FIRE SAFETY COMMISSION

Tribunals Ontario

COMMISSION DE LA SÉCURITÉ-INCENDIE

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Citation: Hospitalité Sonder Canada Inc. v. Toronto Fire Services, 2024 ONFSC 35

Date: 2024-08-15

Appeal under section 26 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4.

Between:

Hospitalité Sonder Canada Inc. Appellant

and

Toronto Fire Services Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Anxhela (Angela) Peco, Vice-Chair (A) Rocco Iamello, Member Mark Sraga, Member

For the Appellant: Raivo Uukkivi and Meghan Rourke, Counsel

For the Respondent: Emma Luca, Counsel

Heard: April 30, June 13 and 19, 2024

OVERVIEW

1This appeal requires the Fire Safety Commission (Commission) to evaluate an alternative solution proposal filed by Hospitalité Sonder Canada Inc. (Sonder). Sonder operates 40 hotel suites across four floors in a mixed-use building at 390-44 Dufferin Street in Toronto, Ontario. The building is one of three towers comprising the Brixton development.

2In the context of fire safety, alternative solutions are a tool whereby a party proposes a different solution to a requirement in the Fire Code (OFC)¹ that still meets the objectives of that requirement. The original requirement in the OFC is known as the “acceptable solution” and an alternative solution is defined as a substitute for the acceptable solution².

3Sonder appeals a Fire Marshal’s Review Decision and Order that confirmed an earlier decision by Toronto Fire Services to reject Sonder’s Alternative Solution Proposal (ASP). The main feature of Sonder’s ASP is a proposal that Sonder’s supervisory staff be located off the premises while being “on duty” and able to respond to fire emergencies.

4The parties disagree not only on the sufficiency of the ASP and whether it meets the objectives of the acceptable solution, but also on what the acceptable solution itself requires. Toronto Fire Services takes the position that the OFC requires supervisory staff responsible for carrying out fire safety duties to be physically on site when the hotel is occupied. Sonder argues that it has the right to have staff located off site so long as they are on duty and available to fulfill their obligations upon notification of a fire emergency.

5Given the parties’ disagreement over the interpretation of the acceptable solution, the Commission’s role on this appeal is to first determine what the acceptable solution in OFC Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) requires, and then decide if Sonder’s ASP meets or exceeds the level of performance intended by that acceptable solution³.

ISSUES

6Does the acceptable solution in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) require supervisory staff to be on site?

7Does the ASP demonstrate that it meets the minimum performance level intended by the acceptable solution in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2)?

8Should the Commission confirm, amend, or rescind the Fire Marshal’s order, or make such other order as the Commission deems appropriate?

RESULT

9The Commission finds that the acceptable solution in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) requires supervisory staff to be located on site.

10The Commission finds that Sonder’s ASP does not meet or exceed the minimum performance level intended by the acceptable solution in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2).

11Pursuant to its powers in s. 26(6) of the FPPA, the Commission confirms the Fire Marshal’s decision to confirm Toronto Fire Services’ rejection of the ASP.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Does the acceptable solution in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) require supervisory staff to be on site?

12For the reasons that follow, we find that Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) requires supervisory staff to be physically on site.

The acceptable solution

13The acceptable solution at issue on this appeal is found in Section 2.8 of the OFC, which speaks to emergency planning in general. Subsection 2.8.2. addresses fire safety plans, which are an element of emergency planning and consist of a document that sets out how a property owner will deal with various aspects of fire safety in a building. There is no dispute that the building is subject to Section 2.8 and requires a fire safety plan.

14Fire safety plans must identify things like the emergency procedures to be followed in case of a fire. They should also provide for the appointment, and training of supervisory staff to carry out fire safety duties.

15Sentences 2.8.1.2.(1) and 2.8.1.2.(2) set out requirements for supervisory staff. Among other things, staff must be instructed in the fire emergency procedures described in the fire safety plan before they are given any responsibility for fire safety, and they must be available on notification of a fire emergency to fulfill their obligations as described in the fire safety plan.

