FIRE SAFETY COMMISSION
Tribunals Ontario
COMMISSION DE LA SÉCURITÉ-INCENDIE
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
2025 ONFSC 40
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
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Ziba Heydarian, Vice Chair Rocco Iamello, Member
Date of Order: January 28, 2025
Tribunal File Number(s): 16147/FSC
Case Name: Bradford West Gwillimbury Fire and Emergency Services v. James Vins
Written submissions by:
For the Appellant: Vanessa Morum, Manager of Legal, Risk Management and Procurement for Bradford Fire
For the Respondent: Derek A. Schmuck, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This is a request for reconsideration of an order of the Fire Safety Commission (Commission) issued October 28, 2024 (Order), in which the Commission rescinded a decision of the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) and ordered the Respondent, James Vins, to install a complete sprinkler system in the building located at 12 Industrial Court in Bradford, Ontario (Building) within three months of the date of the Order (2024 ONFSC 39- Decision)
2The matter came before the Commission after the Appellant, Bradford West Gwillimbury Fire and Emergency Services (Bradford Fire), issued an inspection order to the Respondent in June 2023 under section 21(1)(f) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4 (FPPA), requiring them to install a sprinkler protection system in the atrium, office space and illegal residential dwelling unit of the Building.
3The Respondent subsequently requested a review of the Order by the OFM. On July 26, 2024, the OFM issued its decision rescinding the Order and indicating that the matter should be dealt with through the Municipal Building Department (Review Decision).
4On August 2, 2024, the Appellant appealed the Review Decision to the Commission pursuant to s. 26(1) of the FPPA and it relied on new evidence and original drawings showing that the entire building was required to be sprinklered, which was not before the OFM at the time of its Review Decision.
5Based on the evidence, the Commission concluded that the Appellant Bradford Fire proved on a balance of probabilities that the action required in the Order was necessary to ensure fire safety, and therefore the OFM Review Decision should be rescinded.
6The Respondent asks that the Commission grant the request for reconsideration, therefore dismissing the appeal by Bradford Fire.
7The Respondent made very minimal submissions to support this reconsideration request, and Bradford Fire made submissions in response to refute the Respondent’s position.
8Bradford Fire asks that the reconsideration be dismissed on the basis that the request does not meet the requirements of the 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), and the Respondent has failed to provide any submissions or satisfy any of the grounds for reconsideration.
9We have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with Rule 18.1.
RESULT
10For the reasons given below, the Respondent’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
CRITERIA FOR RECONSIDERATION
11The criteria for granting reconsideration are contained in Rule 18.2 of the Rules.
12The grounds for reconsideration of a Commission decision are limited and specific, and they include the following:
a. The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness;
b. The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made;
c. The Tribunal 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 Tribunal 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.
13To succeed on a reconsideration request, at least one of the grounds must be proven. Here, because the Respondent has requested reconsideration, the onus is on him to establish the grounds.
14The Respondent makes this request under Rule 18.2(b) of the Rules, that the Commission made an error of law or fact that would have led to a different result.
15For the reasons that follow, the Commission finds that the Respondent has not met any of the grounds for reconsideration.
APPLICATION OF RECONSIDERATION CRITERIA
Rule 18.1 Mandatory requirements for reconsideration were not met
16Rule 18.1 of the Rules states that a party may make a request for reconsideration within 21 days of the date of the decision 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.
17In this case, the Respondent submitted the reconsideration request on November 19, 2024, which is 22 days after the original decision was issued on October 28, 2024.
18Furthermore, the Respondent’s submissions did not provide notice of whether he was seeking judicial review or pursuing an appeal, and it did not set out the remedy or relief sought.
19The Appellant made no further submissions as part of his reconsideration request other than submitting the request form checking off the box stating “The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made”, and a one-line email where he states that “the reason is an error of law relating to the original 2022 decision, “Res Judicata”.”
