G.F. v. Brantford Fire Department, 2025 ONFSC 47

Fire Safety Commission

Citation: G.F. v. Brantford Fire Department, 2025 ONFSC 47 Date: 2025-08-01

Appeal under s. 26(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.4

Between: G.F. Appellant

and

Brantford Fire Department Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair

Appearances: For the Appellant: G.F., Self-represented For the Respondent: Geoffrey B. Daley, Counsel

Heard in writing: June 23, 2025

OVERVIEW

1G.F. ("Appellant") appeals an Inspection Order issued by Brantford Fire Department regarding various contraventions of the Fire Code, O. Reg. 213/07 in a single-storey residential building ("Building", and "dwelling unit") she occupies as a tenant, in Brantford, Ontario.

2On December 12, 2024, Inspector Geoffrey Midgley of the Brantford Fire Department ("Respondent") inspected the Building pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4 (FPPA). He issued an Inspection Order ("Order") on Ashley Cordier, the Building owner ("Building owner"), pursuant to s. 21(1)(c) of the FPPA, which provides for removing combustible or explosive material or any thing that may constitute a fire hazard. The Order required compliance by February 19, 2025. The Order was served on the Building owner on December 19, 2024, by email. She did not appeal the Order.

3Inspector Midgley issued an identical Order on the Appellant as the occupant of the Building. The Order was served on December 19, 2024, by email.

4The Appellant submitted an Application for Fire Marshal Review of an Order ("Application") to the Fire Marshal, pursuant to s. 25 of the FPPA, as she considered herself aggrieved by the Order. The date on her Application was recorded as January 28, 2025.

5The Fire Marshal issued Fire Marshal Review FM-25-0029 on February 5, 2025, exercising its power under clause 25(4)(a) of the FPPA to refuse to consider the substance of the request, and referred the matter to the Fire Safety Commission ("Commission") for a hearing under s. 26.

6The Commission sent a Notice of Case Conference to the parties on February 19, 2025, and a case conference was held on March 5, 2025. The Appellant emailed the Commission an hour before the case conference was scheduled to start, requesting an adjournment and accommodations¹. The Commission declined the adjournment request because it was filed late (pursuant to Rule 16.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission's Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version 1 (October 2, 2017), as amended (Rules)). The Commission emailed the Appellant, advising that there was insufficient notice to reschedule the case conference as the request was made the same morning, and that she should attend the case conference and present her accommodation requests there.

7The Appellant did not attend the case conference despite two emails the morning of the case conference and having been advised of the case conference first on February 19, 2025, and then reminded of it on February 27, 2025. The case conference proceeded in her absence resulting in a hearing being scheduled to hear the Appellant's appeal of the Order.

8A Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties on March 14, 2025, scheduling a hearing for April 17, 2025, to be held via videoconference.

9After considering and addressing several accommodation requests filed by the Appellant (including that all communication with her be by regular mail, the formatting of all documents, reference to the Appellant being reduced to her initials, and an extended period of time to participate in the proceedings) the Commission converted the hearing to a written hearing to be held on June 23, 2025.

10In her Application, the Appellant seeks the Order to be rescinded on the basis that she has complied with a previous Order and continues to comply with an earlier order addressing the same issue. Alternatively, the Appellant seeks an amended Order providing additional time to comply. Furthermore, the Appellant requests accommodations for disability-related needs "as they become apparent"

11The Respondent asks that the Order be confirmed.

ISSUE

12The issue in dispute is:

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

RESULT

13The Commission:

a. Rescinds Item 1, regarding creating 610 mm wide egress routes from each room to facilitate stretchers;

b. Amends Item 2, regarding providing 1 m clearance from combustibles to all ignition sources, as follows:

Combustible material shall be spaced a minimum of 1 m from all ignition sources including the stove and water heater, to be completed within 2 weeks of the release of this decision;

c. Rescinds Item 3, regarding maintaining piles to a maximum height of 1 m to ensure stability;

d. Makes a new Item 4, pursuant to s. 21(1)(f) of the FPPA as follows:

Provide egress paths from the doorway of each room leading to the front entrance and to the side entrance. The egress paths shall be no less than 0.61 m in width, and clear of any objects from the floor to the ceiling. Objects adjacent the egress paths shall be stable such that there is no risk that they may fall into the egress paths and obstruct it. Item 4 shall be completed within 8 weeks of the release of this decision; and

e. Makes a new Item 5, pursuant to s. 21(1)(f) of the FPPA as follows:

Maintain a minimum clearance of 1 m from the ceiling to stored items, to ensure adequate clearance for smoke alarm operation, to be completed within 4 weeks of the release of this decision.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

The Appellant requested an Adjournment of the April 17, 2025, hearing

14The hearing was scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m. on April 17, 2025, However, on March 28, 2025, the Appellant requested an adjournment by email.

15In her request, the Appellant referenced the need for various disability-related accommodations (including all communications to be written and formatted according to her specifications and mailed rather than emailed to her. She also referenced a need for a confidentiality order².

