FIRE SAFETY COMMISSION

Tribunals Ontario

COMMISSION DE LA SÉCURITÉ-INCENDIE

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Citation: TAG Gallipeau Corporation v Smith Falls Fire Department, 2022 ONFSC 09

Date: 2022-10-20

Appeal under section 26(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4, from a direct referral from the Office of the Fire Marshal

Between:

TAG Gallipeau Corporation Appellant

and

Smith Falls Fire Department Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

PANEL: Marisa Victor, Vice-Chair Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair Paul Stopciati, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: William R. Hunter, Lauren Benoit, counsel

For the Respondent: James L. McDonald, counsel

Held by videoconference: June 7-10, 2022, written submissions July 17, 2022

I. OVERVIEW

1TAG Gallipeau Corporation (the “appellant”, or “TAG”) owns a building complex, commonly known as the Gallipeau Centre, located at 361 Queen Street in Smiths Falls (“Building Complex”). The Building Complex, originally built in the 1950s, is a sprawling campus with multiple building wings.¹ It was originally operated by the provincial government as the Rideau Regional Centre which provided care and treatment² to residents (“RRC”). The RCC was closed in 2009 and purchased by the appellant in 2011.

2The Building Complex is an 800,000 square foot facility made up of numerous building wings connected through a series of corridors, sharing water and electricity.³ TAG owns and operates the entire Building Complex, renting out sections to various tenants. Some of the tenants of the buildings are residential tenants, others are commercial tenants. In 2019, there was a fire affecting 1000 square feet in the central core. After the fire, the Smith Falls Fire Department (“respondent”) conducted numerous fire inspections and issued inspection orders. The appellant has appealed two of those inspection orders.

3Inspector Jason Smith (“Smith”) of the Smith Falls Fire Department issued two inspection orders, Order No. 2021-008 and Order No. 2021-010, both issued on September 17, 2021 (“Inspection Orders”). Both Inspection Orders were issued under clause 21(1)(g) for contraventions of the Ontario Fire Code, O. Reg. 213/07 (“Fire Code”), a regulation under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 (“FPPA”).

4Pursuant to section 25(1) of the FPPA, the appellant asked the Fire Marshal to review the Inspection Orders. The Fire Marshal did not conduct a review but instead referred the appeals directly to the Fire Safety Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to s. 25(4)(a) of the FPPA.

II. ISSUES

5At the start of the hearing, the parties presented Minutes of Settlement to the Commission. This settlement agreement between the parties resolved almost all the issues in the appeal except for seven remaining items from the two Inspection Orders. The remaining issues to be determined are:

Issue 1: Does the Theatre need a fire separation between the stage and audience?

Issue 2: Is Door M115 in the Powerhouse Building a fire separation in need of repair? Does Door M115 Need to Close and Latch?

Issue 3: Is Door M15 in the Powerhouse Building required to close and latch?

Issue 4: Do the double doors (DD) in Building H need repair?

Issue 5: Do the double doors (DD2) on the second-floor of Building C between the Theatre and the Gymnasium need to close and latch?

Issue 6: Are the records of standpipe testing required in accordance with the Fire Code?

Issue 7: Do the doors leading to the exit in the Wellness & Recreation corridor require exit signage?

III. RESULT

6The Commission finds as follows:

1. The Theatre is required to have a fire separation between the stage and audience;

2. Door M115 is a fire separation in need of repair and must close and latch;

3. Door M15 is not a fire separation and is not required to close and latch;

4. The double doors (DD) in Building H is a fire separation in need of repair;

5. The double doors (DD2) on the second-floor do not need to close and latch;

6. The records of standpipe testing are required; and

7. The doors leading to the exit in the Wellness & Recreation corridor require exit signage.

IV. WITNESSES

7Tracey Gallipeau-Nolan (“Gallipeau-Nolan”), president of TAG, testified as the key witness for the appellant. She testified as a lay witness. Gallipeau-Nolan worked at the RCC in food services and laundry from 1992 to 2000. She is a construction/civil engineering technologist, and has worked for three municipal governments as a Chief Building Official, and currently operates her own building and design consulting company. TAG is her father’s company.

8Louis Mainville (“Mainville”), a fire alarm technician, testified as a witness for the appellant. Mainville operates a fire and life safety consulting business. He is employed as a Fire and Life Safety Quality Assurance Assessor. He was employed by the appellant as a consultant both for the purposes of litigation and for other non-litigation purposes. The appellant asked that he be qualified as an expert witness. The Commission denied this request but allowed him to testify as a lay witness. The appellant then asked that Mainville be allowed to testify as a participant expert.⁴ This request was granted on the basis that Mainville’s opinions were based on observations he had made in the course of his employment by the appellant.

9Smith is a fire inspector working for the respondent. He conducted inspections of the Building Complex and issued the Inspection Orders. He testified as a lay witness and was the key witness for the respondent on most of the issues and for the evidentiary establishment of Fire Code violations.

10Tawyna Roberts (“Roberts”) is an Operations Manager with the Program Development and Analytics Unit of the Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management (“OFMEM”). As part of her role at the OFMEM, Roberts provided advice to Smith and the respondent on the content of the Inspection Orders prior to their issuance. She testified as a lay witness.

11David Wade Tiller (“Tiller”) testified on the issue of standpipes only. Tiller is employed by the OFMEM as a program specialist. He has taught at the Ontario Fire College on the application and interpretation of the Fire Code and the FPPA. He testified that he is also familiar with the National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”) standards referenced in the Fire Code. He testified as a lay witness.

V. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

12The appellant submitted that the overall onus is on the respondent to show that there is a violation of the Fire Code. We disagree with this interpretation. The respondent does have a burden to show that there is evidence to support the finding of a Fire Code violation as noted in the Inspection Order. The appellant, however, has filed the appeal of the Inspection Order. There is no reverse onus provision. The overall onus in this appeal is on the appellant to show that the Inspection Order should be rescinded or amended.

A. ISSUE 1 – DOES THE THEATRE NEED A FIRE SEPARATION BETWEEN STAGE AND AUDIENCE

13The issue concerning the theatre and whether a fire separation is needed is described as follows in Item 3 of Inspection Order 2021-008:

Fire Code Reference:

9.2.2.3. (4) Fire separations shall be provided between the theatrical stages and assembly occupancies in compliance with Sentences 3.3.2.14.(3) to (5) of the 1986 Building Code (“OBC”).⁵

Reasons:

The Theatre area of the building contains a theatrical stage and lacks a fire separation in accordance with the requirements of sentence 9.2.2.3.(4).

Action Required:

Install a fire separation in accordance with the requirements of sentence 9.2.2.3.(4) between the theatrical stage and the assembly portion of the theatre area.

14The Theatre is located in Building C of the Building Complex.

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

15The appellant’s position is that first, the stage in Building C is not a “theatrical stage”. Second, the appellant argues that, even if the stage is a theatrical stage, there is a low likelihood of a fire occurring. This is due to the limited use of the stage, and the minimal lighting and sound effects used. The appellant states that the stage is primarily used for musical performances and children’s dance recitals.

16The appellant submits that its witnesses established that the stage is not a “theatrical stage” within the meaning of the Fire Code.

17Gallipeau-Nolan testified that:

• There was no high ceiling in the stage area to allow for the quick change of scenery that would be dropped down from above;
• Overhead lighting consists of one string of lights;
• There are only curtains for the wings and the front of the stage;
• There are two speakers on the side at the front of the stage;
• TAG has a policy against the use of smoke machines; and
• Other than a drum riser, the two speakers and string of lights mentioned above, all other equipment is brought in by musicians who rent the space.

