OFSC 2024

The appellant property owner appealed an inspection order requiring the installation of secondary exits for two apartments in a multi-unit residential building.

The appellant argued that existing windows in the units complied with the Ontario Building Code and should be accepted as secondary exits under the Ontario Fire Code.

The Fire Safety Commission found no evidence that the windows were approved as secondary exits under the Building Code and held that the Fire Code does not permit windows to serve as exits for this type of building.

The Commission amended the order to explicitly allow for alternative measures approved by the Chief Fire Official and extended the compliance date.

The respondent fire department brought a motion to dismiss the appellant tenant's appeal of a fire safety inspection order without a hearing.

The inspection order required the removal of combustible materials from the appellant's apartment.

The Commission found that the appellant was attempting to re-litigate issues already decided in a previous appeal of an identical 2022 inspection order.

The Commission granted the motion and dismissed the appeal under Rule 3.4(a) of the Common Rules, finding it to be frivolous, vexatious, and commenced in bad faith.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Order confirming an Inspection Order that required the removal of all resident belongings from a fire escape.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent brought a motion on consent to amend the order to only require the removal of 'combustible materials', aligning with the specific wording of the Ontario Fire Code.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the consent motion, amended the order, and extended the compliance date.

The respondent property owner filed a request for reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that ordered compliance with Fire Code requirements for a second basement exit and a fire separation for an exit stair in a rooming house.

The respondent argued the Commission made incorrect findings and sought to introduce new evidence regarding his plans to demolish the building.

The Commission dismissed the request, finding that the respondent failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The alleged incorrect findings were not errors of law or fact, and the new evidence either could have been obtained previously or would not have changed the outcome.

The appellant fire service appealed a Fire Marshal review decision that rescinded an inspection order requiring the respondent to install a sprinkler system throughout a mixed-use building.

The Fire Safety Commission rescinded the review decision and reinstated the inspection order, finding that newly available documentary evidence from the time of construction confirmed a full sprinkler system was required.

The Commission ordered the respondent to install a complete sprinkler system within three months to ensure fire safety.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision confirming an Inspection Order for fire code violations at a rooming house.

The appellant did not dispute the violations but sought an extension of time to comply because he intended to demolish the building.

The Fire Safety Commission confirmed the order but granted a short extension of time for compliance, providing alternative options to reduce occupancy or demolish the building within the amended timeframes.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal review decision confirming an inspection order that required the removal of a code lock from a door in a place of worship.

The respondent argued the lock violated the Fire Code's requirements for required exit doors.

The Fire Safety Commission rescinded the order, finding that the door in question opened into a sacristy rather than directly to the exterior or a public thoroughfare, and therefore did not meet the definition of a required exit door under the Fire Code.

The appellant hotel operator appealed a Fire Marshal's decision rejecting its Alternative Solution Proposal (ASP) under the Fire Code.

The appellant proposed using off-site supervisory staff available 24/7 instead of on-site staff.

The Fire Safety Commission first determined that the acceptable solution in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) of the Fire Code requires supervisory staff to be physically on site when the building is occupied.

The Commission then found that the appellant's ASP did not meet or exceed the minimum performance level intended by the acceptable solution, as it relied primarily on existing building features and did not adequately compensate for the absence of immediate on-site response.

The appeal was dismissed and the Fire Marshal's order was confirmed.

The appellant hotel operator brought a preliminary motion to determine the scope of its appeal before the Fire Safety Commission.

The appellant had submitted an alternative solution proposal after Toronto Fire Services rejected its initial fire safety plan, which allowed supervisory staff to be located off-site.

The appellant sought a ruling that the Commission had jurisdiction to determine whether its alternative solution proposal was actually an 'acceptable solution' under the Ontario Fire Code.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the fire official's original opinion on the acceptable solution.

The Commission held its authority under s. 26(6) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 was limited to assessing the sufficiency of the alternative solution proposal as an alternative to the acceptable solution.

The appellant appealed an inspection order requiring the retirement home's supervisory staff to be 'awake and alert' at night.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the Ontario Fire Code does not explicitly require supervisory staff to be awake, provided they are responsive to fire emergencies.

As the home had previously passed a supervised fire drill demonstrating adequate response times, the Commission amended the order to remove the requirement for staff to be awake and alert during night hours.

The Hamilton Fire Department applied to the Fire Safety Commission for authorization to complete work previously ordered against a tenant to remove combustible materials and clear pathways in her apartment.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence that the tenant had not complied or was unlikely to comply with the order, as the inspector's evidence of non-compliance was based on an inspection conducted more than a year prior to the hearing.

The appellant landlord appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision that granted an extension of time to comply with a fire inspection order regarding excessive combustible materials in a tenant's unit.

The landlord sought a further extension of up to seven months, arguing it could not comply without the uncooperative tenant's consent and was pursuing eviction at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Fire Safety Commission denied the extension, prioritizing the fire and life safety of the building's residents and noting the uncertainty of the LTB proceedings.

The appellant appealed Fire Marshal Review Decisions confirming inspection orders that required the installation of a second exit and fire separations in four semi-detached student housing buildings.

The appellant argued the buildings operated as single cooperative households, exempting them from the enhanced retrofit requirements for lodging houses under Part 9 of the Ontario Fire Code.

The Commission found that the owner exercised significant control over the properties, tenants had individual leases for separate bedrooms with locks, and there was a lack of cohesiveness among the tenants.

The Commission concluded the buildings were lodging houses and confirmed the orders, extending the compliance date.