16As a general rule, Sentence 2.8.1.2.(3) provides that supervisory staff are not required to be in the building on a continual basis. However, this provision is subject to Article 2.8.2.2., which includes the acceptable solution at issue here. Article 2.8.2.2. sets out requirements around the availability of supervisory staff in certain types of occupancies, including care occupancies, detention occupancies, retirement homes, and relevant to this case, hotel establishments.

17Specifically, Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) requires that, in hotel establishments:

(a) there shall be sufficient supervisory staff available to carry out the duties as required in the fire safety plan, and

(b) in buildings greater than 3 storeys in building height or having a total area⁴ greater than 4000 m², supervisory staff shall be on duty whenever the building is occupied (emphasis added).

The parties’ positions on the interpretation of the acceptable solution

18Toronto Fire Services, as the authority having jurisdiction for enforcement matters, takes the position that the term “available” in clause 2.8.2.2.(2)(a) means “present,” “being on premises,” and “on duty” in clause 2.8.2.2.(2)(b) means “awake / alert and on the premises.” In putting forward this interpretation, the respondent relies on, among other things:

1. the legislative intent that can be inferred from the additional requirements that the OFC imposes on hotel occupancies and the supervisory staff in these settings; and
2. an interpretative bulletin prepared by the Office of the Fire Marshal, which the respondent says was created to assist fire departments, fire code consultants and the public with the interpretation of the OFC⁵.

19Sonder, on the other hand, submits that when applying the ordinary meanings of the word “available” and the phrase “on duty,” Sentences 2.8.1.2.(2) and 2.8.2.2.(2) should not be interpreted to mean that staff should be on the premises. Sonder also distinguishes requirements for hotels from those in place for care occupancies, which are set out in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(1) and state that supervisory staff must be “available in care occupancies.” Sonders argues that the phrasing of this other provision, with an emphasis on the preposition “in,” makes it clear that staff must be on site and not just on duty. Sonder also takes issue with Toronto Fire Services’ reliance on the interpretive bulletin, which it calls outdated.

The Commission’s interpretation of the acceptable solution

20We agree with Toronto Fire Services and find that Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) introduces an exception to the general rule that supervisory staff are not required to be in the building on a continual basis. As a result, the occupancies listed in Article 2.8.2.2., including larger hotel establishments, do require on-site staff.

21The fact that the general rule in Sentence 2.8.1.2.(3) is “subject to” Article 2.8.2.2. suggests that a different requirement is being introduced for certain occupancies like larger hotels, and that this requirement is a departure or a carve-out from the general rule that staff need not be on site on a continual basis.

22This interpretation is also consistent with the legislative intent indicated by other provisions of the OFC, which create additional measures for hotel occupancies and suggest that fire safety requires more of supervisory staff in these settings.

23For example, the fact that hotel supervisory staff are not only required to be instructed on the procedures and measures in a fire safety plan (which is expected of supervisory staff in general) but are also required to be instructed on things like the use of fire fighting equipment, suggests that there are elevated requirements for hotel occupancies and hotel staff.

24We also considered that the exception in Article 2.8.2.2. applies not only to hotels but also to care occupancies and detention centers. This again establishes that in some buildings, where there is either a higher risk because of the special needs of the occupants, or because of the size of the building and lack of familiarity with it, there are elevated requirements and a need for on site supervisory staff.

25We agree with Toronto Fire Services that in the case of hotels, the nature of the occupancy is such that it caters to the travelling public, who is not familiar with the building. As a result, the duties of supervisory staff with respect to things like evacuation take on added importance and support an interpretation that requires them to be on site. This requirement applies to large hotels, more than 3 storeys and more than 4000 m2 in total area, where there is an enhanced need for supervisory staff as compared to smaller hotels.

26Interpreting Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) to require on-site presence aligns with the legislative intent and is therefore consistent with the modern principle of statutory interpretation that requires that the words of an act (or regulation) are to be read in their entire context and harmoniously with the object of the act.⁶

Office of Fire Marshal’s Interpretive Bulletin

27Turning next to the interpretive bulletin, Toronto Fire Services acknowledged that the bulletin is no longer available on the Fire Marshal’s website. However, we agree with its submission that there is no evidence that the Office of the Fire Marshal has changed its position on its interpretation. We are persuaded by this guidance document, which states that supervisory staff must be awake, alert and on the premises to be considered to be “on duty.”

