Fire Safety Commission
Appeal under s. 26(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.4
Between:
Samantha Bourre Appellant
and
Greater Sudbury Fire Services Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Patrick Cummins, Vice-Chair Alisa Chaplick, Member
Appearances: For the Appellant: Samantha Bourre, self-represented For the Respondent: Phil D’Aoust, Senior Fire Prevention Officer; Phil Doiron, Chief Fire Prevention Officer
Heard by Videoconference: December 4, 2024
BACKGROUND
1Samantha Bourre, the Appellant, is the tenant of a commercial unit in a building located at 28 Elgin Street in Sudbury, Ontario (the Building). The Building is a five-story mixed-use building. Greater Sudbury Fire Services (GSFS), the Respondent, states that the Building contains five commercial units on the first floor and the upper floors are comprised of twenty residential dwelling units. This appeal relates to one of the commercial units on the first floor. It is a bar called HQ operated by the Appellant.
2On December 5, 2023, Senior Fire Prevention Officer Phil D’Aoust (Inspector D’Aoust) of GSFS conducted an inspection of the Building. On December 21, 2023, he served an Inspection Order on the Appellant pursuant to s. 21(1)(g) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4, 1997 (FPPA). The Inspection Order requires remedying a contravention of the Fire Code (O. Reg. 213/07) (OFC) by December 27, 2023.
3The Inspection Order required the Appellant to do the following:
Item 1: Remove the cotton batten looking product from the entire ceiling located in HQ’s main means of egress to expose original construction material.
4On December 26, 2023, the Appellant requested a Fire Marshal Review of the Inspection Order pursuant to s. 25 of the FPPA.
5The Fire Marshal’s Review Decision (FM-23504), issued September 11, 2024 (the Review Decision): (a) Confirmed Item 1 of the Inspection Order; and (b) Amended the compliance date to October 11, 2024.
6On September 25, 2024, the Appellant appealed the Review Decision to the Fire Safety Commission (the Commission), pursuant to s. 26(1) of the FPPA.
ISSUE
7Should the Commission confirm, amend, or rescind the Review Decision or make such other order as the Commission deems appropriate?
RESULT
8The Commission confirms Item 1 of the Review Decision and amends the compliance date noted in the Review Decision such that Item 1 must be satisfied by February 25, 2025.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
Applicable Sections of the OFC
9The Inspection Order and the Review Decision required the removal of a cotton batten product (referred to herein as either cotton batten product or product) from the entire ceiling located in HQ’s main means of egress. HQ is a licensed bar with an occupant load of approximately 290 persons.
10The Inspection Order and the Review Decision relied on Sentence 2.4.1.1. (2), Division B of the OFC, which states that:
Combustible materials shall not be accumulated in any part of an elevator shaft, ventilation shaft, means of egress, service room or service space, unless the location, room or space is designed for those materials.
11During the hearing, Inspector D’Aoust referenced Sentence 2.3.1.1. (1) of the OFC, which states:
Where a building is refurbished or redecorated, interior finish materials used shall be in conformance with the Building Code.
12During the hearing, Inspector D’Aoust also referenced Sentence 2.3.2.1. (1) of the OFC, which states:
Drapes, curtains, netting, and other similar or decorative materials, including textiles and films used in buildings, shall meet the requirements of CAN/ULC-S109, “Flame Tests of Flame-Resistant Fabrics and Films”, when these materials are used in any
(a) care and treatment occupancy and detention occupancy, (b) lobby or exit, (c) access to exit in assembly occupancies, and assembly occupancies with an occupant load of more than 100 persons, or (d) an open floor area exceeding 1500 m2 in a business and personal services occupancy, mercantile occupancy or industrial occupancy, unless the floor area is divided into fire compartments each not exceeding 1500 m2 in area and each having a fire-resistance rating not less than 1 h.
Respondent’s Position
13Inspector D’Aoust, who issued the Inspection Order, testified on behalf of the Respondent. He stated that while conducting a site visit of the Building, he observed the cotton batten product installed across the entire ceiling of the means of egress to HQ’s main exit/entrance. Inspector D’Aoust presented several photographs of the product that he took during the inspection.
14The Respondent testified that on December 5, 2023, he conducted a flame test on a portion of the product, confirming that it was flammable and released a toxic smoke when burning.