18Gallipeau-Nolan testified that TAG has only rented the space for musical performances and children’s dance recitals. She stated that the lighting equipment used varies according to the parties using the stage, who are allowed to bring in their own lighting and sound equipment.

19Mainville testified that the TAG stage did not resemble the other stages he had consulted on as it did not have sets, workshops or pulley systems.

20The appellant submitted that the test the Commission needs to apply is described in Spirit of the North Canadian Addiction Recovery Network v. Burk’s Falls and District Fire Department, 2018 CanLII 83058 (“Spirit of the North”). There, the Commission found that the legal test is to first determine that a contravention of the Fire Code exists. Second, it must then be determined that the order is necessary to ensure fire safety and is reasonably linked to the contravention.

21The appellant submitted that the stage does not qualify as a theatrical stage. To support this, it relied on a decision of the Building Code Commission in Lora v Uzumeri (City of Toronto), BCC Ruling No. 00-38-770 (“Lora”)⁶ that determined that a two-storey building converted to multi-use stages for dances and lectures was not a theatrical stage. This was because, in that case, the theatre lacked large movable scenery and it lacked quick change facilities and storage.

Respondent’s Evidence and Submissions

22The respondent submitted that the stage in Building C is a theatrical stage and that this can be determined by an analysis of the occupant load and the use and characteristics of the space.

23The respondent submits that the TAG theatre is a theatrical stage because it:

• Has an occupant load of 1004;
• The stage has the capacity for overhead lights;
• There are hidden catwalks on both sides of the stage;
• There are side areas, or wings, allowing performers and scenery to be moved on and off the proscenium stage; and
• There are dressing rooms and washrooms that service the stage exclusively.

24The respondent submits that the evidence of its own witnesses, Smith and Roberts, as well as the appellants’ witnesses, were consistent with regard to the physical description of the space. The respondent submits that the testimonies support the description of the space as a two-storey theatre located within Building C.⁷

25Smith testified that Building C, in addition to the Theatre, also houses a bowling alley and gymnasium across a public corridor.⁸ His observations were that the theatre consists of an assembly portion, or audience portion, with a calculated occupant load of 605 on the main floor and 247 on the balcony. The seating is fixed. The stage portion has an occupant load capacity of 152 (standing). He described the stage as a proscenium stage with a main curtain and side wings.⁹ Backstage he noted a dropdown screen and observed something large between the second and third curtain wing which he described as a pulley system. Smith testified that there is overhead lighting that can be remote controlled. Further, that there are two small catwalks on each side of the stage that are not visible to the audience. Smith also observed a projector room at the back of the balcony. There is also a bathroom in the corridor behind the balcony of the theatre. There is an entrance lobby for the public from a designated parking lot and a snack bar.

26Smith stated that in the event of an emergency, fire exits for the occupants of the Theatre to the outside were located at the back of the house and at the front of the house close to the stage. All the exits lead to the outside.

27Backstage, Smith observed three rooms behind the stage which are off of a public corridor: a dressing room with a dedicated washroom, an equipment storage room and a utility storage room. There is a door leading directly to the stage from the corridor. Another door connects the backstage corridor to the main corridor of the Building Complex.

28Smith testified that TAG has rented the space to tribute rock bands who used special lighting effects and fog, and to dance companies for dance recitals. He submitted screen captures of Facebook posts and photos from the TAG Facebook page as evidence of the rentals. The lighting equipment varied. In Facebook posts he observed there were some productions with sets, others with fog, and others with specialty lighting.

29Roberts testified that there is a front stage curtain that can close off the stage from the audience. There are side curtains or wings could allow set and props to be moved off stage. There was a rear curtain but that has since been removed. There is black lighting that is stored in the side wings of the stage.

30The respondent submitted that the Commission must determine the meaning of “theatrical stage” and “assembly occupancy” within the intent of 9.2.2.3(1) of the OBC and the Fire Code as a whole.

31The respondent relies on the definitions of “Assembly occupancy”, “major occupancy”, “theatre” and “stage” as found within the OBC. The respondent submits, the definition of theatrical stage must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the term “performing arts.” The respondent argues that “performing arts” is not a defined term but should include music, opera, dance, drama etc.

32The respondent submits that the appellant did not call witnesses or expert witnesses who could testify as to the meaning of a theatrical stage as understood by professional members of the performing arts industry. The respondent submits that the definition of “theatrical stage” does not limit the use to plays but includes all artistic performances and expressions where the intent is to put on a show for an audience.

33The respondent relies on Lora and Varcoe v Lukes (Town of Cobourg), BCC Rule No. 10-03-1239 (“Varcoe”).¹⁰ In each of these decisions the stage in question was determined not to be a theatrical stage under the OBC due to various factors. In Lora, the stage had minimal wing space and temporary audience seating. The stage in Varcoe lacked a curtain, lacked overhead lighting and performers needed to change in a neighbouring building as there were no backstage dressing rooms. The respondent submits these physical characteristics are different from the stage at TAG.

Analysis – The Theatre is a Theatrical Stage

34Based on the evidence submitted, the panel finds that the stage in the Theatre in Building C is a theatrical stage. The physical nature of the space is that of a theatrical stage. This is further supported by the definitions in the Fire Code and OBC. Section 9.2.2.3(4) of the Fire Code requires that there be a fire separation between theatrical stages and assembly occupancies, in other words, a fire curtain or some other system to create a safe barrier between a stage and its audience, in compliance with Sentences 3.3.2.14.(3) to (5) of the 1986 OBC.

35The physical features of the stage are not in dispute. The physical nature of the stage shows that it is a theatrical stage. The stage is a permanent stage and auditorium which appears to be designed for the enabling of artistic performances before a large audience. The size of the occupancy load, over 1000 people, is significant and the seating is permanent. The characteristics that support the finding that it is a theatrical stage are as follows:

• A permanent stage with a proscenium arch, known as a proscenium stage;
• A theatre curtain at the front of the stage separating the audience from the stage
• The existence behind the stage room, of a storage room and dressing rooms, meant to service the stage;
• Catwalks to the side of the stage, hidden from view of the audience, that enable lighting, sets or special effects to be operated;
• Side wings that allow for hidden movement of performers and scenery on and off stage;
• Overhead lighting, and more importantly, the ability to add more;
• An occupancy load of 1004, including a balcony, with fixed seats;
• A projection room;
• A lobby and snack bar area separate from the stage; and
• Use of the stage for musical and dance shows by outside organizations.

36There are some factors which weigh against the finding that the stage is a theatrical stage. However, the Commission finds that these factors are insufficient to change the character of the stage from a theatrical stage to something else. These factors are:

• No fly space for dropping in full scenery;
• No evidence of moving scenery on and off stage;
• The current TAG policy banning fog machines;
• Limited permanent overhead lighting; and
• No evidence that shows other than tribute bands and dance shows have used the space.

37The Commission agrees with the respondent, that the OFC is to be generously interpreted in a manner that is in keeping with the purposes and objectives of the legislative scheme.

38Section 18 of the FPPA defines “fire safety” to include “safety from the risk that a fire, if started, would seriously endanger the health and safety of any person...” Fire safety in the event of a fire therefore includes not only the safety of the occupants, in this case those on the stage, as well its audience, other occupants of the Building Complex including resident, visitors, and finally the safety of firefighters who may be called upon to enter the Building Complex in an emergency. In this case, the audience occupancy alone could consist of as many as 1000 people.

