FIRE SAFETY COMMISSION
Tribunals Ontario
COMMISSION DE LA SÉCURITÉ-INCENDIE
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
2024 ONFSC 39
Appeal under section 26(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.4
Between:
Bradford West Gwillimbury Fire and Emergency Services
and
James Vins
Appellant
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Ziba Heydarian, Vice-Chair Rocco Iamello, Member
Appearances
For the Appellant: Michelle Davies, Fire Prevention Inspector, Bradford West Gwillimbury Fire and Emergency Services (Bradford Fire) Aimee Jordan, Fire Prevention Inspector, Bradford Fire Paul Barritt, Fire Prevention Inspector, Bradford Fire
For the Respondent: James Vins, self-represented
Held by videoconference: September 18, 2024
OVERVIEW
1James Vins, the Respondent, operates a plastic manufacturing and packaging business in a building located at 12 Industrial Court in Bradford, Ontario (Building). The Building consists of an industrial and office component, which has a sprinkler system, as well as an atrium and residential component, which is not sprinklered. The issue on this appeal is whether the Respondent is required to install a sprinkler system throughout the entire Building including the atrium, office spaces, and residential dwelling unit.
2Following an inspection of the building in March 2023, Bradford Fire Services served the Respondent with Inspection Order 2023-1 in June 2023. The Inspection Order was issued under section 21(1)(f) of the Fire Prevention and Protection Act, 1997 (FPPA) and required the Respondent to “install a sprinkler protection system in the atrium, office space and illegal residential dwelling unit” of the Building.
3In June 2023, the Respondent requested a Fire Marshal review of the Inspection Order.
4On July 26, 2024, the Fire Marshal issued Review Decision and Order No. FM-23246B (Review Decision) rescinding the Inspection Order and indicating that the matter should be dealt with through the Municipal Building Department.
5On August 2, 2024, the Appellant appealed the Review Decision to the Fire Safety Commission (Commission) pursuant to s. 26(1) of the FPPA, seeking to have the Review Decision rescinded.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE
6Should the Commission confirm, amend, or rescind the Review Decision, or make such other order as the Commission deems appropriate?
RESULT
7The Commission rescinds the Review Decision. We find that the action required in the Inspection Order is necessary to ensure fire safety and we order the Respondent to install a complete sprinkler system in the building within three months of the date of this decision.
EVIDENCE
8The Inspection Order was issued pursuant to s. 21(1)(f) of the FPPA. The section permits an inspector to do anything respecting fire safety, including anything relating to the containment of a possible fire, means of egress, fire alarms/detection, fire suppression and the preparation of a fire safety plan. Section 18 of the FPPA indicates that fire safety includes:
Safety from the risk that a fire, if started, would seriously endanger the health and safety of any person or the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it.
Safety from the risk that the presence of unsafe levels of carbon monoxide on premises would seriously endanger the health and safety of any person.
9The Appellant relied on National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”) 13: Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems to appeal the Review Decision arguing that fire safety requires the Building to be fully sprinklered. The Appellant relied on excerpts from the Classification of Occupancies and Commodities section of NFPA 13, 2-28A, which states:
The oldest and most important design concept of NFPA 13 is that the sprinklers must be installed in all areas of a building. This requirement dates back to the first edition of the NFPA 13, published in 1896, which contained the statement “sprinklers to be placed through premises” in the section on location and arrangement of sprinklers”.
10The Respondent argued that the activities and risks associated with the Building had not changed since construction was completed and occupancy granted. The Respondent testified that the Building was built in two phases: phase one was constructed in 1990, consisting of the industrial and office spaces; then phase two was constructed in 1995 and consisted of the atrium and residential dwelling. The Respondent stated that the Chief Fire Inspector at Bradford Fire Services was aware of the use and design of the residential component of the Building and there was no fire hazard or requirement for sprinklers.
11The Respondent also argued that existing fire safety measures, including an audible siren and smoke detectors, addressed the fire risks such that a sprinkler system was not required. The Building had been continually occupied by the same family member(s) for upwards of 30 years. The Respondent stated that while he was willing to add sprinklers to the residential dwelling unit in the Building, this would not be possible while his family member continued to live there as relocating them to complete installations would be extremely difficult.
