Sison v. Greater Sudbury Fire Services, 2025 ONFSC 43

Citation: Sison v. Greater Sudbury Fire Services, 2025 ONFSC 43

Date: 05/30/2025

Appeal under s. 26 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4

Between:

Loreta Sison Appellant

and

Greater Sudbury Fire Services Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Patrick Cummins, Vice-Chair Rocco Iamello, Member

Appearances: For the Appellant: Loreta Sison, Self-represented For the Respondent: Phil D’Aoust, Senior Fire Prevention Officer

Heard by Videoconference: April 30, 2025

BACKGROUND

1Loreta Sison, the appellant, together with her family are occupants of a residential building located at 293 Charette Street, Sudbury, Ontario (the “Building”). Greater Sudbury Fire Services, the respondent, describes the Building as a residential occupancy that is two-stories in building height plus a basement and containing two residential units.

2On September 27, 2023, the appellant’s nephew, John Michael Catacutan, became the registered owner of the Building.

3On September 27, 2023, a tenant resided in the basement residential unit.

4In or about November 2023, the appellant contacted Greater Sudbury Fire Services to complain about a potential fire hazard being created by the tenant.

5On December 15, 2023, Inspector Annette Bisschops of Greater Sudbury Fire Services conducted an inspection of the Building.

6On January 2, 2024, Inspector Bisschops served an Inspection Order on the owner, the appellant, and the tenant pursuant to s. 21(1)(g) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4, 1997 (FPPA), which requires an owner or occupant to remedy any contravention of the Fire Code (O Reg 213/07) (OFC).

7The Inspection Order required the owner and/or occupants to do the following in accordance with various provisions of the OFC:

Item 1: Install sprinklers in the furnace room by a qualified technician to meet the density of 6.5 L/min/m2 over the room area (OFC Article 9.8.2.3.).

Item 2: Install self-closing devices on each apartment door in the shared means of egress so that each door in the fire separation is designed to return the door to the closed position after each use (OFC reference not provided).

Item 3: Schedule a safety inspection for each unit in the building from the Electrical Safety Authority and provide the letter of compliance to the Greater Sudbury Chief Fire Official (OFC Article 9.8.6.1.).

Item 4: Remove combustibles stored within 36 inches of installed fuel burning appliances (OFC Article 2.1.2.2.).

Item 5: Remove items from the shared means of egress at the back of the building (OFC Sentence 2.7.1.7.(1)).

8The Inspection Order required the owner and/or occupants to complete the actions listed in the items above by February 15, 2024.

9On January 8, 2024, the appellant requested a review of the Inspection Order by the Fire Marshal pursuant to s. 25 of the FPPA. This request pertained to an extension of time to comply with the Inspection Order.

10The Fire Marshal’s Review Decision and Order FM-24003, issued March 4, 2025, (Review Order) set out the following:

1. It confirmed items 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the Inspection Order and amended the compliance date to September 5, 2025; and

2. It rescinded item 2 of the Inspection Order as not being applicable because no OFC reference was provided.

3. It indicated that should the Building be converted back to a single-family dwelling, Section 9.8 of the OFC would no longer be applicable.

11On March 5, 2025, the appellant appealed the Review Order to the Fire Safety Commission (Commission), pursuant to s. 26(1) of the FPPA. In her appeal, the appellant stated that the tenant has vacated the Building and it is a single-family dwelling.

ISSUE

12Should the Commission confirm, amend, or rescind the Review Order or make such other order as the Commission deems appropriate?

RESULT

13The Commission makes an order that the appellant has complied with the requirements set out in the Review Order by converting the Building to a single dwelling unit through the eviction of the tenant from the Building.

EVIDENCE

Respondent’s Position

14Inspector Phil D’Aoust testified on behalf of the respondent. He stated that he took over carriage of this matter from Inspector Bisschops on March 18, 2025, due to her retirement from Greater Sudbury Fire Services.

15Inspector D’Aoust testified that, even if the appellant has converted the Building to a single dwelling unit, this is insufficient protection as there is no guarantee that the appellant or owner of the Building will not convert it back to a house containing two existing residential units.