39Pursuant to section 19 of the FPPA, an inspector may enter the premises for the purposes of assessing fire safety, as was done here. Pursuant to section 21(1)(g) of the FPPA, the inspector can issue an inspection order that requires the recipient to make changes necessary for compliance with the Fire Code. This includes ordering that the Theatre have a fire separation between the stage and the audience.

40The term “theatrical stage” is not defined in the Fire Code or the OBC, however, the term “stage” is defined in the OBC as follows:

Stage means a space that is designed primarily for theatrical performances with provision for quick change scenery and overhead lighting, including environmental control for a wide range of lighting and sound effects, and that is traditionally, but not necessarily, separated from the audience by a proscenium wall and curtain opening.

41The OBC further defines major occupancy, “Group A, Division 1” as “assembly occupancies intended for the production and viewing of the performing arts.”

42The Commission agrees with the respondent that “theatrical stage” must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the term “performing arts” and is not limited to plays but includes music, opera, dance, drama, etc. The Commission finds that a theatrical stage is not confined to plays but incorporates all forms of performance including musical and dance shows.

43Finally, the Commission is not bound by the decision in Spirit of the North. Nevertheless, in this case we find that a contravention of the Fire Code has been established. Further, the Inspection Order in relation to the Theatre is necessary to ensure fire safety in the theatre space and is reasonably linked to the contravention. As such, item 3 of Order No. 21-080, with regard to the Theatre space, is confirmed.

B. ISSUE 2 – IS DOOR M115 IN THE POWERHOUSE BUILDING A FIRE SEPARATION IN NEED OF REPAIR AND DOES IT NEED TO CLOSE AND LATCH?

44The issues concerning Door M115 are described as follows in items 7 and 8 of Order No. 21-010:

Item 7

Fire Code Reference:

2.2.3.1. Where the closures are damaged so as to affect the integrity of their fire-protection rating, the damaged closure shall be repaired so that the integrity of the closure is maintained.

Reasons:

Damaged closures affecting the integrity of their fire-protection rating were observed in the following areas: Door M115 double doors to linen service.

Action Required:

Repair or replace damaged closures in the above noted areas such that the integrity of the closures are maintained.

Item 8

Fire Code Reference:

2.2.3.2.(1) Closures in fire separations shall be maintained to ensure that they are operable at all times by:

(a) Keeping fusible links and heat or smoke-actuated devices undamaged and free of paint and dirt,

(b) Keeping guides, bearings and stay rolls clean and lubricated,

(c) Making necessary adjustments and repairs to door hardware and accessories to ensure proper closing and latching, and

(d) Repairing or replacing inoperative parts of hold-open devices and automatic releasing devices.

Reasons:

Closures in the following areas were observed to not be maintained to close and latch: Laundry M115 double doors to linen service.

Action Required:

Repair or replace the closures and/or hardware as needed to ensure the closures close and latch as required in the above noted areas.

45Door M115 is located in a building called the Powerhouse within the Building Complex; it houses the boiler room as well as other tenant units. There is a main corridor with a fire exit at one end, and a short cross-corridor at the other end with exits at either side. Door M115 opens into the short corridor. Door M115 is beside a fire exit and adjacent the main operational area of Hart Laundry.

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

46The appellant submitted that Door M115 is not a fire separation and therefore there is no violation of the Fire Code. Therefore, the door does not require repair and is not required to close and latch.

47Gallipeau-Nolan testified that the Door M115 is in a section of the Building Complex called the Powerhouse. She testified that the door is within the Hart Laundry suite within the Powerhouse. She testified that Door M115 is a door made of wood with a plexiglass window installed in the top half of the door. The door is normally open to allow employees to move carts of laundry in and out of the room. On one side of the door is a large room for washing and sorting laundry. On the other side is a short corridor leading to a fire exit, and a long corridor which contains the Hart Laundry lunchroom, Hart Laundry office, maintenance room, storage parts room, key room, a loading dock, and a suite rented to Shelbourne Fuels.

48Gallipeau-Nolan testified that Hart Laundry is 60% owned by TAG but is a separate corporation. Hart Laundry uses the office space, lunchroom and the loading dock which are located off the long corridor. TAG has access and uses the maintenance room, storage room and key room. Shelbourne Fuels is a separate corporation and a tenant of TAG. Shelbourne Fuels has access to the Shelbourne suite, shared loading dock and maintenance room.

49Gallipeau-Nolan testified that up to 50 carts go through the door every day when Hart Laundry is operating and that it would be a significant hindrance to the laundry operation for Door M115 to be required to close and latch after each use.

50Mainville testified that he observed Door M115 and did not see a label on the door indicating that it was a fire-rated door. This would show that it is a required fire separation in the Building Complex. He stated that he observed that Door M115 has glass in the door and the door does not appear to be constructed of solid wood. Based on those observations, he was of the opinion that it was not a fire separation. He agreed in cross-examination that Shelbourne Fuels operates a suite in the Powerhouse section of the Building Complex and has access to the loading dock and washroom area.

51The appellant in reply stated that the other business occupancies, including Shelbourne Fuels, using the shared corridor have access to all three exits – the fire exit near Shelbourne Fuels suite, the loading dock, and the exit in the maintenance room.

The Respondent’s Evidence and Submissions

52The respondent submits that any door opening onto a public corridor is required by the Fire Code to be a fire separation and therefore must meet the required fire-protection rating and is also required to close and latch.

53Smith testified that Door M115 lacked a self-closing device and that there were holes in Door M115 where self-closing devices had been removed. He also testified that the corridor is a public corridor as defined by the Fire Code because it serves multiple occupants: Hart Laundry, TAG and Shelbourne Fuels. Smith testified that the closure is required to prevent a fire from within Hart Laundry to spread into the public corridor. He stated that Door M115 must be a fire separation because the door is a means of egress to an emergency exit.

54Roberts testified that she recalls seeing that Door M115 had wire in the glass portion of the door indicating that the door had a fire-protection rating.

55The respondent submits that the evidence is that Door M115 is a fire separation and is required to be maintained and to have a self-closing device that closes and latches.

Analysis - Door M115 is a Fire Separation: It Must Not Be Altered, Must be Maintained and Must Close and Latch

56The Commission finds that Door M115 is a required fire separation and therefore the Inspection Order items requiring that the door be maintained and close and latch is confirmed. Further, an additional Fire Code reference is added to the Inspection Order.

57Door M115 opens onto a public corridor and is beside a fire exit. The definition of “public corridor” in the OFC is “a corridor that provides access to exit for more than one suite.” A suite is defined as “a single room or series of rooms of complementary use, operated under a single tenancy, and includes…individual stores and individual or complementary rooms for business and personal services occupancies.” It is clear from the appellant’s witnesses that there are three business occupants using corridor: TAG, Hart Laundry and Shelbourne Fuels, each using different rooms together with sharing the loading dock. This makes the corridor a public corridor within the Fire Code.

58The Commission also amend the Inspection Order. The Inspection Order relied on Article 2.2.3.2.(1) to support that the closures must be maintained. The evidence is that the closures are in fact missing. The Commission amends the Inspection Order to add Article 2.2.3.3 of the Fire Code as an additional ground. That article requires that fire separation doors should not be altered in anyway. In this case, Door M115 was altered to remove the closures. The closures must be re-installed and any remaining holes filled. Then the closures must be maintained so that the door closes and latches.

59The respondent also raised an issue regarding a gap at the base of the door. This gap was not part of the appealed Inspection Order and as such the Commission declines to order the gap to be corrected.

60The appellant stated that keeping Door M115 closed and latched during working hours would be problematic for the laundry business. The Commission notes that the Building Code allows for automatic closing devices as acceptable, provided they are connected to the fire alarm so that they will automatically close if the fire alarm is activated. The appellant may wish to explore other such compliance options that would allow Hart Laundry to conduct its business efficiently.

61Finally, the appellant may wish to explore design options within the Powerhouse Building so that Door M115 is solely within the Hart Laundry suite. In that case, Door M115 might no longer be required to be a fire separation under the Fire Code and could then be held open during work hours.

62Items 7 and 8 of Order No. 21-010 concerning Door M115 are confirmed. The Order is further amended to add reference to Article 2.2.3.3. of the Fire Code as an additional ground.

C. ISSUE 3 – DOES DOOR M15 IN THE POWERHOUSE BUILDING NEED TO CLOSE AND LATCH?

63Issue 3 is described as follows in Item 8 of Inspection Order 21-010:

Fire Code Reference:

2.2.3.2. (1) Closures in fire separations shall be maintained to ensure that they are operable at all times by…

(c) making necessary adjustments and repairs to door hardware and accessories to ensure proper closing and latching…

Reasons:

Closures in the following areas were observed to not be maintained to close and latch: Laundry M15 double doors to ‘hazardous goods storage’

Action Required:

Repair or replace the closures and/or hardware as needed to ensure the closures close and latch as required in the above noted areas.

64Door M15 are double doors also located in the Powerhouse Building but on the basement level. The basement corridor system has a similar layout to that on the main floor. There is a main corridor with a fire exit at one end, and a short cross-corridor at the other end with exits on either side. Door M15 opens into the short corridor.

Evidence and Submissions

65The appellant submitted that the evidence of Gallipeau-Nolan was that the basement corridor is only accessed by one occupant, Hart Laundry, and is therefore not a public corridor since it is entirely within a suite.

66The appellant, in its closing submissions, submitted that Mainville was mistaken when he testified that there was another tenant who operates a sandblasting business sharing the basement floor.

67The respondent submitted that the testimony of Smith established that there were holes in Door M15 where closures had been removed.

68The respondent agreed that if the basement is only accessed by one tenant, in this case Hart Laundry, then the corridor is not a public corridor and Door M15 does not need to be maintained to close and latch as it would not be a required fire separation. The respondent submitted that given the conflicting evidence of the appellant’s witnesses, particularly Mainville, there is evidence that the basement is shared by multiple tenants meaning that the corridor is a public corridor.

Analysis – Door M15 is not a fire separation and is not required to close and latch

69The Commission rescinds the order in relation to Door M15 as the door is not a required fire separation.

70The evidence of the appellant’s witness, Gallipeau-Nolan, supports that the basement corridor in the Powerhouse Building is not a shared corridor. Although there was evidence of a sandblasting operation in 2019, Gallipeau-Nolan testified that that tenant was no longer an occupant. The Commission prefers this evidence.

71The evidence of Gallipeau-Nolan is preferred over Mainville, the other witness for the appellant. Gallipeau-Nolan has an in-depth and extensive understanding of the Building Complex and its tenants. Mainville had only visited the Building Complex on a few occasions, admitted he did not take notes, and stated that he obtained all the information he had concerning tenants directly from Gallipeau-Nolan.

72The Commission must assess the Fire Code as it currently applies to the Building Complex. Currently, there is only one occupant of the basement level and therefore Door M15 does not open onto a public corridor. The respondent’s witness agreed in cross-examination that if the corridor were not a public corridor there would be no requirement for Door M15 to be maintained so that it can close and latch.

73The appellant should note that in the future, should the basement suites be rented to more than one tenant, the basement corridor would then become a public corridor. Since Door M15 opens on to that corridor, article 2.2.3.2.(1) requiring Door M15 to close and latch would once again apply.

74The evidence shows that Door M15 opens onto a corridor entirely within the Hart Laundry suite. Therefore, the corridor is not considered a public corridor within the Fire Code. This alleviates the requirement for Door M15 to be maintained as a fire separation. Door M15 is not a fire separation and therefore article 2.2.3.2. of the Fire Code does not apply. Door M15 is not required to close and latch. The item is rescinded.

D. ISSUE 4 – ARE THE DOUBLE DOORS (DD) IN BUILDING H FIRE SEPARATIONS AND THEREFORE IN NEED OF REPAIR?

75Issue 4 is described in Item 7 of Inspection Order No.21-010 as follows:

Fire Code Reference:

2.2.3.1. Where closures are damaged so as to affect the integrity of their fire-protection rating, the damaged closure shall be repaired so that the integrity of the closure is maintained.

Reasons:

Damaged closures affecting the integrity of their fire-protection rating were observed in the following areas: Building H Block 2 west / Residential – main floor corridor double doors.

Action Required:

Repair or replace damaged closures in the above noted areas such that the integrity of the closures is maintained.

76The double doors (“DD”) at issue are in an area of the Building Complex called Building H. Building H contains a section which is intended for residential tenants. The corridor where DD is located connects the residential area with the rest of the Building Complex.

The Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

77The appellant submitted that the respondent has failed to prove that DD are part of a fire separation and therefore the provision of the Fire Code does not apply.

78Gallipeau-Smith testified that the corporation had recently built a firewall near DD. She testified that the firewall is complete but requires a letter from a mechanical engineer in order to close the building permit. As a result of the newly built firewall, she did not feel that DD should close and latch as that closure is no longer necessary for fire protection in the Building Complex.

79Mainville testified that he walked through Building H in the fall of 2021 and noted that the door showed wear. He admitted he did not do a thorough examination because he believed that the firewall down the hall meant that DD were no longer a required fire separation. He agreed that the building permit for the firewall was still open.

The Respondent’s Evidence and Submissions

80Smith testified that Building H is a residential area of the Building Complex. DD separates the intended residential section from the rest of the Building Complex. He stated that DD are a required fire separation and therefore must close and latch for the protection of the tenants and to limit spread of a potential fire or smoke on either side of DD. He testified that DD do not properly close and latch.

Analysis – DD in H Block must close and latch

81This item is confirmed. The evidence of Smith supports that DD are a required fire separation in the Building Complex. The doors are in a public corridor leading to a residential area of the Building Complex. The doors are part of a fire separation between one part of the Building Complex and another and therefore, the Fire Code requires them to close and latch properly.

82The appellant is in the process of building a firewall in close vicinity to Doors DD. The future completion of the firewall does not alter the current application of the Fire Code. The Commission cannot disregard the application of the Fire Code based on the possibility of future completion of construction. The appellant may complete that work, but in the meantime, the Fire Code requires that the existing fire separation be repaired and maintained so that DD closes and latches properly.

E. ISSUE 5 – DO THE DOUBLE DOORS (DD2) ON THE SECOND-FLOOR OF BUILDING C BETWEEN THE THEATRE AND THE GYMNASIUM NEED TO CLOSE AND LATCH?

83Issue 5 is described in Item 8 of the Inspection Order as follows:

Fire Code Reference:

2.2.3.2. (1) Closures in fire separations shall be maintained to ensure that they are operable at all times by…

(c) making necessary adjustments and repairs to door hardware and accessories to ensure proper closing and latching…

Reasons:

Closures in the following areas were observed not to be maintained to close and latch: Second-floor corridor between theatre and gym.