20In its reply submissions, the Respondent made several arguments, including the following:
a. The request for reconsideration was made within the 21-day deadline, or in the alternative if it was late a short extension should be granted.
b. The Respondent has appealed to the Divisional Court of Ontario.
c. The May 4, 2022 OFM Decision was also based on an order under s. 21 of the FPPA, that included a requirement to install sprinklers just as the 2023 Inspection Order required. Because the appeal by the Appellant was abandoned, the OFM Decision forms the basis for res judicata and issue estoppel, which preclude Bradford Fire from relitigating that issue.
d. The Commission’s Decision is null and void as it was directed against James Vins, who is neither the owner nor the occupant of the subject building and therefore has no obligations under the FPPA to install additional sprinklers.
21Reply is not an opportunity for the Respondent to make additional arguments in addition to the original submissions.
22A majority of the Respondent’s reply submissions did not form part of the original reconsideration request, particularly b) and d) cited in paragraph 20 above. Therefore, the Commission did not consider anything beyond the scope of replying to Bradford Fire’s responding submissions.
23The reconsideration request was made beyond the 21-day deadline and the Respondent also failed to comply with the other mandatory requirements of Rule 18.1, therefore the Commission dismisses the reconsideration request.
24While the Commission is denying the reconsideration request on procedural grounds because the Respondent failed to comply with the formal requirements in Rule 18.1, it is important to note that even if the Commission were to exercise its discretion to extend the filing deadline, it would dismiss the request on its merits as seen below because the order under reconsideration contains no error of law.
Rule 18.2 (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.
25As stated above, the Respondent in his initial reconsideration request email states that the Commission erred in law due to “res judicata” with the original 2022 decision, but no further explanation was provided.
26In the hearing, the Respondent argued that the subject Inspection Order was very similar to a previous order, which was rescinded by the OFM, with the difference being that this Inspection Order was issued under s.21(1)(f) unlike the previous order in 20211 which was issued under s.21(1)(g) of the FPPA.
27While the Commission did not specifically cite the 2021 inspection order or corresponding OFM decision in rendered its decision, it is trite law that not every piece of evidence considered or presented at a hearing must be cited in the Commission’s reasons.
28Furthermore, the Commission is primarily focused on fire safety issues as opposed to building code violations, so an earlier order issued by Bradford Fire under s.21(1)(g) of the FPPA, which provides for remedying any violation of the Ontario Fire Code, O. Reg. 213/07 (OFC), does not preclude them from making future orders under a different legislative provision.
29The fact that an appeal of an earlier order by Bradford Fire was withdrawn and another similar Inspection Order was later issued by Bradford Fire under s. 21.1(f) of the FPPA, does not constitute “res judicata”. In fact, withdrawal of an earlier appeal means that the issues were not previously adjudicated, therefore res judicata and issue estoppel are not relevant to this case.
30The Respondent’s evidence and submissions at the hearing were all considered by the Commission in rendering its original decision.
31We addressed in paragraphs 12 through 24 of the Order that the Respondent’s position was not supported by the evidence. In particular, the new documentary evidence of the site plan and drawings presented by the Appellant, which was not before the OFM at the time of review, showed that the entire premises were required to have a sprinkler system without exception.
32The submissions put forward by the Respondent at the hearing in terms of the phases of construction, existing fire safety measures, and continual use and occupancy of the building for upwards of 30 years do not establish compliance with the original building permit, OFC, or FPPA.
33The Commission finds that it did not err in its interpretation and application of s. 21(1)(f) of the FPPA. Instead, after considering the evidence, testimony, and submissions put forward by both parties, the Commission found that the Respondent did not establish an exemption to have a partial sprinkler system and exclude certain areas of the premises for the reasons given in the Decision.
34Although the Respondent may disagree with the Order, reconsideration is not an opportunity for the Respondent to re-argue its position. The Commission not being persuaded by the Respondent’s submissions, evidence, or legal arguments at a hearing is not an error of law and dissatisfaction with the decision is not grounds for reconsideration.
35The Commission did not make an error of law or fact such that a different conclusion would have been reached. In summary, the Respondent has not proven on a balance of probabilities that reconsideration should be granted based on the criteria in Rule 18.2.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
36The Respondent has failed to satisfy the Commission that any of the criteria set out in Rule 18.2 for reconsideration have been established.
37For the reasons noted above, the Respondent’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Released: January 29, 2025
Ziba Heydarian Vice Chair
Rocco Iamello Member