Other uses of the term “on duty” in the OFC

28The Commission considered that the phrase “on duty” appears in one other instance in the OFC, specifically in Sentence 5.16.2.7.(3) that deals with fumigation and thermal insecticidal fogging. It requires a person to be “on duty at each entrance of the premises” to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the premises until they have been ventilated.

29In reviewing the language of this provision, we were not persuaded by Sonder’s argument that the phrase “on duty” as used in this provision is distinguishable from the use of “on duty” in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) because it is accompanied by the words “at each entrance to the premises,” which make it clear that staff are required to be on site.

30Contrary to Sonder’s submission, we find that this section supports an interpretation that the phrase “on duty” means on site and alert. In our reading of Sentence 5.16.2.7.(3), the need to be on-site is an implied precondition for the qualifying words “at each entrance to the premises” to make sense. In our view, the purpose of these words is not to introduce an “on site” requirement but is to specify where on-site the person needs to be to prevent re-entry during fumigation. It also appears that the wording in this section creates a higher threshold for being “on duty” by requiring that someone be present and awake / alert in a specific location, whereas Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) does not require that of hotel supervisory staff.

31The fact that Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2), which is at issue on this appeal, does not indicate the specific location of supervisory staff in a hotel does not support a conclusion that staff need not be on site. In fact, it makes sense that the phrase “on duty” in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) is not accompanied by language that is directly locational because hotel supervisory staff’s varied duties will necessarily take them to different locations in the building.

Case law interpreting concept of “on duty”

32Sonder relies on two court decisions⁷ to argue that the concept of “on duty” is broader than physical presence. Decided in an employment context, one decision held that when a taxi driver was “on duty,” this included actually working or only waiting for instructions. The second decision, in a criminal case, held that a police officer is always on duty because of the nature of the office.

33The facts and issues in these decisions are not analogous to the situation here and we prefer to rely on a contextual and purposive interpretation of the OFC in the context of its public and fire safety mandate. In addition, neither of the cases precludes the phrase “on duty” from involving on-site work. Sonder’s suggestion that the legislature, when it drafted the OFC, was aware that being on duty is broader than being physically present is not in fact inconsistent with Toronto Fire Services’ interpretation of “on duty,” which is broader than simply being on the premises and requires that the person also be awake and alert.

Toronto Fire Services’ inconsistent positions

34Next, we turn to consider Sonder’s argument that Toronto Fire Services’ engineering staff took inconsistent positions during their review of Sonder’s ASP, specifically as it related to whether the acceptable solution required on-site supervisory staff. Sonder notes that one of the early reviewers of the ASP did not believe that supervisory staff were required to be on site. It argues that this engineer’s position should be preferred because it was also consistent with the National Fire Code of Canada (NFC), which it submits has completely removed all references to hotels and does not require supervisory staff for hotels.

35We acknowledge that concerns about the on-site staff requirement were raised by Toronto Fire Services engineer Yoshito Imahori during his peer review of the ASP. We do not find that the internal inconsistency in the engineering team’s positions detracts from the respondent’s position on this appeal. Ultimately, the requirement for on-site staff became Toronto Fire Services’ official position, both in its letter declining the ASP, and at this hearing.

36We also do not find it appropriate or necessary to rely on the NFC as an interpretive aide where Ontario legislation speaks specifically to the question at issue. The Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, and the Fire Code as a regulation under that act, remain the governing law in Ontario in relation to fire safety. None of the OFC provisions at issue on this appeal reference NFC requirements or incorporate them by reference.

37In sum, we find that the acceptable solution as it relates to larger hotel establishments requires that supervisory staff be on site (and alert) when the building is occupied, and that this is the standard against which Sonder’s ASP should be assessed.

Issue 2: Does Sonder’s ASP demonstrate that it meets the minimum performance level intended by the acceptable solution in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2)?

38For the reasons that follow, the Commission finds that the ASP does not achieve sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2).

Functional Statements and Objectives

39Sentence 1.2.2.1., Division A of the OFC provides an alternative to compliance with the acceptable solutions found in Division B of the OFC by permitting the use of alternative solutions that will achieve a level of performance required by the applicable acceptable solutions in respect of the objectives and functional statements attributed to the acceptable solution in Fire Code Supplement FCS-1, “Objectives and Functional Statements Attributed to Acceptable Solutions”⁸ (FCS-1). We note that submitting an alternative solution to the acceptable solution that forms the regulatory requirement is a voluntary procedure on the owner’s part.

40FSC-1 provides that for the purposes of compliance with the OFC, as provided in clause 1.2.2.1.(1)(b), Division A, the objectives and functional statements attributed to the acceptable solutions in Division B shall be those set out in Tables 2 to 9.

41FCS-1 Table 2 indicates the following attributes for Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2):

a) [F01-OS1.1];

b) [F02-OS1.2]; and

c) [F12-OS1.2, OS1.4, OS1.5].

42The functional statements attributed to the acceptable solution in this case are:

a) F01 - to minimize the risk of accidental ignition

b) F02 - to retard the effects of fire on areas beyond its point of origin

c) F12 - to facilitate emergency response.

43The relevant objectives are to limit the probability that:

1. OS1.1 - as a result of fire or explosion occurring, persons in or adjacent to the building will be exposed to an unacceptable risk of injury;
2. OS1.2 - as a result of fire or explosion impacting areas beyond its point of origin, a person in or adjacent to the building will be exposed to an unacceptable risk of injury due to fire;
3. OS1.4 - as a result of fire safety systems failing to function as expected, a person in or adjacent to the building will be exposed to an unacceptable risk of injury due to the fire.
4. OS1.5 - as a result of persons being delayed in or impeded from moving to a safe place during a fire emergency, a person in or adjacent to the building will be exposed to an unacceptable risk of injury due to fire.

Evidence and submissions related to the ASP

44Matteo Gilfillan, a Licensed Engineering Technologist, was qualified as an expert for Sonder to provide opinion evidence on alternative solution proposals under the OFC. Mr. Gilfillan prepared Sonder’s ASP, which proposes to satisfy the supervisory staffing requirement in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) with on-call / rotating staff, on-duty 24/7.

45Yoshito Imahori, Professional Engineer, was qualified as an expert for Toronto Fire Services to provide evidence in fire protection engineering, including the review of alternative solution proposals. Mr. Imahori was a peer reviewer of Sonder’s ASP.

46Mr. Gilfillan testified that in his professional opinion the building characteristics and the proposed operations at the Sonder hotel provided sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2). He listed the following building features in support of that conclusion:

1. The building has a monitored, single-stage fire alarm system that automatically notifies occupants to evacuate in a fire emergency and notifies the fire department. This is different from a conventional two-stage fire alarm system that would first notify supervisory staff, who would then investigate further and notify the fire department.
2. Elevators are programmed to automatically recall;
3. The building is equipped with an automatic sprinkler system;
4. Maintenance of building systems will be conducted by third party vendors. Daily checks or inspections will be conducted by roaming Sonder staff or by the concierge of one of the adjacent buildings at the Brixton development.

47Mr. Gilfillan also highlighted additional operational decisions, which in his opinion showed that having on-site staff at the hotel provided no material benefit beyond that which could be provided by off-site staff. These included the following:

1. Supervisory staff will be available via a dedicated emergency phone line that will be provided in the fire safety plan and on the fire alarm system panel door. The central alarm monitoring station will use this number to reach Sonder staff in the event of a fire emergency event. The phone number would connect directly to the Sonder manager on duty who would immediately respond to the site and/or dispatch supervisory staff to the hotel;
2. Dispatch of off-site staff to the premises will be expeditious;
3. Staff will not be required on site to fulfill duties related to building access. Sonder staff can remotely unlock any door at the request of the fire department and multiple access options exist, including a fob, a physical key and a door code that can be provided in the fire safety plan box;
4. The fire safety plan would provide details to facilitate self-evacuation and set out procedures for sheltering in place where it is unsafe for occupants to exit their suites;
5. The concierge at the adjacent building would assist responding fire crews upon arrival;
6. In the event of a system shut-down or maintenance, management staff in the adjacent building could be available to attend on site and carry out alternative measures.

48Mr. Gilfillan opined that sufficiency of compliance could be achieved without reliance on the adjacent building’s concierge. He noted in his report that the assistance of the concierge was presented as an “added value” that was available only because of the proximity of the affiliated building to the hotel and that future projects may not benefit from the same circumstances. In his report, Mr. Gilfillan reiterated that the “goal of the ASP was to address the condition of no on-site staff through specific building / system design and facility operations as well as practical discussion of the realistic expectations of what on-site staff would accomplish in an emergency scenario.” He added that the viability of the ASP was not contingent on the use of the adjacent building’s concierge.

49Mr. Imahori’s opinion was that the ASP did not identify the difference between on duty staff and staff that are available on an as-needed basis. His view was that the ASP did not address the need for immediate response or make clear how the objectives and functional statements apply to supervisory responsibilities.

Analysis

50We find that the combination of building features and the use of 24/7 off-site hotel staff, which is at the core of Sonder’s ASP, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with the acceptable solution. We accept Toronto Fire Services’ submission that the ASP primarily relies on existing building features or items that are already required by regulation, such that they are not compensatory in nature and do not fully account for the absence of on-site staff.

Building features

51We first turn to consider the building features, beginning with the single-stage alarm. Sonder’s position was that a single-stage alarm is an improvement of up to five minutes in response time when compared to a two-stage system, where staff investigate and then trigger a second stage of alarm if it is warranted. However, we did not have analysis available comparing the timeliness and efficacy of a possible evacuation under this model as compared to having staff on site. Mr. Gilfillan also acknowledged that a single-stage alarm already existed in the building and was not necessarily superior to a two-stage alarm. He also accepted in cross-examination that the OFC draws no distinction based on whether there is a single or a two-stage fire alarm system when it sets out requirements for fire safety plans.

52On the issue of evacuations, Sonder’s suggestion that hotel occupants will know what to do in the event of an alarm based on emergency procedures that will be posted on the inside of each hotel suite door did not persuade us that evacuation efforts with off-site staff can meet or exceed what would be available with an immediate response from on-site supervisory staff. Posting emergency procedures on hotel suite doors is already a requirement in the OFC and is not a compensating measure to offset the risk of delayed evacuations. We also examined the building’s floor plans and exiting pathways, which may pose confusion to occupants without supervisory staff present to guide occupants after the alarm is activated. The OFC also speaks to the requirement of evacuating occupants and includes special provisions for persons requiring assistance (subclause 2.8.2.1.(2)(a)(iv)). The ASP does not adequately address this matter.

53Another existing building feature are elevators that automatically recall to the ground floor. No evidence was provided by Sonder to show how the automatic recall of elevators was an improvement or enhancement in terms of building or occupant safety. It is the Commission’s understanding that the Ontario Building Code⁹ requires that elevators have an automatic recall feature upon activation of a fire alarm or smoke detection device.

Operations and the intended staff model

54Turning next to the proposed deployment of off-site staff, we focus on the ability of supervisory staff to arrive on site upon being notified of an emergency.

55In correspondence with Toronto Fire Services,¹⁰ Sonder estimated a response time of 10 to 12 minutes for its off-site staff. Sonder says that it committed to this timeframe after it was proposed by one of Toronto Fire Services’ early reviewers of the ASP.

56Regardless of which individual proposed the response time, the facts before us establish that the fire department’s response in the area where the building is located is just over seven minutes. Based on the fire department’s response time, more likely than not Sonder’s staff would not be on site to convey information to responding fire crews. Until staff arrive, there would be no supervisory staff available to carry out duties that should take place before the arrival of fire crews or duties that are concurrent to their arrival.

57Many of these duties were set out in the building’s current approved fire safety plan, which provided helpful insight into the expected activities of on-site supervisory staff both upon discovery of fire and upon hearing an alarm signal. These responsibilities included supervising the evacuation of occupants, assisting those who need assistance in evacuating, meeting responding fire crews at the main entrance with the building keys, and not allowing persons to re-enter the building until it is safe to do so. We are concerned that some of these duties will be deferred until Sonder’s supervisory staff is able to arrive on site. Despite best efforts to respond expeditiously, traffic and weather events may routinely delay the arrival of Sonder’s staff at the site and make it less likely that they would arrive on time to carry out these responsibilities.