Action required:

Repair or replace the closures and/or hardware as needed to ensure the closures close and latch as required in the above noted areas.

84Issue 5 is the same as Issue 4, except that it relates to a set of double doors (“DD2”) on the second-floor corridor between the Theatre and the gym in Building C of the Building Complex. DD2 are made up of two glas-paned doors. The second-floor corridor, where DD2 is located, only connects Building A to Building C. It is not a corridor that runs through the entire Building Complex. There is a corresponding corridor on the main floor that, in contrast, attaches most of the building wings throughout the Building Complex. The corresponding doors on the main floor are fire separations and close and latch.

Evidence and Submissions

85Gallipeau-Nolan testified that DD2 was the last set of original doors in the Building Complex, and they were not replaced by the provincial government when it owned RRC. From this, Gallipeau-Nolan speculated that DD2 were never required to be a fire separation and had not been constructed as one. She testified that the only people who could access the second-floor corridor were those in the gym, the bowling alley and two meeting rooms. She stated that the bowling alley could fit 8 people. She stated that overall occupancy in this area was limited to 60 people.

86Mainville testified that his observations were that DD2 was a set of glass doors that close but do not latch. In cross-examination, he agreed that the glass in the doors and the transom area above were wired. He stated that he did not know if it was Georgian wired-glass nor did he investigate the issue.¹¹

87Smith testified that he believed DD2 to be a required fire separation because it is found in a corridor that separates Building B and Building C. He stated that a fire separation is needed to prevent the flow of smoke or fire from one building to another.

88Roberts testified that she observed DD2, not in person, but from a photo. She did not believe that DD2 was a fire separation because of the construction of the door. She observed that the glass doors have a steel frame. Roberts testified that the glass is not wired, indicating it does not offer the required fire protection of a fire separation. Roberts stated that she did not believe a fire separation at that location was necessary due to the short distance between the two existing fire exits.

Analysis – DD2 are not a fire separation and do not need to close and latch

89DD2 are not a required fire separation. Although glass wiring was observed, it was unclear whether DD2 had been originally built to meet fire separation requirements. Further, the evidence did not establish that a fire separation was necessary at that location given that that hallway is short and served by two fire exits. Given these observations, the Commission finds that DD2 are not required fire separations and as such Article 2.2.3.2 does not apply. DD2 do not need to be maintained so that they close and latch.

F. ISSUE 6 – Are the records of standpipe testing required in accordance with the Fire Code?

90Issue 6 is described in Item 1 of Inspection Order 21-010 as follows:

Fire Code References:

1.1.2.1. (1) If this Code requires tests and corrective measures or operational procedures to be carried out, records shall be made noting what was done and the date and time it was done.

1.1.2.2. (1) Subject to Sentence (2), the original or a copy of any record required by this Code shall be retained at the building to which the record relates

(a) for a period of at least two years after being prepared, and

(b) so that at least the most recent and the immediately preceding record of a given test or inspection are retained.

6.7.1.1. (1) Except as provided in Sentence (2), and Articles 6.7.1.2. to 6.7.1.5., emergency power systems shall be inspected, tested and maintained in conformance with CSA-C282, “Emergency Electrical Power Supply for Buildings”.

6.7.1.3. Despite the requirements of Subsection 1.1.2., written records shall be maintained as required in CSA-C282, “Emergency Electrical Power Supply for Buildings”.

6.4.3.1. (1) Standpipe systems that have been modified, extended or are being restored to service after a period of disuse exceeding one year shall be tested in conformance with Articles 6.4.3.2. to 6.4.3.5.

6.4.3.2. (1) Standpipe system piping shall be hydrostatically tested for 2 hours at a pressure of not less than

(a) 1400 kPa (gauge), or

(b) 350 kPa (gauge) in excess of the normal hydrostatic pressure when the normal hydrostatic pressure is in excess of 1050 kPa (gauge).

6.4.3.4. (1) Underground mains and connections shall be hydrostatically tested for 2 hours at a hydrostatic pressure of 350 kPa (gauge) in excess of the maximum hydrostatic pressure in service, but not less than 1400 kPa (gauge).

6.4.3.5. low and pressure tests shall be conducted at the highest and most remote hose valve or hose connection to ensure that the water supply for the standpipe system is provided as originally designed.

6.6.5.6. Hydrant water flow shall be inspected annually in accordance with Article 6.6.5.7.

6.6.5.7. The main valve of the hydrant shall be fully opened and the hydrant operated with one port open and the water flow checked.

6.6.5.8. A record of the hydrant operation as described in Article 6.6.5.7. shall be kept in conformance with Subsection 1.1.2.

Reasons:

Test and certain inspection/maintenance records for the following equipment and systems were not available at the time of the inspection.

Action Required:

Provide a current copy of the test and certain inspection/maintenance records for the equipment and systems listed above to the Chief Fire Official.

91Standpipes are pipes built into large buildings and building complexes. Their purpose is to supply fire hoses with water in the event of a fire. Standpipes were incorporated into the construction of the Building Complex when it was built.

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

92The appellant’s position is that standpipe testing that meets the requirements Article 6.4.3.2.(1) of the Fire Code is impossible to complete. As such there are no records available.

93Gallipeau-Nolan testified that she had tried to obtain testing but that she had been told that it was almost impossible by Rock Fire Protection Inc., the company the appellant hired to do the standpipe testing. The company tested the standpipe system in areas of the Building Complex and changed hoses where repairs were necessary. However, Gallipeau-Nolan’s understanding was that hydrostatic testing meeting the requirements in the Fire Code could not be completed. She had been told that in order to complete the hydrostatic testing, one would need to prevent everyone from using water in the entire Building Complex for at least one hour in order to ensure appropriate water pressure. This was because the standpipe system as designed is fed by the domestic water supply. She stated that the Building Complex was not designed to allow for this type of testing. She did state that some of the standpipe system had been decommissioned including the standpipe system in the buildings known as West Block 1 and 2, East Block 2 and a clinical building. These decommissioned standpipes are marked and chained open so that it is clear that they are no longer operational. She stated that she was not aware of a way to comply with testing and therefore record keeping required by the Fire Code.

94Gallipeau-Nolan agreed in cross-examination that she had not been provided with records relating to the standpipe testing done by Rock Fire Protection Inc. Her only evidence was a letter provided by Rock Fire Protection Inc. on August 26, 2019, that stated that the hydrostatic standpipe testing had been done. She also agreed she did not have records to support the hydrostatic testing. She confirmed that individual buildings within the Building Complex could not be isolated due to the design of the complex, the inter-connectedness of all the buildings and the lack of shut-off valves.

95Gallipeau-Nolan acknowledged in cross-examination that the appellant had not submitted an Alternative Solution (“AS”) to the Fire Chief in lieu of the prescribed Fire Code requirements.¹²

96Mainville testified that the appellant could satisfy the Fire Code instead by complying with the NFPA 25 testing requirements which are referred to within Article 6.4.1.6. of the Fire Code.¹³ He stated that the 2014 version of NFPA 25 states that if the Building Complex standpipe system operated as designed, then it would comply with the Fire Code.