16The respondent’s position is that the appellant and owner of the Building be required to sign and have notarized a proposed letter of understanding assuring the respondent that:

1. The Building will continue to be used as a single residential dwelling unit; and

2. The owner will not rent the main floor, or basement apartment for remuneration while owning the Building, unless an application is made to the City of Sudbury for a secondary unit and a final occupancy notice is received from the City of Sudbury’s Building Services Department.

17Inspector D’Aoust was adamant that the proposed letter of understanding had to be notarized. However, he provided no verifiable evidence in support of a mandatory notarization requirement.

18Inspector D’Aoust stated that he has never conducted a site visit of the Building and that to the best of his knowledge no one from Greater Sudbury Fire Services has visited the Building since Inspector Bisschops conducted a site visit of the Building on December 15, 2023.

Appellant’s Position

19The appellant testified that she converted the Building to a single dwelling unit through the eviction of the tenant from the Building in or about September, 2024.

20The appellant stated that she advised Inspector Bisschops of the conversion of the Building to a single dwelling unit in or about September, 2024, and no follow up inspection of the Building was conducted by Inspector Bisschops prior to her retirement from Greater Sudbury Fire Services in or about March, 2025.

21The appellant testified that at no time prior to Inspector Bisschops’ retirement did Inspector Bisschops demand that the appellant produce a letter of understanding or other document guaranteeing that the appellant or owner of the Building will not convert it back to a house containing two existing residential units.

22The appellant testified that she suffered emotionally and financially while going through the lengthy and expensive Landlord and Tenant Board process to evict the tenant.

23The appellant stated that her and her family learned a hard lesson dealing with a problematic tenant and that they are content in their single family home and have no intention of renting the Building out in the future.

24The appellant submitted that she was willing to sign the proposed letter of understanding but she was not agreeable to paying additional legal costs to have the proposed letter of understanding notarized.

25The appellant testified that the request to provide a proposed notarized letter of understanding was made by Inspector D’Aoust and Inspector D’Aoust did not provide any explanation as to why such letter of understanding had to be notarized.

ANALYSIS

Applicable Sections of the OFC

26Items 1 and 3 of the Inspection Order, confirmed in the Review Order, both relied on Section 9.8, Division B of the OFC. However, Section 9.8, Division B of the OFC is not applicable when the Building is converted to a single dwelling unit. Pursuant to Sentence 9.8.1.1.(1), Division B of the OFC, Section 9.8 only applies to a detached house, semi-detached house or row house containing two existing residential units.

27Items 4 and 5 of the Inspection Order, confirmed in the Review Order, relied respectively on Article 2.1.2.2., Division B and Sentence 2.7.1.7.(1), Division B of the OFC. However, Article 2.1.2.2., Division B and Sentence 2.7.1.7.(1), Division B of the OFC are not applicable when the Building is converted to a single dwelling unit. Pursuant to Sentence 2.1.1.3.(1), Division B of the OFC, Article 2.1.2.2., Division B and Sentence 2.7.1.7.(1), Division B of the OFC do not apply to individual dwelling units.

Applicable Sections of the FPPA

28Pursuant to Subsections 19(6)(b) and (f) of the FPPA, a fire inspector conducting an inspection may demand documentation and question a person on matters relevant to the inspection.

29Subsection 19(6)(e) of the FPPA, references methods in order to produce a document in readable form, but, makes no reference or requirement that a document be produced in notarized form.

Analysis

30The Commission finds that the appellant has complied with the Review Order by converting the Building from a two residential unit to a single dwelling unit through the eviction of the tenant from the Building.

31The Commission determines that the appellant acted reasonably in refusing to pay additional legal costs to produce a notarized letter of understanding or other notarized document guaranteeing that the appellant or owner will not convert the Building back to a house containing two existing residential units.

32The Commission considers the appellant’s account of the difficult emotional and financial lessons her family endured while dealing with a problematic tenant as credible evidence of the sincerity of the appellant and the owner to not convert the Building back to a house containing two residential units in the future.

33The Commission determines that Inspector D’Aoust did not provide a reasonable explanation as to why a letter of understanding had to be notarized.

34The Commission notes that there is no basis under Section 19 of the FPPA to require the appellant to have a proposed letter of understanding notarized.

ORDER

35Pursuant to section 26(6) of the FPPA, the Commission makes an order that the appellant has complied with the Review Order by converting the Building to a single dwelling unit through the eviction of the tenant from the Building.