15The Respondent’s position is that the product should be removed, and the Appellant has not taken sufficient steps to do so to comply with the Inspection Order and the Review Decision. Inspector D’Aoust testified that since the Inspection Order, he is aware that the Appellant has attempted to use fire-retardant spray over the product. Inspector D’Aoust testified that this is insufficient protection, as there is no guarantee that the spray was applied sufficiently or will continue to be applied sufficiently to effectively saturate and cover the product.
16Inspector D’Aoust testified that HQ is a licensed bar with an occupant load of approximately 290 persons. As such, Sentence 2.3.2.1. of the OFC, and specifically Sentence 2.3.2.1.(1)(c) of the OFC, applies as the occupant load exceeds 100 persons. Inspector D’Aoust testified that the product was a combustible interior finish material accumulated in HQ’s means of egress. As such, Sentence 2.3.1.1. of the OFC, and Sentence 2.4.1.1. of the OFC, and specifically Sentence 2.4.1.1.(2) of the OFC, applies.
17The Appellant did not challenge Inspector D’Aoust’s evidence on cross-examination.
Appellant’s Position
18The Appellant submitted that the product on HQ’s ceiling was an art display.
19The Appellant submitted that since she received the Inspection Order, she has applied two coats of fire-retardant spray to the cotton batten product, and she has carried out four flame tests to prove that the product does not catch fire or produce any smoke.
20The Appellant submitted a photograph of the fire-retardant spray she applied to the product.
21The Appellant submitted that she is seeking more time to comply with the Review Decision. It is the Appellant’s position that she can either install custom plexiglass over the product or remove it. The Appellant submitted that either step would take about two weeks.
22On cross examination, the Appellant:
- Confirmed that the product was placed over existing ceiling lighting;
- Responded that she obtained the fire-retardant spray from Amazon; and
- Was unable to confirm whether the fire-retardant spray met the requirements of CAN/ULC-S109 “Flame Test of Flame-Resistant Fabrics and Films” required under Section 2.3.2.1. (1) of the OFC.
Analysis & Compliance Timeframes
23The Commission finds that the ceiling area of HQ’s main means of egress contains flammable material in the form of a cotton batten product.
24The Commission finds that the cotton batten product is a decorative material that must meet the requirements of CAN/ULC-S109, “Flame Tests of Flame-Resistant Fabrics and Films” under Section 2.3.2.1. (1) of the OFC.
25In addition, the Commission finds that the Appellant provided no evidence to establish that the fire-retardant spray she used on the cotton batten material meets the requirements of CAN/ULC-S109 “Flame Tests of Flame-Resistant Fabrics and Films” as required under Section 2.3.2.1. (1) of the OFC.
26The Commission finds that the Appellant’s proposed solution of applying fire-retardant spray and a plexiglass cover over the cotton batten product is insufficient to comply with the Inspection Order and the Review Decision on the basis that the Appellant provided no evidence to establish that the fire-retardant spray she used on the cotton batten product meets the requirements of CAN/ULC-S109 “Flame Tests of Flame-Resistant Fabrics and Films” as required under Section 2.3.2.1. (1) of the OFC. The Commission agrees with the Respondent that there is no guarantee that the Appellant applied the fire-retardant spray sufficiently or that she will continue to apply it sufficiently to achieve adequate protection. There is also no certainty that the fire-retardant spray the Appellant applied to the product meets the requirements for a high degree of flame resistance as described in NOTE 4 of Test Method 27.1 of CAN2-4.2, “Textile Test Methods” as required in Sentence 2.3.2.1.(2) of the OFC. There is also no certainty that flame proofing treatments would be reapplied as required in Sentence 2.3.2.2. of the OFC. For these reasons, the Commission finds that the cotton batten product must be removed in order to eliminate the fire hazard that it poses.
27The Commission amends the compliance date to provide the Appellant sufficient time to comply with the Review Decision to remove the product.
28The Commission confirms the Review Decision but amends the compliance date as indicated in the Order below.
ORDER
29Pursuant to Section 26(6) of the FPPA, the Commission confirms item 1 of the Review Decision, requiring the Appellant remove the cotton batten product from the ceiling of the main means of egress of the Building.
30The cotton batten product must be removed by February 25, 2025.
Released: January 31, 2025
Patrick Cummins, Vice-Chair
Alisa Chaplick, Member