16Also, on March 31, 2025, a health care provider for the Appellant emailed the Commission referencing the Appellant's March 28, 2025, email and reinforcing the Appellant's earlier requests. This email noted that the Appellant needed a hiatus for "recovery to enable resumption of the appeal process", and a "self-paced timeline." The individual made it clear that she was not acting as a representative for the Appellant.

17On April 14, 2025, the Appellant emailed a 19-page document requesting additional relief on several items.

18On April 14, 2025, the Commission issued an Order to the parties, including confidentiality details, and rescheduling the written hearing for June 23, 2025.

19On April 17, 2025, the Commission issued a further Order in which it denied various other requests of the Appellant.

The Appellant's May 13, 2025, email, and the Commission's May 14, 2025, Order

20On May 12, 2025, the Appellant's health care provider again emailed the Commission with a further update and requests for accommodations and a confidentiality order.

21On May 13, 2025, the Commission received an email from the Appellant requesting the hearing be rescheduled, along with other various accommodations.

22On May 14, 2025, the Commission issued an Order to the parties, denying the adjournment request of the scheduled June 23, 2025, hearing, and denying the other requests.

The Appellant's June 17, 2025, email, and the Commission's June 19, 2025, letter

23On June 17, 2025, the Appellant emailed the Commission, following up on her health care provider's May 12, 2025, communication, and including five documents related to accommodation and confidentiality requests.

24On June 19, 2025, the Commission issued a letter to the Appellant regarding her June 17, 2025, email. The Commission asked the Appellant to submit a Declaration of Representation for the health care worker, because the health care worker's status (i.e. previously she wrote that she was not acting on the Appellant's behalf) now appeared to have changed. The letter also requested that the Appellant clarify if she was making additional accommodation requests.

The Appellant continues to email the Commission

25Not referenced above are various other emails from the Appellant that she continued to send after her June 17, 2025, email, all of which related to accommodation requests, adjournment requests, and requests for confidentiality. They are similar to those addressed above and will not be addressed further in this Decision.

26None of the Appellant's communications included submissions for the hearing as required in the Case Conference Report and Order dated March 11, 2025, and later in the April 14, 2025, Order.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

27On May 30, 2025, the Respondent requested the Commission dismiss the appeal without a hearing, as it appeared that the Appellant had abandoned her appeal. The basis for this was that she had not attended the case conference or made submissions for the hearing. The Respondent did not file a Motion.

28Rule 3.4 of the Rules provides for the Commission to dismiss an appeal without a hearing where an appellant is found to have abandoned the proceeding. Dismissal is contingent however on Rule 3.5 of the Rules, which requires that the Commission:

a) Give notice to the parties of its intent to dismiss the proceeding;

b) Provide reasons for its intent to dismiss;

c) Inform the parties of their right to make submissions; and

d) Consider the written submissions.

29The Commission dismissed the request, because it was clear that the Appellant had not abandoned her appeal, based on her numerous communications to the Commission (including on March 28, April 14, May 13, June 17, 2025).

ANALYSIS

Should the Order dated December 19, 2024, be confirmed, rescinded, or amended, or should the Commission make such other Order as deemed appropriate?

30Section 26(6) of the FPPA provides the powers of the Fire Safety Commission to confirm, amend or rescind an order of the Fire Marshal or make such other order as it deems appropriate.

31For the reasons that follow, I rescind Items 1 and 3 of the Order, amend Item 2, and order new Items 4 and 5. I further amend the compliance timelines.

a) The Order, and related Law

32On December 19, 2024, Inspector Midgley issued an Order to the Appellant pursuant to s. 21(1)(c) of the FPPA. The Order indicated that the following contraventions of the Fire Code, O. Reg. 213/07 as amended ("OFC" or "Fire Code"), were observed at the Building. However, the Order did not reference specific OFC articles:

1. Excessive combustible materials are stored throughout the building, resulting in obstructed egress routes;

2. Combustible materials are situated too close to ignition sources (stove top); and

3. Excessive combustible materials are stored throughout the building, resulting in hazardous living conditions, due to the height and stability of storage piles.

33The Order required the Appellant to make the following corrective actions by February 19, 2025:

1. Egress routes (paths) to exits from each room in the unit including the stairwell and front landing shall be a minimum of 610 mm (24 inches) in width, ambulance stretchers are 559 mm (22 inches) and need to be able to move. Stored combustible material shall be kept in a manner which is stable and wouldn't constitute a hazard in the event of a fire and fall into the means of egress;

2. Combustible material shall be spaced a minimum of 1000 mm (1 meter) away from all ignition sources; remove items from stove top, inside stove and create a 1-meter clearance from all baseboard heaters; and

3. Maintain a maximum height of 1 m piles to ensure stability of the piles.

34Section 21(1)(c) of the FPPA states the following:

An inspector who has carried out an inspection of land and premises under s. 19 or 20 may order the owner or occupant of the land or premises to take any measure necessary to ensure fire safety on the land and premises and may for that purpose order the owner or occupant to remove combustible or explosive material or any thing that may constitute a fire hazard.

35Section 18 of the FPPA describes fire safety as including the following:

Safety from the risk that a fire, if started, would seriously endanger the health and safety of any person or the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it.

