Tribunals ontario
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO
Fire Safety Commission
Commission de la sécurité-incendie
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair
Commission File Number: 16730/FSC
Case Name: G.F. v Brantford Fire Department
Written submissions by:
For the Appellant: G.F., self-represented
For the Respondent: Submissions were not requested
OVERVIEW
1On August 21, 2025, G.F. (Appellant) filed an incomplete Request for Reconsideration (Request) with the Fire Safety Commission (Commission) regarding the Commission’s August 5, 2025, decision in G.F. v Brantford Fire Department, 2025 ONFSC 47 (decision).
2As part of their Request, the Appellant raised an issue that they had insufficient time to file materials. The Appellant advised that the decision, dated August 1, 2025, was received on August 14, 2025. Because Rule 18.1 of the Commission’s Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) as amended (Rules), required Requests to be filed within 21 days, inadequate time was allowed to properly make submissions, as the Rule did not take into account that the decision was mailed to them.
3I issued an Order to the parties on August 27, 2025, in which I extended the deadline for filing submissions in support of the Request. The Appellant filed further submissions by the extended deadline, on September 11, 2025.
4The matter is related to a building occupied by the Appellant. On December 19, 2024, the Respondent issued an Order pursuant to s. 21 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4 (FPPA), requiring the removal of combustible materials within the building, creating egress rooms from each room, reducing piles of combustibles to a maximum height, and providing clearance of combustibles from ignition sources.
5On appeal, the Commission issued a decision, pursuant to s. 26 of the FPPA, in which it:
a. Rescinded Items 1 and 3 of the Order, regarding creating egress routes from each room and maintaining piles to a maximum height;
b. Amended Item 2 of the Order, to the following as follows:
Combustible material shall be spaced a minimum of 1 m from all ignition sources including the stove and water heater, to be completed within 2 weeks of the release of this decision;
c. Made a new Item 4, pursuant to s. 21(1)(f) of the FPPA as follows:
Provide egress paths from the doorway of each room leading to the front entrance and to the side entrance. The egress paths shall be no less than 0.61 m in width, and clear of any objects from the floor to the ceiling. Objects adjacent the egress paths shall be stable such that there is no risk that they may fall into the egress paths and obstruct it. Item 4 shall be completed within 8 weeks of the release of this decision; and
d. Made a new Item 5, pursuant to s. 21(1)(f) of the FPPA as follows:
Maintain a minimum clearance of 1 m from the ceiling to stored items, to ensure adequate clearance for smoke alarm operation, to be completed within 4 weeks of the release of this decision.
6Requests are governed by Rule 18 of the Rules. Rule 18.1 states that Requests must be served on all other parties and must include:
a. All submissions in support of the Request, which must specify the applicable criteria under Rule 18.2;
b. Notification if the party is seeking judicial review or pursuing an appeal in relation to the decision; and
c. The remedy or relief sought.
7The grounds for a Request are found in Rule 18.2 of the Rules. To grant a Request, the Commission must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met before making an order under Rule 18.4(b):
a. The Commission acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness;
b. The Commission made an error of law or fact such that the Commission would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made;
c. The Commission heard false evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result; or
d. There is evidence that was not before the Commission when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
8Rule 18.4 provides for the Commission either to (a) dismiss the Request, or (b) after providing responding parties to make submissions (as described in Rule 18.3), make an order either to confirm, vary or cancel the decision or order; or order a rehearing on all or part of the matter.
9The Appellant submitted that a reconsideration is warranted in this matter because:
a. The Commission may have acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness; and/or
b. There is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the Appellant, and would likely have affected the result.
RESULT
10The Appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Accessibility Concerns
11As part of their Request, the Appellant raised an issue regarding accessibility to file this Reconsideration. They stated that they did not receive an offer or provision of accessible format of the FSC’s Reconsideration Form, nor information regarding the appeals process and options.
12The Appellant also raised the issue that the Commission website is not accessible, and submitted that they received no information from the Commission about filing appeals. On this basis, the Appellant submitted that they couldn’t answer the question in Rule 18.1(b) about whether judicial review or an appeal is being pursued.
13The Commission’s website provides information regarding appealing Commission Decisions, and includes a Reconsideration Form. These are not provided in the accessible format requested by the Appellant in an earlier accommodations request, which was that all typefaces should be in 16 pt size and bold. The Commissions’ Order dated April 14, 2025, at para 23 states that the Commission would send the following information sheets to the Appellant via regular mail in an enlarged format: before you file, filing an appeal or application, case conferences and hearings, orders and decisions, challenging a decision, and resources.
14The Board provided a copy of the Reconsideration Form to the Appellant by mail, on or about April 14, 2025, in accordance with their accommodation request and the Commission’s April 14th Order.
15In summary, the Commission responded to the Appellant’s request for an accessible format of information regarding challenging a decision by providing them information sheets on or about April 14, 2025.
16As the Appellant has filed the Reconsideration Request within the extended time limits to that specified in Rule 18.1 of the Rules, and on the Form provided, it is not clear what accessibility issue or prejudice they claim.
ANALYSIS
17For the reasons that follow, I find that the Appellant has not established that the Commission: acted outside of its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness; or that there is now evidence that was not before the Commission when rendering its decision, which could not have been obtained previously by the Appellant, and which would likely have affected the result.