97The appellant submitted that Article 6.3.1.3. of NFPA 25 (2014) is determinative of the issue. That section reads:

6.3.1.3. The standpipe system demand shall be based on the design criteria in effect at the time of the installation.

98The appellant submits that design and installation of the standpipe system in the 1950s does not allow for the testing now sought by the respondent in accordance with Article 6.4.3.2. of the Fire Code. Compliance with NFPA 25 (2014) means that the appellant does not have to test according to Article 6.4.3.2. of the Fire Code. Therefore, the appellant is not in violation of the Fire Code for failing to provide testing records.

Respondent’s Evidence and Submissions

99Smith testified that the appellant was in violation of the Fire Code because the standpipe system test records were not available and are required. The respondent had been provided with the appellant’s annual report and it noted that some of the hose cabinets that feed the standpipe system did not have water. He stated that when hose cabinets are out of order and then reinstated back into services, they need to be hydrostatically tested in accordance with the Fire Code.

100Smith agreed that he had been provided with a letter from Rock Fire Protection Inc. that stated that the standpipe system had been tested, but he stated that the letter did not provide information about the testing, including what was tested, what standard the standpipe system was tested to, and whether it complied with the testing requirements of the Fire Code.

101Smith also testified that there is a formal process for decommissioning standpipe systems, or sections of standpipe systems, as set out in section 6.9 of the Fire Code.¹⁴ That process had not been followed. He only became aware of which cabinets did not have water in them after a discussion on site with Gallipeau-Nolan during an inspection. Smith stated that formal decommissioning of the standpipe system was an option instead of compliance with the testing requirements in the Fire Code.

102Tiller testified that he had reviewed the documents and inspection order related to the standpipes. He described the standpipe system as a Class 2 system, with no fire department connections and a number of cabinets throughout the facility. He confirmed that when a standpipe system is modified or not used within 12 months it must be tested to ensure that it operates as intended. The original requirements of the system are unknown, but what is known are the testing requirements of the Fire Code and these have not been met. He also stated that the letter from Rock Fire Protection Inc. noted that the testing was done after repairs were made to the standpipe system. Tiller reiterated that testing is required after a repair to make sure the system is working properly.

103Tiller also testified that NFPA 25 requires that any standpipe system that is modified or repaired must be hydrostatically tested. Tiller testified that the NFPA 25 requirements for testing are more involved than those in the Fire Code. He testified that compliance with either testing regime would satisfy the Fire Code requirements. Tiller testified that the appropriate version of the NFPA is the 2011 version as noted in the printed version of the Fire Code which has a slightly different wording than NFPA 25 (2014).

104Finally, Tiller testified that if a party cannot comply with the standpipe system testing required, then decommissioning the system would be an option. However, there is a formal process for decommissioning a system which would need to be followed.

105The respondent submitted that the two versions of NFPA-25 are substantially similar and do not affect the outcome. The respondent submitted that both parties were entitled to rely on the different versions of NFPA 25 referred to in the Fire Code. Mainville relied on the electronic source law for the Fire Code, O Reg 213/07 as produced by e-laws, which references NFPA 25 (2014) at Table 1.2.1.A. Tiller relied on the latest Queen’s Printer version of the Fire Code, O Reg 213/07, which references NFPA 25 (2011). The respondent submitted that this is a discrepancy between the two versions of source law. The respondent argued that the parties were each entitled to rely on the version they did pursuant to sections 35 to 39 of Legislation Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 21, Sch.

106The respondent submits that there are no records submitted by the appellant that show testing has been done to meet the requirements of the Fire Code or NFPA 25. The forms required by NFPA 25 used to document tests and inspections have not been disclosed nor numbers to support water flow or durations. The respondent states that the appellant has not shown that there is sufficient water supply and volume to allow firefighters to adequately suppress a fire at the Building Complex using the standpipe system. The respondent further states that the appellant has failed to show that the standpipe system will operate as designed and intended in the event of a fire.

107Finally, the respondent argues that if the appellant cannot conduct the tests as required, the appellant should engage a properly qualified engineer or other qualified professional to submit an AS which allows for a formal process for complying with an alternative to the Fire Code.

Analysis – The Standpipe System records are not in compliance with the Fire Code

108The appellant does not have records showing that the standpipe system has been tested in compliance with the requirements set in the Fire Code. The appellant also failed to provide evidence to prove the standpipe system is operating as designed and intended. The requirements of the Fire Code have not been met.

109The appellant has had the standpipe system hydrostatically tested but no records were provided to the Commission regarding the method(s) of testing and the results. There are therefore no records to show that the standpipe system will operate as intended in the event of a fire.

110This finding is the same whether the testing requirements in the Fire Code are considered or the alternative option provided by the Fire Code that testing and records comply with NFPA 25. The Commission finds that the electronic version of the Fire Code is the most up to date and therefore the correct reference is to NFPA 25 (2014).

111Gallipeau-Nolan testified about her attempts at having the appropriate testing done. The Commission accepts that it has been difficult to do the appropriate testing given the age of the Building Complex and the fact that the standpipe system does not have a dedicated water line. The Commission understands that testing the standpipe system proved to be a complex problem that the appellant’s contractor was unable to solve. Nevertheless, the Commission does not have the ability to waive compliance of the Fire Code because testing was difficult to do.

112The Commission finds that the appellant relied on Article 6.3.1.3. of NFPA 25 (2014), in isolation, without regard for the other requirements of NFPA 25. For example, the appellant states that its standpipe system is operating as designed. There was no evidence of what that design was nor records to support the standpipe system was meeting those design parameters. Further, Article 6.3.1.3. of NPFA 25 (2014) states as follows:

Where the standpipe system demand cannot be determined, the authority having jurisdiction shall determine the standpipe system demand.

113There was no evidence of what the standpipe system’s design criteria was. There was also no evidence put before the Commission that the appellant had sought a determination of the standpipe demand system from the respondent, the authority having jurisdiction, once it could not determine the specifications of the design criteria of the original standpipe system.

114The appellant submitted that only a portion of NFPA 25 (2104) need be complied with if the standpipe demand is based on the design criteria in effect at the time of installation. The Commission rejects this argument. There is no ability to pick and choose which sections of NFPA 25 (2014) will be complied with. There are no records to support that the standpipe system is in compliance with NFPA 25 (2014).

115The Commission notes that the appellant has the option of submitting an AS that complies with the objectives of the standpipe testing regime in the Fire Code for approval by the Fire Chief of the Smith’s Falls Fire Department. The appellant also has the option of formally decommissioning the standpipe system.

116The records for the standpipe system are not in compliance with the Fire Code. This item is confirmed.

G. ISSUE 7 – DO THE DOORS LEADING TO THE EXIT IN THE WELLNESS & RECREATION CORRIDOR REQUIRE EXIT SIGNAGE?

117This issue relates to the doors in the corridor between the Wellness and Recreation Centre and are described as follows in Item 39 of Inspection Order No. 21-010:

Fire Code Reference:

9.2.3.13.(1) Markings and signs for exits and access to exits shall comply with Subsection 3.4.5. of the 1986 Building Code.

3.4.5.1.(1) Every exit door other than the main entrance to a room or building shall have an exit sign placed over it when the exit serves:

(a) a building exceeding 2 storeys in building height,

(b) a building having an occupant load greater than 150,

(c) a room or floor are that has a fire escape as part of a required means of egress, or

(d) a corridor exceeding 25 m in length and serving patients’ or inmates’ bedrooms in Group B, Division 2 occupancies.

(2) Except as provided in Sentence (7), every exit sign shall

(a) be visible from the exit approach,

(b) have the word EXIT of the words EXIT/SORTIE displayed in plain legible letters, and

(c) be designated to be illuminated continuously while the building is occupied.