58We did consider Sonder’s position that some of the conventional responsibilities of on-site staff could be completed using technology or other measures. Sonder also submitted that the requirement to meet responding fire crews upon arrival is satisfied by the provision of an exterior lockbox accessible by the fire department. This box contains keys to the fire safety plan box, which would provide access to keys for various parts of the building. Once dispatched, staff would then arrive on site to assist further, as would the adjacent building’s concierge. Sonder staff can also remotely unlock suite doors on request.

59We are not persuaded that these measures would meet or exceed the standard established by the acceptable solution. In the event of a system failure, Sonder’s proposed solution defers the responsibilities of on-site supervisory staff to third parties, including hotel occupants and the fire department.

60Moreover, keys are already required to be placed in a fire safety plan box in accordance with Chapter 470, Fire Safety Boxes of the Toronto Municipal Code and are therefore not an enhancement that weighs in favour of approving the ASP. As for staff’s ability to remotely unlock doors, Toronto Fire Services acknowledges, and we agree, that this is a compensatory measure that will assist firefighters, but it is not sufficient to justify the absence of on-site staff as we had evidence from Toronto Fire Services that staff would not generally travel through the building with fire responders after the alarm sounds. In fact, we note that the purpose of staff being on site to greet first responders is to provide access, advise where the fire is, update fire crews on the status of the alarm and smoke conditions, if any, guide responders to the central alarm and control facility and firefighting equipment, and provide a list of people needing assistance to evacuate. Many of these duties were not accounted for in the ASP.

61Finally, we considered the possible deployment of the adjacent building’s concierge. At the hearing, Mr. Gilfillan testified that Sonder had recently tested how long it would take for the adjacent building’s concierge to arrive at the Sonder site and that based on this new information, Sonder’s response time would be less than three minutes.

62Although we have no reason to question the veracity of this statement, it is unclear whether and how this response time meets or exceeds the functional statements and objectives and how it compares to what would be achieved by the immediate response of on-site staff, especially as it relates to facilitating the timely movement of people and reducing occupants’ exposure to injury as a result of fire. In other words, if we were to place as a condition of approval the assistance of the adjacent building’s concierge, we do not have analysis available on how the truncated response time would meet or exceed the immediate assistance of supervisory staff who would already be on-site.

ORDER

63As a result of our finding that Sonder’s ASP does not meet or exceed the minimum performance level intended by the acceptable solution in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2), the Commission confirms the Fire Marshal’s order pursuant to our powers in s. 26(6) of the FPPA.

Released: August 15, 2024

______________________________

Anxhela (Angela) Peco, Vice Chair (A) Fire Safety Commission

___________________

Rocco Iamello, Member Fire Safety Commission

________________

Mark Sraga, Member Fire Safety Commission

Footnotes

1. 1O. Reg. 213/07, made under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O.1997, c 4 (FPPA). Unless otherwise noted, all references are to Division B of the OFC.
2. 2Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A of the OFC.
3. 3This is in line with the Commission’s motion decision at Hospitalité Sonder Canada Inc. v Toronto Fire Services, 2024 ONFSC 34, which determined the scope of this hearing.
4. 4Total area is defined in Article 1.4.1.2., Division A of the OFC as “the total area of all floors above and below grade, including mezzanines and penthouses, measured between the inside surfaces of exterior walls or between the inside surfaces of exterior walls and the inside surfaces of firewalls.”
5. 5Ontario Fire Code Opinions and Applications, Office of the Fire Marshal, Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.
6. 6Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2022 SCC 42 at paras. 26-27.
7. 7R. v. Johnston (1965), 1965 CanLII 190 (ON CA), [1965] 2 O.R. 729, [1966] 1 C.C.C. 226 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Moore's Taxi Co. (1935), 1935 CanLII 543 (MB CA), [1935] 2 D.L.R. 338 (MBCA).
8. 8Sentence 1.2.2.1.(1)(b)(i) to (iii), Division A of the OFC.
9. 9O. Reg. 332/12, made under the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c 23.
10. 10Correspondence between Mr. Gilfillan’s firm and Toronto Fire Services was entered into evidence. Both parties agreed that the email exchange and the clarification questions and answers could be used to supplement the information provided in Sonder’s original ASP.