Appeal under section 26 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.4
Between:
MD Nazmul Hoque
Appellant
and
Toronto Fire Services
Respondent
MOTION DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Peter Simmons, Member
For the Appellant: MD Nazmul Hoque, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Georgia Tanner, Counsel, Toronto Fire Services
Held in Writing: August 22, 2025
OVERVIEW
1On June 20, 2025, MD Nazmul Hoque (appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) with the Fire Safety Commission (Commission).
2On June 30, 2025, the Commission informed the appellant that his appeal was incomplete. On July 16, 2025, the Commission informed the appellant that his appeal would not proceed as it was filed outside the prescribed time to file an appeal, and he had not sought an extension of time to file the appeal. The Commission also informed the appellant that he may file a Notice of Motion (Motion) seeking an extension of time for bringing an appeal.
3On July 21, 2025, the appellant brought a motion to the Commission pursuant to section 26 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 (FPPA) and s. 4.5(1)(a) and (b) of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act seeking an extension of time to appeal the Fire Marshal Review and Order.
ISSUE
4The issue before me is whether the appellant should be granted an extension of time to file a NOA from the review decision of the Fire Marshal.
RESULT
5The grounds for granting an extension of time to file an appeal have not been met, and the appellant’s motion to extend the deadline to file an appeal is denied.
BACKGROUND
6On November 21, 25 and 27, 2024, Toronto Fire Services (respondent) conducted an inspection of the appellant’s property at 3 Wagner Drive, Toronto, ON (property).
7The respondent issued an Inspection Order to the appellant pursuant to s. 21(1)(f) of the FPPA on December 6, 2024, requiring action on several items and that they be completed by January 20, 2025.
8The appellant requested a Fire Marshal review of the Inspection Order that was received by the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) on January 15, 2025. The appellant did not seek a review of the substance of the action items in the Inspection Order, but only additional time to complete the action items.
9On May 23, 2025, Fire Marshal Review No. FM-25-0016 (Review) was issued to the appellant. The Review amended the date to complete the action items in the Inspection Order from January 20, 2025, to June 23, 2025.
10On June 20, 2025, the appellant appealed the Review to the Commission stating that he had decided “not to proceed with renting out the basement (of the property) at this time.”
11On June 30, 2025, the Commission emailed the appellant informing him that his appeal was incomplete. On July 16, 2025, the Commission informed the appellant that his appeal would not proceed as it was both filed outside the prescribed time to file an appeal, and he had not sought an extension to file the appeal. The Commission also informed the appellant he may file a Notice of Motion seeking an extension of time for bringing an appeal. The Commission closed File No. 17260/FSC.
12On July 17, 2025, the appellant submitted a new NOA to the Commission seeking an appeal of the Review, adding that he intended to pursue the appeal in full and that his delay in appealing was due to time taken to” assess feasibility and understand the legal requirements”. The appellant also was seeking an extension of time to file his appeal. The Commission assigned this appeal File No. 17414/FSC.
13On July 21, 2025, the appellant submitted a Notice of Motion (NOM) to the Commission requesting an extension of time to file an appeal of the FM Review, adding that he now intended to proceed with the appeal.
ANALYSIS
14Subsection 26(1) of the FFPA permits a person who considers themselves to be aggrieved by an order made by the OFM under subsection 21(1) or (2) or section 25 to appeal the order to the Commission.
15Subsection 26(2) of the FPPA states that notice of appeal from an order referred to in subsection (1) shall be filed with the Commission within 15 days after the order is served.
16Pursuant to subsection 26(3), the Commission may, upon application by a person referred to in subsection (1), extend the time for appealing an order if it is satisfied that the are apparent grounds for granting the appeal and there are reasonable grounds for applying for the extension and may give directions that it considers proper consequent upon the extension.
17Subsection 26(4) of the FPPA provides that an application for extension may be made before or after expiration of the time fixed in subsection (2) but shall be made within 30 days after a copy of the order from which the appeal is made is served.
18When considering an application pursuant to subsection 26(3) the Commission must apply a two-part test:
a. Whether there are apparent grounds for granting the appeal; and
b. Whether there are reasonable grounds for granting an extension.
19It is the appellant who bears the onus of satisfying the two-part test.
Are there apparent grounds for granting the appeal?
20For the reasons that follow, I find there is/are no apparent ground(s) for granting an appeal.
21The respondent provided submissions to the Commission that opposes the appellant’s request for an extension of time to appeal and submits the appeal (from July 17, 2025) did not conform to Rule 15.1 of the Commission’s Rules in that the appellant did not describe the decision requested from the Commission (15.1(a)), or establish the grounds to be argued, including relevant statutory or regulatory provisions, Rules or case law relied upon (15.1(b)), and that no evidence to support the motion was provided (15.1(c)).
22The appellant’s submission that he was delayed in applying for an appeal was due to the time he took to undertake a feasibility study and assessment of the legal implications of the Review is not persuasive. The appellant provided no details pertaining to the scope of the studies he commissioned, or any explanation as to why the studies or the review of them may have taken as long as they did. Further, the appellant was not prevented from initiating an appeal within the prescribed time frame for appeals concurrent with the undertaking of the reviews and studies.
23The appellant has not provided any persuasive evidence, or grounds, to support the granting an extension of time for an appeal. His submissions were limited to the details he provided in the NOA which were his intentions to rent the basement unit, and that he was delayed in filing an appeal as he sought to “understand legal implications” on which he did not elaborate.
Are there reasonable grounds for granting an extension?
24For the reasons that follow, I find there is no reasonable ground for granting an extension of time to file an appeal.
25The appellant submits in his motion that the delay in filing an appeal was due to time taken to assess feasibility of compliance and understanding the legal implications of the process, and that they “have (now) decided to proceed with the appeal.”
26The respondent submits that the appellant has not demonstrated a reasonable explanation to the Commission for it to grant an extension.
27The respondent also submits that the safety risk to the persons occupying the property persists through a granting of an extension to the time to file an appeal application.
28The appellant’s submissions are limited to his decision and intention to proceed with an appeal, and that he was delayed in appealing because of the time he used to assess feasibility and legal implications for compliance.
29The appellant provided no details as to why the feasibility study or legal implications should be viewed as supporting reasons for granting an extension of time to allow an appeal.
30The appellant’s reversal of his decision from not intending to rent the basement apartment as specified in his original appeal to intending to rent the basement in the new appeal is a complete departure from his original intentions and cannot be overlooked in the context of his seeking an extension of time to appeal. When read with his statement that, “I now wish to pursue the appeal in full” it implies that he intends to appeal more than the item he requested in a Fire Marshal review, which was the date to complete the action items from the Inspection Order.
31Further, the appellant submitted his motion to the Commission on July 21, 2025, which is 12 days past the 30 days afforded to appellants seeking an extension of time to file pursuant to s. 26(4) of the FPPA.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
32The appellant has not established apparent grounds for granting the appeal, and there are no reasonable grounds to grant an extension. His original appeal was submitted 21 days after the issuance of the Review, which exceeds the 15-day maximum as detailed in s. 26(2) of the FPPA, and his subsequent appeal included revised reasons inconsistent with the original appeal.
33Neither the original nor subsequent appeal from the appellant established a ground for appeal that was within the scope of the Review by the Fire Marshal, and the details in the appellant’s motion do not amount to a reasonable request for extension of time to appeal.
34The appellant’s motion is dismissed. The Commission will not grant an extension of time to submit an appeal.
Released: September 25, 2025
Peter Simmons, Member