(5) Where necessary, signs shall be provided to indicate the direction of egress in public corridors and passageways, and shall have the word EXIT or the words EXIT/SORTIE with a suitable arrow or pointer indicating the direction of egress, and the size of lettering shall conform to Sentence (3).

Reasons:

The following exits and access to exits were observed to not be provided with exit signs as required: Wellness & Recreation corridor – double doors to centre hall.

Action Required:

Provide in the above areas exit signs at all exits and access to exits and exit signs to indicate direction of egress as required.

118The issue is that there is an unmarked set of double doors at one end of the Wellness and Recreation corridor. There is an exit on the other side of the unmarked double door in the main public corridor. There is no signage on the double doors to indicate to occupants that there is a fire exit on the other side of the double doors. There is, however, a marked exit on the opposite end of the Wellness and Recreation corridor.

Evidence and Submissions

119The appellant submitted that adding signage to the double doors would create confusion. The appellant states that the dispute is in relation to the double doors on the main floor and not the second floor which is vacant. Further, the second floor was not noted on the Inspection Order.

120Gallipeau-Nolan testified that a sign would lead occupants further into the Building Complex. She noted that there are exits to the outdoors directly from suites located off of the corridor.

121The respondent stated that the Inspection Order requires exit signage at the double doors to direct occupants towards the fire exit on the other side of the double doors. There is only one exit with signage at the other end of the hallway. In the event of a fire emergency, a person would not know that there is a second fire exit through the double doors at the other end of the corridor. Although there are tenant suites with direct access to the exterior, these exits would not be known to the public. Further, occupants in the corridor would not have keys nor access rights to those suites.

122The respondent seeks signage on both sets of double doors, those on the first floor and those on the second floor.

Analysis – The Main Floor Double Doors Require Exit Signage

123The Commission finds that there was not enough evidence to establish a fire code violation in relation to this item. However, the Commission is exercising its power to amend the order to require signage above the double doors to indicate the exit as a requirement for fire safety under s. 21(1)(f) of the FPPA.

124Article 9.2.3.13. of the Fire Code requires directional signage indicating where the fire exits are located when they are not visible. As Article 9.2.1.1. of the Fire Code states, Article 9.2.3.13. applies to assembly occupancies including auditoria, community halls, dance halls, exhibition halls, gymnasia etc.

125However, neither party led evidence on the assembly occupancy of the section of the Building Complex where the Wellness and Recreation Centre are located nor the occupancy of the corridor. As such there is insufficient evidence to find that s. 9.2.3.13 applies to this corridor. Therefore, the evidence does not demonstrate that a violation of the Fire Code exists.

126Nevertheless, the Commission finds that occupants of that corridor should have access to, and be able to identify, the location of two exits. It is irrelevant that one of the exits leads further into the Building Complex. If there is a fire at one end of the corridor, then occupants need an alternate exit. Exiting through private unmarked suites which may be locked does not provide fire safety in the Building Complex.

127The Commission therefore orders that there be signage in conformance with Item 39 of Inspection Order 21-010 but under the power of s. 21(1)(f) of the FPPA.

128The double doors of the corridor between the Wellness and Recreation center on the second floor were not noted on item 39 of the Inspection Order 21-010 that is under appeal. Therefore, the Commission declines to make an order in relation to signage for the second-floor double doors.

COSTS

129The appellant, in its written closing submission, requested the opportunity to address costs.

130The respondent, in its responding closing materials, objected to the request for costs on the basis that costs was not an issue agreed to in the Minutes of Settlement and stated that it would need to lead further evidence if costs are to be argued.

131Costs at the Commission are limited to the issues in Rule 19¹⁵ – where a party in a proceeding has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith. Costs are not granted based on the amount of time or expense the parties expended during an appeal. Nor do costs follow the outcome of a case. The standard for awarding costs is very high and costs will not be granted unless there is evidence that a party has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith before the Commission. Rule 19.2 permits a party to raise the issue of costs any time prior to the issuance of a decision.

132In this case, the Commission, agrees with the respondent. The Minutes of Settlement settled all matters before the Commission but the remaining 7 items under appeal. There was no mention of costs. The Commission declines to disturb a settlement reached on consent. Further, the issue of costs was not raised during the oral hearing and raised for the first time in written closing submissions. The Commission declines the appellant’s request to hear submissions on the issue of costs.

CONCLUSION

133The Commission recognizes the difficulties applying the Fire Code to the Building Complex presented due to its unique characteristics, including its original operation as one building with one overall use, and its current operation as a multi-purpose and multi-tenanted use. The findings of the Commission are limited to the application of the Fire Code to the present use of the Building Complex. Should the appellant apply for a change of use to the Building Complex and complete some of the work to separate the buildings within the Building Complex, this could affect which sections of the Fire Code apply.

134The Commission has also altered the compliance deadlines of those items that are confirmed. The Commission considered the deadlines in the Minutes of Settlement when determining a reasonable compliance deadline for the remaining items.

ORDER

135At the start of the hearing, the parties provided the Commission with Minutes of Settlement that resolved most of the issues. The Parties requested that the Order in this Decision include the settlement provisions.

136Therefore, on consent, the Commission Orders as follows:

(1) The Fire Safety Commission hereby Orders that the parties shall carry out the tasks as agreed to in the Minutes of Settlement entered into between them and dated June 6, 2022, in accordance with the deadlines set out therein.

(2) On consent of the parties and pursuant to section 26(6) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, the Fire Safety Commission hereby Orders:

i. In respect of Item 1 of Inspection Order 2021-008, the Appellant, TAG Gallipeau Corp. (“TAG”), shall complete the identified tasks under Action Required as set out in the Order 14 days before the theatre opens for the purpose of performances;

ii. In respect of Item 1 - Emergency power system test record of Inspection Order 2021-010, TAG shall complete the identified tasks under Action Required or provide a formal letter stating the emergency generator no longer provides any emergency power to building systems by July 31, 2022;

iii. In respect of Item 2 of Inspection Order 2021-010, having undertaken repairs and having confirmed to the Smiths Falls Fire Department that the hydrant and flow is hereby operationally ready, TAG shall submit flow test records for hydrant #6 to the Smiths Falls Fire Department confirming the flow rate of the hydrant by August 31, 2022;

iv. In respect of Item 4 of Inspection Order 2021-010, the Smiths Falls Fire Department - Chief Fire Official shall provide a letter stipulating the approved provisions necessary to control the hazards relating to the activities as observed at re-inspection on June 1, 2022, in respect of the Clinical Building and residential tenant storage West Block 2, within 15 days of execution, which provisions shall be implemented within 45 days;

v. In respect of Item 6 - Clinical building - numerous areas throughout basement corridor of Inspection Order 2021-010, while the parties acknowledge significant work was undertaken, there remains outstanding horizontal breaches and separations that require further repairs, which repairs shall be completed by June 30, 2022 and shall be subject to re-inspection by the Smiths Falls Fire Department;

vi. In respect of Item 7 - Building H Block 2 west/Residential - vacant space beside #444 of Inspection Order 2021-010, TAG shall complete the identified tasks under Action Required by June 30, 2022, or submit in writing to the Chief Fire Official an Alternative Solution for review;

vii. In respect of Item 8 - Ancillary spaces behind stage - double doors from stage, ancillary spaces behind stage to central corridor and door M112 of Inspection Order 2021-010, TAG shall complete the identified tasks under Action Required as set out in the Order 14 days before the theatre opens for the purpose of performances;

