12.

50The Commission concludes that the exemption in NFPA 96 section 1.1.4. from cooking equipment to be protected by an exhaust system and a fire protection system does not apply to the Building because it conflicts with the requirements in OFC Sentence 2.6.1.12.(1).

Issue 3: Should the Commission confirm, amend, or rescind Order #21-005?

The Law

51FPPA clause 21(1)(g) states that an Inspector who has conducted an inspection may order the owner or occupant of the building to take any measure necessary to ensure fire safety, including “to remedy any contravention of the fire code”.

Analysis

52The Commission rescinds Order #21-005 on the basis that the order is based on FPPA clause 21(1)(g), to remedy a contravention of the fire code, and the respondent has failed to prove that a contravention has occurred.

53The Inspector wrote Order #21-005 giving as the reason for the order that:

At the time of inspection, it was noted that room 110 in the Pine Ridge Residence has been converted from a room providing sleeping accommodation to a kitchen containing cooking operations that produce smoke or grease laden vapours, for the use of the individual occupants (up to 24 persons) to cook meals. Two residential stoves installed with exhaust hoods which are not ventilated in accordance with the Building Code.

54The Commission has considered the testimony of both parties, and the photographic evidence and has found that these do not support the Inspector’s position that significant amounts of grease-laden vapours are being produced. Photographs taken on both June 26th and June 30th, including of the stove top and counter surfaces, inside the oven and of the hood filters show no evidence of grease deposits. Further, both parties testified that there was no evidence of grease-laden vapours which would create grease deposits.

55The Commission has considered the testimony of the respondent regarding the potential (emphasis added) for grease-laden vapours given his opinion that he believes a high volume of cooking will take place. We have considered the maximum occupant load of the Building (24 persons) and note that when the four stoves are operational (two on each floor level of the Building), the cooking would not exceed that of a normal household as claimed in Order #21-005 . Currently, with only two operational stoves in operation and eight residents using them, we have no concerns that the cooking exceeds that of a normal household.

56While the respondent points to evidence of a bottle of cooking oil and a box of chicken parts, these are insufficient evidence that the food cooked will create significant grease-laden vapours.

57The onus is on the appellant to show that the orders should be rescinded. Her evidence does not meet the burden because she provided nothing to substantiate her claim regarding the cooking operation, or the type or volume of food being cooked. She claimed that the cooking operation produces only steam or heat but didn’t describe how this was achieved. She claimed that only rice or noodles were being cooked, lacking the potential for grease-laden vapours. The Commission is not convinced by the appellant’s testimony because it is not supported by detailed information. Further her testimony conflicts with the respondent’s evidence of cooking oil and box of chicken parts, both of which will create grease-laden vapours. Despite this, her claim that there is no evidence of grease-laden vapours was corroborated by Welyki’s testimony.

58The Commission has reviewed the wording of FPPA clause 21(1)(g) and notes that the phrase “remedy any contravention” references something that has already occurred.

59The Commission has reviewed the wording of Sentence 2.6.1.12.(1), which is the action the Inspector ordered the appellant to comply with. Sentence (1) refers to “a cooking operation producing smoke or grease-laden vapours”. We note that the wording in this Sentence “producing” is unambiguous and must be applied by the Board as written. The only meaning the text can plausibly bear for the word “producing” is in the present tense. This term cannot be read to include that the cooking operation “may produce” or “will produce” or “could produce”.

60The reasons for Order #21-005 twice state that grease laden vapours are being produced by the cooking operation in Room 110. The Inspector testified to the potential for grease-laden vapour, but never to actually finding grease deposits. The Commission finds that there is no evidence that there is an actual contravention of OFC Sentence 2.6.1.12.(1).

61The Commission therefore rescinds Order #21-005 on the basis that application of OFC Sentence 2.6.1.12.(1) is contingent on evidence of grease-laden vapour, and that there was no such evidence before us.

62The most significant claim made by the Inspector in his testimony was that the ventilation system did not meet the OBC requirements, and that it couldn’t be accessed for photographs. The Inspector stated that the ribbing of the ductwork and the number of bends in the system would attract grease deposits, and that the lack of access points would make it impossible to clean the ventilation system. The Commission was persuaded by the photographs that the length of the ductwork would make it impossible to clean regularly without access points and that there is the potential for grease deposits. We also acknowledge that without the access points in the ducting, finding evidence of grease deposits is not possible.

Issue 4: Should the Commission confirm, amend, or rescind Order #21-004?

The Law:

63FPPA clause 21(1)(f) states that an Inspector who has conducted an inspection may order the owner or occupant of the building to take any measure necessary to ensure fire safety, including measures to contain a possible fire, means of egress, fire alarms and detection, fire suppression and the preparation of fire safety plans.

Analysis:

64The Commission confirms Order #21-004 on the basis that the order is based on FPPA 21(1)(f) to do anything respecting fire safety, and the respondent has provided sufficient evidence that the measures ordered are necessary to reduce the risk of fire and address the issue of the non-working fire alarm system and remote location of the Building from a responding fire department.

65The Commission finds that the measures ordered in Order #21-004, intended as interim measures until Order #21-005 was complied with, are reasonable to minimize the risk of a stovetop fire. Reducing the risk of fire at the stovetop will reduce the risk of flames igniting any grease deposits that may be within the hood and ventilation system. The Commission finds that the measures ordered to control a fire in the initial stages are reasonable. The Commission was persuaded by the respondent’s evidence of the remoteness of the Building from the responding fire department, and the limitations of the fire department that it is important that building occupants be provided measures to control a fire in the incipient stage.

66The appellant appealed Order #21-004 initially, however Ms. Hall provided no dispute to the work ordered during the hearing. Welyki testified that in his inspection of June 30, 2021 the appellant had complied with Order #21-004.

ORDER

The Commission confirms Inspection Order #21-004.

1The Commission notes that the respondent has confirmed Order #21-004 has already been complied with. The work described in this Order shall continue to be complied with.

The Commission rescinds Inspection Order #21-005.

2While the Commission has exercised its powers to respectively confirm and rescind the Orders as noted above, it reminds the appellant of its continued obligation under OFC Article 1.2.1.1., Division B to comply with the provisions of the Fire Code. In the event the cooking operations produce more than insignificant amounts of smoke and grease-laden vapours in the future, the requirements of OFC Sentence 2.6.1.12.(1) will apply.

3The Commission also reminds the appellant of its obligation under OFC Article 1.2.3.1., Division A to comply with the provisions of the Building Code, meaning that despite the outcome of this hearing, it does not absolve the appellant from ensuring that the ventilation system installed meets the requirements in the Building Code.

Released: October 15, 2021

______________________________

Susan Clarke, Vice Chair

______________________________

Paul Stopciati, Member

______________________________

Rocco Iamello, Member

Footnotes

1. 1O.Reg. 213/07, as amended
2. 2NFPA 96 is a technical Standard referenced in OFC Article 2.6.1.12. OFC Table 1.2.1.A., Division B provides a summary of all standards referenced in the Fire Code.
3. 31997, S.O. 1997, c.4
4. 4Terminology in bold-face type means defined in OFC Article 1.4.1.2., Division A