Tribunals Ontario Fire Safety Commission 15 Grosvenor Street, Ground Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2G6 Tel: 1-888-777-3616 Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Commission de la sécurité-incendie 15, rue Grosvenor, rez-de-chaussée Toronto (Ontario) M7A 2G6 Tel: 1-888-777-3616 Site Web : www.tribunalsontario.ca

Citation: Bauer v. City of Mississauga Fire and Emergency Services, 2024 ONFSC 36

Date: 2024-09-05

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

Between:

Robert Bauer

And

City of Mississauga Fire and Emergency Services

Appellant

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

PANEL:

Rocco Iamello, Member

Mark Sraga, Member¹

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Robert Bauer, Self-Represented

For the Respondent:

Eugene Nakliutskiy, Fire Prevention Inspector, City of Mississauga Fire and Emergency Services

Heard by videoconference: July 11, 2024

OVERVIEW

1This appeal is about whether an existing door is a required exit door such that the locking device currently on it must be removed to allow the door to be readily opened, as required by Clause 2.7.2.2.(1)(a) of the Fire Code, O. Reg. 213/07 (“OFC”).

2The building (“Building”) is located at 130 Mineola Drive E. in Mississauga. It is a single storey plus mezzanine. It contains a place of worship, ancillary offices and kitchen, a fellowship area and a daycare. The Building was built in the 1950s prior to the passing of provincial building codes.

3Following inspections conducted on February 8, 2023 and March 7, 2023 of the Building by Inspector Nakliutskiy of the City of Mississauga Fire and Emergency Services (the “Respondent”), an Inspection Order (“Order”) under s. 21(1) (g) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4 (“FPPA”), which provides for remedying any violation of the OFC was issued with a compliance date of April 2, 2023. Among other things, the Order required the removal of a code lock (item #3) from a door, which the Respondent considered a violation of clause 2.7.2.2.(1)(a). of the OFC.

4On March 23, 2023, the Appellant applied to the Fire Marshal for a review of item #3 of the Inspection Order under s. 25(1) of the FPPA. The Fire Marshal issued Decision FM-23098 on April 18, 2024 (“Review Decision”) confirming item #3 of the Inspection Order and amending the compliance date to July 18, 2024.

5On May 3, 2024, the Appellant appealed the Review Decision to the Fire Safety Commission (the “Commission”) pursuant to s. 26(1) of the FPPA. The Appellant seeks to have the Review Decision rescinded regarding the locking device as they believe that the door in question is not an exit door but leads to a storage room identified as the sacristy, which has existed since the Building’s construction, and the order is not based on relevant or applicable fire or building code requirements.

6The Respondent seeks to have the Review Decision confirmed.

ISSUE

7Should the Commission confirm, amend or rescind the Review Decision as it relates to the requirement to remove the code lock installed on the door between the nave and the sacristy.

RESULT

8The Commission rescinds the Review Decision. The Appellant is not required to remove the code lock on the door between the nave and the sacristy as we are not satisfied that the door in question is a “required exit door” subject to the requirements of OFC Clause 2.7.2.2.(1)(a).

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9The Inspection Order in this case was issued pursuant to s. 21 of the FPPA, which allows for an order to remedy any contravention of the OFC.

10The Respondent argues that the code lock on the door between the nave and the sacristy contravenes Clause 2.7.2.2.(1)(a) of the OFC. This clause requires that any locking, latching and other fastening devices installed on a required exit door be readily opened from the inside with no more than one releasing operation and without keys, special devices or specialized knowledge of the door opening mechanism.

Is the door between the nave and the sacristy a required exit door subject to the requirements of Clause 2.7.2.2.(1)(a)?

11For the reasons that follow, the Commission finds that the door is not a required exit door.

12The Appellant argued that the requirement to remove the code lock was not necessary because:

i. The building has been in use since the 1950s as a place of worship. The door from the nave into the sacristy which is used to store items for use during church services has always been equipped with a lock and has never served as an exit;

ii. There are two exits at the southeast and southwest corners of the floor area for the nave. This is compliant with both the 1986 version of the Ontario Building Code (O. Reg. 332/12, made under the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23) (“OBC”) and the 2012 version of the OBC with respect to minimum number of required exits, maximum travel distance to an exit and minimum distance between means of egress doors; and

iii. The determination made by Inspector Nakliutskiy that the two doorways were “too close together to be considered a separate means of egress” was without foundation.

13The Respondent’s evidence/testimony are;

i. The Inspector testified that the two doors, one on the south-west corner and one on the south-east corner, that provide exit from the room are too close together to be considered separate means of egress to exits;

ii. There is a laminate plastic “exit” sign above the door in question, which suggests that it is an exit door;

iii. It would be safer to have a means of egress at opposite ends of the nave or as far away as possible from each other;

iv. It is reasonable to consider the two most remote means of egress as the most efficient and shortest path to evacuate the nave in case of an emergency;

v. A site plan drawing for interior renovations and an addition to the building, submitted for a building permit application in 2008, indicates that the exterior door from the sacristy is an exit door²; and

vi. A fire access route drawing, dated April 11, 2008, shows that the exterior door from the sacristy is an exit door.

Analysis

14The term “exit” is defined in OFC subsection 1.4.1.2. as “that part of a means of egress, including doorways, that leads from the floor area it serves to a separate building, an open public thoroughfare or an exterior open space protected from fire exposure from the building and having access to an open public thoroughfare.”

15We found that even though the door in question could be considered an “access to exit” door, it is not in fact an exit door as defined in the OFC. In reviewing the original permit drawings submitted as evidence by the parties it was determined that the door in question opened into the sacristy and not directly to a separate building, an open public thoroughfare or an exterior open space.

16Therefore, OFC Clause 2.7.2.2.(1)(a) does not apply in this case.

17The placement of the laminate plastic “exit” sign above this door did not persuade us that this was a “required exit door”. Neither party was able to establish when or why this sign was placed above the door. We also noted that the sign does not conform to the current requirements for exit signs in Subsection 2.7.3. of the OFC.

18We also had no evidence before us on whether this door led to a functional “exit” door. Neither party confirmed if the exterior door located on an exterior wall of the sacristy and that is labelled on both the site plan and the fire access route drawings as an “exit” door is compliant with the applicable OFC provisions for an “exit” door. As a result of this, the Commission could not make any determination as to the required functionality or applicable OFC provisions, if any, that apply to this door.

Location of existing means of egress doors

19The Respondent argued that the two existing doorways at the southeast and southwest portion of the nave are too close together to be considered as separate means of egress. However, the Respondent did not present any evidence or identify any relevant OFC provisions to support their position.

20The Appellant testified and presented evidence that the location of the two means of egress doors serving the nave and which lead to exits were more than 10 metres apart which is compliant with current OBC requirements in terms of the minimum separation distance between means of egress doorways. Therefore, the Commission found that the two existing means of egress doors are not too close together as argued by the Respondent.

Conclusion

21We find that the door identified in item #3 of the Inspection Order has not been established as a “required exit door” and therefore the installation of the code lock on that door is not a contravention of OFC Clause 2.7.2.2.(1)(a).

ORDER

22The Commission rescinds the Review Decision that confirmed item #3 of the Inspection Order.

Footnotes

1. 1One of the original panel members, Robert Dowhan, was unable to participate in the decision. The remaining panel members issue this decision pursuant to s. 4.4.(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.S. 22.
2. 2The area of work related to this building permit application did not involve the area related to this appeal.