Rule 18.2(a) – Jurisdiction and/or The Rules of Procedural Fairness
18The Appellant submitted that they were not sure if the grounds of procedural fairness applied. They provided no submissions to support this vague claim that the Commission breached procedural fairness. They submitted a lengthy email to the Commission on September 11, 2025, with four attachments, none of which included submissions linked to the Rule 18.2(a) criteria. Instead, the submissions regarding procedural fairness set out the following:
The Appellant’s reconsideration submissions were a “draft in progress,” and they will submit more later. Because of this, the Appellant requested that the submissions not be shared with the Respondent;
Because of ongoing health issues, it was impossible for the Appellant to meet the September 11, 2025, deadline for submissions (I note that while the Appellant provided a list of health issues, they provided no contemporaneous corroborating note from a medical practitioner to show how these prevented them from filing their submissions by the deadline, nor provided a timeline that would accommodate the limitations of their health issues);
The Appellant is involved in multiple tribunal proceedings, and they do not have time to make submissions regarding this proceeding;
The Appellant complied with the original 2025 Order, which was confirmed by Fire Prevention Officer Michael Owen in his letter dated January 9, 2023; and
The compliance deadlines described in the Decision do not take into consideration that the Appellant would not have received the Decision immediately, because it was mailed to them.
19In response to each of the Appellant’s submissions I note the following:
Rule 18.1 was not complied with – the Appellant did not serve their submissions on the Respondent
In their Request and later submissions to the Commission, the Appellant stated that their Request was in draft form and was not served on the Respondent. They specifically requested the Request not be sent by the Commission to the Respondent. However, the initial Request filed on August 21, 2025, was copied to the Respondent.
Rule 18.1 of the Rules requires that Requests be served on all other parties. The Commission did not forward the Appellant’s submissions of September 11, 2025, for two reasons. First, the responsibility to serve the submissions on the Respondent was the Appellant’s responsibility under Rule 18.1 and the Appellant acknowledged that they did not intend to do this. Secondly, throughout this case, the Appellant has filed a number of Accommodation Requests, that include requests for privacy. While this request was not in the form of an Accommodation Request, I made the decision to honour it to avoid possible future complaints from the Appellant.
An Accommodations Request requesting additional time to make submissions was not filed
The Appellant did not submit an Accommodations Request requesting additional time to file more submissions, nor supporting information regarding their medical condition and how this impacts their ability to make submissions by the deadline in Rule 18.1. Further the Appellant did not propose a submission deadline. I note that the Decision was issued to the parties by email on August 5, 2025, and by mail to the Appellant with deemed receipt by August 12, 2025. While the mailed copy was an accommodation, I note that all communication from the Appellant to the Commission has been by email. They have therefore had at least 21 days to provide submissions in support of the Request.
Furthermore, I note that there was sufficient time for the Appellant to have filed substantial submissions: the initial Request, filed on August 21, 2025, included a 12-page email and 5-page attached Request. In their subsequent submissions filed on September 11, 2025, the Appellant’s email to the Commission and attachments numbered an additional 56 pages.
Rule 18 does not take into account other proceedings parties may be involved in; the 21 days provided to file a Request is considered sufficient time to accommodate conflicting priorities.
A Reconsideration is not an opportunity to relitigate a matter
- The Appellant is relitigating submissions made in their appeal. Paragraphs [37] through [39], and [48] of the Decision referenced submissions made by the Respondent, which is the same information the Appellant is now submitting. A reconsideration is not an opportunity to relitigate an already-decided matter.
Deadlines in the Decision took into account the time for mailing the Decision
- While the Decision does not identify that consideration of mailing time was taken into account when determining compliance dates, it was. I ordered different compliance dates for Items 2, 4 and 5, taking into account the amount of work believed necessary to comply with each. The earliest of these was Item 2, two weeks after release of the decision, to provide clearance from ignition sources such as the stove and water heater. While the Decision was released to the parties by email on August 5, 2025, the Appellant’s accessible format Decision is deemed to have been received on August 12, 2025. They then had two weeks from that date to comply.
20For all these reasons, I find that the Appellant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that the Commission acted outside its jurisdiction and/or violated the rules of procedural fairness such that a reconsideration should be granted on this basis.
Rule 18.2(d) – Evidence was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision
21I find that the Appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that there is evidence that was not before the Commission when rendering its decision, that could not have been obtained previously by the Appellant, and which would likely have affected the result.
22In support of the Request, the Appellant submitted that they were unable to submit information during the merits hearing due to their health condition and failure of the Commission to provide accommodations to enable them to make submissions. They are now requesting an opportunity to submit materials that were not before the Commission at first instance.
23Paragraphs [9], and [15] through [25] of the Decision summarizes the various accommodation requests the Appellant made before the scheduled written hearing, and the Orders issued by the Commission addressing all the requests and granting accommodations where the Commission deemed appropriate.
24I note that the Appellant filed their request to the Fire Marshal for a review of the Order on January 28, 2025. The Commission received the Appellant’s appeal, referred by the Fire Marshal on or about February 5, 2025. The written hearing was conducted on June 23, 2025. The Appellant had approximately five months to provide submissions from the referral date, or six months from the date the Order was served on them by the Respondent, to gather their evidence, and to prepare to make their submissions.
25The Appellant did not describe what evidence they might have been able to provide had more time been provided to make submissions. Nor did they describe what effect this new information might have had on the decision.
26In summary, the Appellant was afforded additional time to file submissions for the hearing, which they did. A reconsideration is not an opportunity to resubmit accommodation requests previously denied or to include additional information that could have been put forward during the hearing but was not.
27The Appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the new evidence that they are now seeking to introduce could not have been obtained previously. Nor did the Appellant address how this new information would have affected the result.
CONCLUSION
28The Appellant failed to establish any of the criteria in Rule 18.2 necessary for granting a reconsideration of the decision.
29The Appellant also failed to serve on the Respondent their September 11, 2025, submissions in support of the Request, which is a requirement of Rule 18.1.
30For these reasons, the Request is dismissed, pursuant to Rule 18.4(a)
31As the Request is dismissed, the Respondent was not asked to make submissions.
ORDER
32For the above-noted reasons, the Appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Released: October 20, 2025
_____________________
Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair