Appeal under s. 26 and 36 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.4
Between:
Amanda Hanson Appellant
and
South Dundas Fire and Emergency Services Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Peter Simmons, Member Paul Stopciati, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Amanda Hanson, Owner Jeff Bogaerts, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Jeremy Aldred-Hughes, Fire Chief, South Dundas Fire and Emergency Services Clara McGregor, Counsel
Heard by videoconference: June 10, 2024
OVERVIEW
1Amanda Hanson (“Appellant”) owns a building located at 4 Elizabeth Drive in Iroquois, Ontario (“Building”). The Building is a single-storey former place of worship. The Building consists of two large assembly type spaces with a commercial kitchen and a third space, formerly used as the nave. The former nave is being used as a space to work on automobile body parts and other items used in the Building.
2On November 28, 2024, Fire Chief Jeremy Aldred-Hughes of the South Dundas Fire and Emergency Services (“SDFES or “Respondent”) inspected the Building. On the same date, he issued an Inspection Order (“Inspection Order”) to the Appellant. The Inspection Order was issued under s. 21(1)(g) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4 (“FPPA”), which orders contraventions of the Fire Code to be remedied, to ensure fire safety at the property.
3The Inspection Order contained two items requiring compliance by January 17, 2025.
Item 1 – Ontario Fire Code (“OFC” or “Fire Code”) Reference 2.1.2.2. - Remove the auto repair portion of the occupancy, as the work performed, and the products used in a portion of the building, provide high risk (of hazard).
Item 2 – OFC Reference 2.1.3.1. - Provide approved engineered fire separation, with approvals from all authorities having jurisdiction, for the new use or remove the repair garage portion of the occupancy.
4The Appellant requested a Fire Marshal review of the Inspection Order pursuant to s. 25(1) of the FPPA, which was received by the Fire Marshal on December 11, 2024.
5The Fire Marshal issued its Review Decision and Order FM-24474 (“Review Order”) dated March 11, 2025 (“Review Decision”), in which the Fire Marshal confirmed Item 1 from the Inspection Order and rescinded Item 2. The Fire Marshal also amended the date for compliance of Item 1 from January 17, 2025, to April 11, 2025.
6On March 24, 2025, the Appellant appealed the Review Decision to the Fire Safety Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to s. 26(1) of the FPPA. In the appeal, the Appellant seeks to have Item 1 of the Review Order rescinded because she believes the Building construction is more than adequate for the activities conducted in the former nave space hereinafter referred to as the “occupancy space.”
ISSUE
7Should the Commission confirm, amend, or rescind the Review Order, or make such other order as it deems appropriate?
RESULT
8The Commission amends the Review Order as follows:
Immediately cease all activities in the workshop area formerly the nave of the Building.
Remove the workshop use in the occupancy space formerly the nave of the Building, and all parts, equipment, machines, flammable liquids and solvents, compressed gases and chemicals, and materials used in the fabrication, production or manufacture of display pieces, props and furniture used in and around the Building or sold by the Appellant.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
The Law
9The OFC, O. Reg 213/07, as amended, is a provincial regulation made under the FPPA, which governs fire safety within existing buildings.
10Part 2 (Fire Safety) Article 2.1.1.1. Division B1 (Scope) of the Fire Code states, “This Part provides measures for the fire safety of persons and buildings,2 including the elimination or control of fire hazards in and around buildings, the maintenance of certain life safety systems in buildings, the establishment of a fire safety plan in certain buildings and the installation of smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms.”
11Article 2.1.2.1 of the Fire Code states that “for the purpose of applying this Code, a building or part thereof shall be classified according to its major occupancy by the Chief Fire Official in conformance with the Building Code.”
12Article 2.1.2.2 of the Fire Code further states that “activities that create a hazard and that are not allowed for in the original design shall not be carried out in a building unless approved provisions are made to control the hazard.”
13The Ontario Building Code (OBC) is a provincial regulation made under the Building Code Act,1992, SO 1992, c 23. The OBC provides definitions, words and phrases that are contextual and commonly used in the building industry and to which the Fire Code conforms.
14The OBC and Fire Code are companion regulations intended to ensure that newly constructed buildings and existing buildings are built, and then maintained, to safeguard the occupants against fire hazards. Both the OFC and OBC were cited by the parties.
Is auto repair being performed in the occupancy space?
15The Appellant stated that the Building is currently used as a themed event space/event hall and that the occupancy space is a workshop, acknowledging that it contains equipment and materials that are used on automobile parts that are displayed in other parts of the Building.
16Neither party disputes the fact that the Building no longer functions as a place of worship, and that the occupancy space is not being used as a nave or to accommodate a congregation.
17The Appellant disputes that the occupancy space is being used as, or for, auto repair as referenced in the Inspection Order Item #1. She stated that vehicles are not restored to useable or operable condition. Rather, vehicle components, automobile frames, bodies, and/or parts are worked on, and used to create art pieces that may include non-operating vehicles that are put on display in the exhibit/event space. The Appellant added that the vehicles have no batteries, gas tanks or motors, and any engine used as part of an exhibit is not operable and has been emptied of flammables and fuels.
18The Appellant further argued that the auto repair portion of the occupancy space, cannot be “removed as a use” per the Action Required of the Inspection Order because it (the auto repair) does not exist because they do not repair automobiles.
19The Respondent stated that during his inspection, he observed equipment including drill presses, a wood planer, a band saw, and welding type equipment with compressed gas cylinders, along with various containers of solvents and cleaning fluids with flammable symbols on the bottles in the occupancy space. He referred to photo evidence showing the occupancy space with the equipment and materials he observed.3
20The Respondent stated that he did not complete a detailed inventory of the products or equipment, inspect any work, or examine the materials in the occupancy space. However, some of the equipment he observed, specifically the compressed gas cylinders, indicated that “hot” works were being performed in the occupancy space. He referred to photo evidence that shows the gas cylinders and TIG (Tungsten Inert Gas) welding machine.4
21The Respondent stated that the occupancy space contains an auto repair use but when asked during cross examination if he observed automobile transmissions, automobile hoists, or tire balancing equipment, he said he did not.
22Neither the OBC nor Fire Code provide a definition of auto repair. In the absence of a definition, the Commission defaults to the OBC definition of Repair Garage for analogous context which provides us with the following:
- Repair Garage means a building or part of a building where facilities are provided for the repair or servicing of motor vehicles.5
23We find that the Appellant is not performing auto repair, auto servicing, or operating a repair garage. No persuasive evidence was presented to indicate that the Appellant is repairing, restoring, building, reconditioning, painting, performing body work, straightening, servicing, or cleaning on motor vehicles to maintain or bring them to operable condition.
24However, we do find that work is being performed on vehicle carcasses and/or vehicle parts in the occupancy space involving the tools, equipment and solvents referenced above in paragraphs 19 and 20 of this Decision. This fact is not disputed by either party.
25We find that the occupancy space is being used as a workshop for the production, fabrication, and/or modifying of automobile body parts or automobile mechanical parts for exhibit and decorative use.
What is the occupancy type, and what is the occupancy space used for?
26The Appellant argued that the Building is classified as OBC Assembly Group A Division 2 (A-2) and is used as an event exhibition space. The Appellant further argued that the occupancy space is more than adequately protected for the activities conducted in the Building. The Commission infers this to mean the production, modifying, and/or fabrication work performed on a range of automobile parts and components in the workshop.
27The Appellant’s witness, Adam Jenson, of DDDG Engineering Services testified that the Building is constructed of non-combustible materials, including poured concrete, masonry, and pre-cast haunch beams with cast concrete roof panel construction.
28Mr. Jenson also spoke to a letter/report that he prepared and that was approved by a Professional Engineer at the request of the Appellant to “determine the appropriate fire separations required between the primary assembly space of the Building…and the workshop space in the former nave, and to determine whether the appropriate level of fire-separation is currently provided.”6 The letter states that the Building is classified under the OBC as a Group A-2 occupancy, and is used as an event space/exhibition space, and that the occupancy space is used as a workshop.
29Mr. Jenson highlighted sections of the letter that addressed upgrades necessary to improve the fire resistance rating of doors in the Building. His letter also included reference to OBC industrial occupancies, specifically, Low Hazard Industrial Occupancy (F-3), Medium Hazard Industrial Occupancy (F-2), and High Hazard Industrial Occupancy (F-1). He testified that the improvements discussed in the letter would allow the workshop space (former nave) to be classified as F-2, adding that the improvements would contain the current hazards in the workshop.
30Under cross examination, Mr. Jenson stated he did not see any automobile repair being performed during his visit of March 18, 2025.
31Mr. Jenson acknowledged that the occupancy space did not likely contemplate auto repair type work when the Building was designed and built. He also acknowledged that the letter contains no calculations or formulas relating to combustible materials, or occupant or fire loads.
32The Respondent stated that they do not know the exact current use of the occupancy space other than it is not as originally intended, which is a nave, adding that this was apparent from the materials, parts, and equipment in the space.
33The Respondent stated further that the original use of the Building and occupancy space is an Assembly occupancy and that the space is currently being used for auto repair that it is not within the scope of A-2 occupancy use.
34The Respondent stated that no provisions have been made for the hazards that have been introduced to the occupancy space referring to the equipment and materials observed during his inspection.
35The Respondent’s witness, the Chief Building Official (CBO) for the municipality, concurred with the F-1, F-2, and F-3 OBC hazard industrial occupancies definitions.
36The CBO stated that he is not clear on the intended use of the occupancy space adding that it is not approved for anything other than its original use. He stated further that the space is not OBC F-2 or F-3 compliant because there has been no approved change of use.7
37The Appellant’s witness and partner, Eric Major, stated that items worked on in the occupancy space are for the Appellant’s use in and around the event space to assist in creating themed experiences for patrons. He added that nothing worked on is for sale.
38Mr. Major stated that there are no hoists, tire balancing equipment, or gasoline or oil in the occupancy space, adding that it functions as a workshop. He stated that some welding occurs when creating pieces for the event space, but that it is limited to TIG/Argon type welding and that no oxyfuel/acetylene fuels are used in metal cutting.
39Mr. Major stated that the chemicals in and around the occupancy space are solvents and washes for parts that may have been removed from vehicles frames. He acknowledged that they may be flammable but are not unlike those found in any household or home garage.
40We find that the Building was designed for use as Assembly Group A Division 2 (A-2) occupancy. Subsection 2.1.2.1 of the OFC states that “For the purpose of applying this code, a building or part thereof shall be classified according to its major occupancy by the Chief Fire Official in conformance with the Building Code.”
41We find that the work performed, and the equipment, materials, and products used and stored by the Appellant in the occupancy space are not in keeping with the original design, building classification, and intended use of the space or Building. The original blueprints that were provided as evidence show the occupancy space as the nave of a former place of worship with no reference to a workshop.8
42We also find that the work performed, and the equipment, materials, and products used and stored by the Appellant in the occupancy space impose hazards to which approved provisions have not been made. There is no persuasive evidence that the new hazards were contemplated in the original design and construction of the Building.
CONCLUSION
43The issue facing the Commission focusses on OFC Article 2.1.2.2. Specifically, that activities that create a hazard and that are not allowed for in the original design shall not be conducted in a building unless approved provisions are made to control the hazard.9
44The Commission accepts the Appellant’s submissions and arguments that they do not perform auto repair or servicing, and that they use the occupancy space to modify automobile bodies and parts for use and display around the event space. There was no persuasive evidence indicating that the equipment, materials, and tools in the occupancy space are used for auto repair, auto maintenance or servicing of operable or intended to be operable motor vehicles.
45The Commission does not accept the Appellant’s evidence that the occupancy space is “directly supporting the Assembly Group A Division 2 (A-2) Occupancy of the rest of the Building” or that it is used to create furniture and display pieces, perform repairs, and fabricate parts “essential” to the maintenance of the building and operation of the business.10
46Both the OBC and Fire Code define “major occupancy” as “the principal occupancy for which a building or part thereof is used, or intended to be used and includes the subsidiary occupancies that are an integral part of the principal occupancy.
47The Commission is not persuaded that the occupancy space which is used as a workshop is ancillary to the remainder of the Building, which is an A-2 (Assembly) occupancy. Furthermore, there was no persuasive evidence from the Appellant that the workshop is an approved subsidiary occupancy.
48Neither party has established which sub-occupancy the workshop is through an approved change of use. Consequently, neither party’s arguments that the space could be OBC F-2 or F-3 was afforded any weight.
49We accept the Respondent’s arguments and evidence that hazards not contemplated in the original design or use of the Building and occupancy space are present in the workshop. The photo evidence coupled with the testimony of the Respondent and the admission of the Appellant about the type of work performed and the materials and equipment used indicates that hazards have been introduced for which provisions were not made.
ORDER
50Pursuant to Section 26(6) of the FPPA, the Commission amends Inspection Order Item #1 as follows:
Immediately cease all activities in the workshop area formerly the nave of the Building.
Remove the workshop use in the occupancy space formerly the nave of the Building, and all parts, equipment, machines, flammable liquids and solvents, compressed gases and chemicals, and materials used in the fabrication, production or manufacture of display pieces, props and furniture used in and around the Building or sold by the Appellant.
51The Commission amends the completion date to 45 days from the release of this decision.
Released: July 28, 2025
Peter Simmons, Member
Paul Stopciati, Member
Footnotes
- Note that all subsequent references to the Fire Code, are to Division B
- All text in bold typeface refers to defined terms in the Fire Code
- Exhibits 1 and 2 from the Joint Document Brief
- The Respondent defined hot works as that involving heat, open flames, and flammable materials. See: Hot work | Guideline for working in confined spaces | ontario.ca
- OBC Section 1.4 Terms and Abbreviations.
- Exhibit 5 (Joint Document Brief)
- Change of Use: See OBC Part 10
- Exhibit 4 (Joint Document Brief)
- Exhibit 3 (Joint Document Brief)
- Page 61 (Joint Document Brief)