ANALYSIS
12For the reasons that follow, the Commission rescinds the Review Decision and finds that the Appellant must install a sprinkler system throughout the Building, including in the atrium, office spaces and residential dwelling unit, to ensure fire safety throughout the entire premises.
13In brief, we relied on documentary evidence of the site plan and drawings, etc. which required the building to have a sprinkler system. These were not available at the time the Fire Marshal conducted its review and we were persuaded that the sprinkler system is required throughout the Building.
14We considered that the Inspection Order stated the following:
The existing building was “designed in conformance with the Ontario Building Code (OBC) and was required to be fully sprinklered…
If a fire were to occur in the atrium, office space or the illegal residential dwelling unit, the inadequate built-in Fire Protection measures, namely the sprinkler protection system in the above-mentioned areas, increases the risk of injury or death in a fire emergency as occupants would be prevented in making a timely and safe evacuation from the building.
15In its Review Decision rescinding the Inspection Order, the Fire Marshal stated that the Inspector did not produce any documentation to support the statement that the building was to have a sprinkler system installed throughout, including the atrium, offices, and dwelling unit.
16The Commission reviewed the Review Decision, which stated:
It can be assumed that since occupancy was granted by the municipal building department upon completion of the building construction, the building, which was designed in accordance with the OBC, was also constructed in accordance with the OBC. If it is determined by the municipal building department, who is the authority having jurisdiction that enforces the OBC, that the building was intended to be equipped with a sprinkler system serving the atrium, office space, and dwelling unit, then they are responsible for enforcing this deficiency.
17Witnesses for Bradford Fire Services testified that they only recently gained access to the original drawings and notes from the building department, which included architectural drawings, site plan notes, and other documents related to the original building construction. These documents confirmed that a sprinkler system design was required as part of the original construction.
18Furthermore, Inspector Jordan testified that the Review Decision assumed the Building was constructed in accordance with the OBC, but this was a dangerous assumption because the lack of a sprinkler system posed a life safety risk.
19When asked by the Commission whether there were any exceptions in the OBC to allow a partial sprinkler system, she confirmed that there were not.
20Based on the Appellant's testimony and documentary evidence, the Commission finds that the original construction of the Building did require a full sprinkler system. The documents brought before the Commission as evidence to prove this, including photos, floor plans, notes, correspondence, and other documents from the time of construction, were not available at the time of the Fire Marshal’s review.
21The floor plans note certain areas that were not protected by automated sprinklers, and in the correspondence from Simmons and Ellscheid Designs consultants to the Mr. Art Janse, Chief Building Official, Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury, dated April 4, 1995, it is clear that a sprinkler system design was to be delivered by the Respondent. The design notes and plan examination from Bradford Fire Services also confirm that the Respondent was supposed to deliver sprinkler drawings to the Fire Chief, including design criteria for minimum sprinkler coverage, design density, and hydraulic calculations. This evidence supports the Appellant’s position that the sprinkler system design was required as part of the original design.
22The Respondent did not provide any evidence to indicate that the Building could be partly sprinklered. At the time of construction, the same standards and NPFA requirements were in effect.
23The Commission is not persuaded by the Respondent’s submission that occupancy was granted and therefore the OBC was complied with, as the evidence counters this. The evidence supports the Appellant’s position that sprinklers were required throughout the building at the time of construction. The NFPA provisions, building plans, and notes submitted from the construction of phase two in 1995 also confirm that sprinkler drawings were required as part of the original construction. It is apparent that the Respondent had not complied with this requirement.
24Finally, the fact that the use of the Building has not changed and the original occupants of the residential dwelling remain the same is not a factor in determining the compliance requirements of the Building. Although we appreciate that relocating current residents may be difficult for the Respondent, fire safety must take precedence. Installation of the sprinkler system will ensure the safety of all building occupants.
ORDER
25The Commission rescinds the Review Decision and orders the Respondent to comply with the requirements in the Inspection Order dated June 1, 2023.
26We order that the work be completed within three months of the date of this decision.
Released: October 28, 2024
_________________________
Ziba Heydarian
Vice Chair
_________________________
Rocco Iamello
Member