OFSC 2025

The appellant filed a request for reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision regarding an order to remove combustible materials and create egress routes.

The appellant argued the Commission violated procedural fairness by not providing sufficient time to file materials and failing to accommodate accessibility needs, and sought to introduce new evidence.

The Commission dismissed the request, finding the appellant had sufficient time to file submissions, failed to serve the respondent, and did not establish that any new evidence could not have been obtained previously.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Fire Marshal Review Order regarding a property inspection order.

The inspection order required the applicant to remove an obstruction to a means of egress over an easement.

The applicant filed the appeal two days late, citing absence from home, caregiving responsibilities, and late receipt of the order.

The Commission granted the extension, finding that the applicant demonstrated apparent grounds for the appeal based on a dispute over the legal right of way, and provided a reasonable explanation for the brief delay.

The Applicant fire service applied under s. 33 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 for authorization to remove excessive items from the respondent's home to bring it into compliance with an inspection order.

The Fire Safety Commission declined to authorize the work, finding the applicant failed to prove the respondent was unlikely to comply or that the current conditions posed a serious and immediate fire hazard.

Exercising its discretion under s. 33(5), the Commission rescinded the requirement for 3-foot egress routes and amended the storage height and clearance requirements to target specific fire safety hazards, such as smoke alarm operation and proximity to ignition sources.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision that confirmed an Inspection Order requiring the removal of recycling bins from a parking garage or the construction of a fire-separated storage room.

The appellant requested a 12-month extension to construct the storage room.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the appellant had delayed taking substantive steps initially, it had recently engaged an engineer and begun the planning process.

Balancing the need for time to complete the tendering and construction process against the ongoing fire safety risk, the Commission granted a four-month extension of the compliance date.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that ordered her to cease activities and remove workshop materials from a former place of worship.

The appellant raised 13 grounds for reconsideration, alleging procedural unfairness, jurisdictional overreach, and errors of law and fact.

The Commission found that the appellant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2, noting that the Commission did not violate procedural fairness, act outside its jurisdiction, or make errors of law or fact.

The request for reconsideration and the request for a stay were denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a motion decision that denied an extension of time to file an appeal.

The applicant argued that new evidence, including remedial work, correspondence, and a contractor quotation, justified reconsideration under Rule 18.2(d).

The Commission dismissed the request, finding that the evidence could have been obtained previously and did not meet the high threshold for reconsideration.

The applicant's alternative request for compliance directions was also denied, as the Commission's power to give directions under s. 26(3) of the FPPA is only available when an extension of time is granted.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order issued by the fire department regarding excessive combustible materials and obstructed egress routes in her residential unit.

The Fire Safety Commission rescinded the original items regarding egress routes and pile stability, finding they were not properly justified as fire hazards under s. 21(1)(c) of the FPPA.

However, using its powers under s. 26(6), the Commission issued new orders under s. 21(1)(f) requiring 0.61 m egress paths and 1 m clearance from the ceiling for smoke alarm operation.

The Commission also amended the order requiring 1 m clearance from ignition sources to specify the stove and water heater, and adjusted the compliance timelines.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a Fire Marshal Review decision regarding an inspection order for his property.

The appellant filed his original appeal past the 15-day deadline and subsequently filed a motion for an extension of time 12 days past the 30-day statutory limit for such motions.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding the appellant failed to establish apparent grounds for the appeal or reasonable grounds for the delay, noting his explanations regarding feasibility studies and legal implications lacked detail and his intentions regarding the property had changed.

The appellant property owner appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision regarding an Inspection Order that required repairs to a building's fire alarm system.

The appellant did not dispute the required repairs but sought an extension of the compliance date to December 31, 2025, citing delays in obtaining specialized parts and skilled trades.

The Fire Safety Commission found the appellant made reasonable attempts to comply but determined that a delay to the end of the year would unnecessarily compromise fire safety.

The Commission granted a shorter extension to September 15, 2025.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Order confirming an inspection order that required the removal of an auto repair occupancy from a building classified as an assembly occupancy (a former place of worship).

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the appellant was not performing traditional auto repair, the space was being used as a workshop to modify automobile parts, introducing hazards not contemplated in the building's original design.

The Commission amended the order to explicitly require the cessation of workshop activities and the removal of all associated equipment, flammable liquids, and materials.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal's Review Order confirming an Inspection Order that required fire safety upgrades to a two-unit residential building.

The appellant argued she had complied with the order by evicting the tenant and converting the building back to a single-family dwelling, rendering the Fire Code provisions inapplicable.

The respondent fire service demanded a notarized letter of understanding guaranteeing the building would not be converted back.

The Fire Safety Commission found the appellant had complied with the order through the conversion and held there was no statutory basis under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act to require a notarized letter.

The appellant, a former tenant, appealed an Inspection Order issued by Cornwall Fire Services to the building owners.

The owners subsequently complied with the order, and the appellant's tenancy was legally terminated.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that the matter was moot as there was no live controversy remaining.

The Commission also found that the appellant lacked standing because he was not an 'aggrieved' person under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, as the order imposed no obligations on him and he was no longer a tenant.

The appellant, a tenant operating a licensed bar, appealed a Fire Marshal's Review Decision confirming an Inspection Order that required the removal of a combustible cotton batten product from the ceiling of the bar's main means of egress.

The appellant argued that applying fire-retardant spray and a plexiglass cover would be sufficient.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the product was a fire hazard and that the appellant failed to prove the fire-retardant spray met the required Fire Code standards.

The Commission confirmed the order to remove the product but extended the compliance date.

The Respondent requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that ordered him to install a complete sprinkler system in a building.

The reconsideration request was filed past the 21-day deadline and failed to include mandatory information required by Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Furthermore, the Commission found no merit to the Respondent's argument that a previously withdrawn appeal created res judicata.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.