viii. In respect of Item 11 of Inspection Order 2021-010, TAG shall complete the identified tasks under Action Required or remove the partition 14 days before the gymnasium opens;

ix. In respect of Item 23 d. (Theatre – exit door to the left of the stage (when facing the stage)) of Inspection Order 2021-010, TAG shall complete the identified tasks under Action Required as set out in the Order 14 days before the theatre opens for the purpose of performances;

x. In respect of Item 25 - Ancillary space behind stage of Inspection Order 2021-010, TAG shall complete the identified tasks under Action Required as set out in the Order 14 days before the theatre opens for the purpose of performances;

xi. In respect of Item 26 of Inspection Order 2021-010, TAG shall re-submit a Fire Safety Plan that meets the requirements of the Fire Code as per sentence 2.8.2.1.(2) related to those occupancies within the building that require a Fire Safety Plan, to be submitted by July 30, 2022 in respect of residential occupancies (including suite numbers for residential units) and in respect of all applicable occupancies by no later than November 1, 2022;

xii. In respect of Item 36 - Box office/snack bar of Inspection Order 2021-010, the parties agree that the box office/snack bar shall have a flame spread rating treatment applied, TAG’s proposed product as submitted to the Smiths Falls Fire Department is acceptable and TAG shall apply same 14 days before the theatre opens for the purpose of performances;

xiii. In respect of Item 37 - Corridor by Ballroom 2 towards Building, Ballroom 2 - small ball room and First floor corridor between Building C & D of Inspection Order 2021-010, TAG having represented materials are not available, TAG shall complete the identified tasks under Action Required by October 1, 2022, failing which such further date as the parties may agree to before October 1, 2022 with such approved temporary measures as may be required with all parties acting in good faith, which is subject to further re-inspection by the Smiths Falls Fire Department;

xiv. In respect of Item 37 - Wellness & Recreation corridor of Inspection Order 2021-010, TAG shall install an additional light down the hall in between the existing emergency lights by June 30, 2022, which is subject to further re-inspection by the Smiths Falls Fire Department;

xv. In respect of Item 37 - Ancillary spaces behind stage of Inspection Order 2021-010 TAG shall complete the identified tasks under Action Required as set out in the Order 14 days before the theatre opens for the purpose of performances;

xvi. In respect of Item 38 of Inspection Order 2021-010, TAG shall complete the identified tasks under Action Required as set out in the Order 14 days before the theatre opens for the purpose of performances;

xvii. In respect of Item 39 - First floor corridor between building C & D of Inspection Order 2021-010, TAG shall complete the identified tasks under Action Required as set out in the Order by June 30, 2022;

xviii. In respect of Item 43 (Closures do not have a 20 min fire protection rating, b. West block 2 Residential - lounge by elevator) of Inspection Order 2021-010, TAG having represented materials are not available, TAG shall complete the identified tasks under Action Required as set out in the Order by October 1, 2022, failing which such further date as the parties may agree to before October 1, 2022 with such approved temporary measures as may be required with all parties acting in good faith, which is subject to further inspection by the Smiths Falls Fire Department;

xix. In respect of Item 7 of Inspection Order No. 21-010 (Doors C101 and M112), TAG shall complete the identified tasks under Action Required as set out in the Order by July 30, 2022;

xx. In respect of Item 37 and 39 of Inspection Order No. 21-010, TAG shall install emergency lighting in the Wellness & Recreation corridor (the double doors to centre hall) by July 30, 2022; and

xxi. In respect of Item 34 – Theatre: male and female washrooms on the second floor of Inspection Order No. 21-010, TAG shall complete the identified tasks under Action Required as set out in the Order 14 days before the theatre opens for the purpose of performances.

137In respect of the remaining issues under appeal that were the subject of the hearing, the Commission Orders we follows:

1. Issue 1, Item 3 of Order No. 21-008 in relation to the Theatre is confirmed. The compliance deadline is amended to 14 days before the Theatre opens for the purpose of performances;

2. Issue 2, Item 7 and Item 8 of Order No. 21-010 in relation to Door M115 in the Powerhouse Building are confirmed. The Order is further amended to add reference to Article 2.2.3.3. of the Fire Code. The compliance deadline is amended to December 1, 2022;

3. Issue 3, Item 8 of Order No. 21-010 in relation to Door M15 in the basement of the Powerhouse Building is rescinded;

4. Issue 4, Item 7 of Order No. 21-010 in relation to the DD in H Block is confirmed and the doors must be repaired and maintained so that they close and latch. The compliance deadline is amended to December 1, 2022;

5. Issue 5, Item 8 of Order No. 21-010 in relation to the DD2 on the second-floor corridor between the theatre and the gym is rescinded;

6. Issue 6, Item 1 of Order No. 21-010 in relation to standpipe testing and records is confirmed. The compliance deadline is amended to February 1, 2023; and

7. Issue 7, Item 39 of Order No. 21-010 in relation to the exit signage on the Wellness & Recreation corridor is amended to be under the power of 21(1)(f). The compliance deadline is amended to December 1, 2022;

Released: October 20th, 2022

Marisa Victor, Vice-Chair Fire Safety Commission

Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair Fire Safety Commission

Paul Stopciati, Member Fire Safety Commission

APPENDIX A

Exhibit 1 – Appellant’s Documents, Tab 1:

Footnotes

1. 1Please see Appendix A for overhead photo of the Building Complex.
2. 2Building use as described by the Respondent.
3. 3Throughout this decision the names of different wings of the Building Complex will be referred to. For example, Building C, or the Wellness and Recreation Building. These are all building wings within the Building Complex.
4. 4A participant expert is a lay witness who is permitted to provide limited opinion evidence based on their observations in the course of their work and on the basis of their experience in a technical field. Where Mainville’s testimony and opinions were not based on his own observations, his evidence was given no weight.
5. 5O Reg 332.12
6. 6Issued August 10, 2000. Not available on. The appellant submitted this decision as evidence during the hearing.
7. 7The appellant, in reply, contested that the evidence was that the theatre was a one storey building with a mezzanine. This was not consistent with the testimony of the appellant’s witnesses particularly Mainville. There was no evidence submitted that the Fire Code determination would be affected if we found the Theatre to be a one storey theatre with mezzanine rather than a two storey theatre.
8. 8A “public corridor” is a defined term in the Fire Code and means “a corridor that provides access to exit from more than one suite.”
9. 9A proscenium stage is a type of stage. It has a frame or arch at the front of the stage separating the stage from the audience. Often there is a curtain directly behind the arch.
10. 10Not available on. Filed as exhibit 4 before the Commission.
11. 11Georgian glass is glass that is wired and has a fire-rated protection that may satisfy the requirements of a fire separation in the Fire Code.
12. 12An AS is a method for optional compliance to prescribed requirements in the Fire Code. Part XX, Division C provides a process for submissions to the Chief Fire Official, for review.
13. 136.4.1.6. of the Fire Code states: “Compliance with the inspection, testing and maintenance provisions of National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA") standard 25, “Standard for the Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems” (“NFPA 25”), for standpipe and hose systems is deemed to satisfy the requirements of Articles 6.4.2.1. to 6.4.2.5. and Subsection 6.4.3.”
14. 146.9.1.1 States: “Except as otherwise provided in this Part, fire protection equipment and life safety systems shall not be decommissioned or permanently taken out of service without approval.
15. 15Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure , Version I (effective October 2, 2017) as amended (“Rules”).