Item 1 is rescinded because the Respondent did not provide a rationale supportive of it being required to address a fire hazard (pursuant to s. 21(1)(c) of the FPPA); The Commission makes a similar new order (pursuant to s. 21(1)(f) of the FPPA) requiring egress routes within the dwelling unit because that clause includes the requirement for egress routes for fire safety

b) Item 1: Removing excessive combustible materials, to restore egress routes is rescinded

36I rescind Item 1 of the Order for the reasons that follow.

37In her Application, the Appellant indicated that she had already complied with a previous Order, and that conditions had not changed. She did not provide any materials to support her position. The Respondent, however, included an Inspection Order dated August 5, 2022, in its submissions. That Inspection Order, issued to the Appellant, ordered the following item, with compliance to be achieved by October 5, 2022:

2. Provide and maintain minimum aisle width of 1 m in all access to exits (halls) throughout the dwelling to allow for the egress in the event of a fire emergency. Provide and maintain exit doors with minimum 1 m clearance to all combustibles such that they are unobstructed and may operate as designed to allow for egress in the event of a fire emergency.

38The Respondent's submissions also included an email from Inspector Michael Owen to the Appellant on January 9, 2023, stating that the building was in compliance with the Order issued on October 5, 2022, and attaching photos.

39The Respondent's submissions further included a series of emails, which included one from the Appellant to Chief Fire Prevention Officer Scott Hardwick, dated December 19, 2024. In that email, the Appellant referenced Inspector Owen's January 9, 2023, email, and photos, stating that she has maintained the acceptable levels of compliance. She provided six separate photos she took on December 19, 2024, for comparison to prove this. She asked that the authorization of compliance be upheld (photos were not included in the submissions).

40The Respondent noted in its submissions that egress routes were measured during the December 12, 2024, inspection as being 0.468 m in width on the main floor level. Photographs were provided of the stairs to the basement from the side entry door, from the kitchen facing the side entry door area (noting it was the only accessible door to the outside), and the kitchen area from the side entry door, and the bedroom entry to illustrate this issue.

41The Respondent provided justification for the egress route widths, noting that ambulance stretchers are 0.559 m and need to be accommodated. That said, Item 1 of the Order does not describe how keeping an egress route of no less than 0.61 m will address a fire hazard.

42The Respondent provided the following Commission decisions to support the remedy requested:

a. R.W. v Guelph Fire Department, 2017 ONFSC 10741 (R.W.): At paragraph 54, the Commission referenced the Inspector justifying a 2 ft wide aisleway width based on the need for emergency response equipment such as stretchers to move, and that the volume of combustible material in the building could impede egress for occupants of the apartment and fire emergency response personnel;

b. Wittig v. Guelph Fire Department, 2021 ONFSC 4 (Wittig): At paragraphs 2 to 4, it was noted that the Inspector ordered 2 ft wide pathways from all rooms to both the front and balcony doors, and the Fire Marshal's Review Decision modified that item to 1 m clearance, rationalizing that this was to align it with other Fire Marshal Review Decisions; and

c. K.R. v. Toronto Fire Services, 2018 ONFSC 8 (K.R.): At paragraphs 29, 30, and 34, in which the Commission states "response personnel might not be able to reach the inner areas of the apartment efficiently to rescue occupants. If pathways are too narrow, equipment such as stretchers cannot get through." In this decision, the Commission was satisfied that the 1 m clearance ordered was necessary to ensure fire safety.

43I am not bound by other decisions made by the Commission. I have reviewed the Respondent's submissions and the case law it relied upon, and I am not persuaded that access for ambulance stretchers necessarily relates to fire hazards.

44The Respondent also did not provide a prescriptive requirement, either from the Building Code, O. Reg. 332/12 (OBC) or the Fire Code, regarding the need for egress routes within a dwelling unit, or the widths for fire safety.

45Therefore, I rescind Item 1 because:

a. Item 1 does not appear to relate to a fire hazard (which is the basis for an order made pursuant to s. 21(1)(c) of the FPPA); and

b. The only basis provided for in the Order regarding the width of the egress route was to enable stretchers to be carried, which is not related to fire safety.

46Nevertheless, s. 26(6) of the FPPA provides for the Commission, in addition to confirming, amending, or rescinding an order, to make such other order as it deems appropriate.

47Section 21(1)(f) of the FPPA permits an inspector to order the occupant of premises to take any measure necessary to ensure fire safety at the premises and may order the occupant to do anything respecting fire safety, including anything related to means of egress. This section more accurately reflects an order for an egress route to be provided in a dwelling unit, where neither the OBC nor the OFC have provisions for such.

48I am persuaded by the Respondent's evidence that there is an excess of materials in the Building, resulting in insufficient space to egress from rooms to the front and side exits. In making this finding, I place greater weight on the Respondent's evidence because it includes both photographs and measurements of the egress path an individual would take to reach the two entrances. While the Appellant said she was in compliance with the previous Order, which was for a 1 m egress path, Inspector Midgley's measurements indicate that she was not.

49The OBC and OFC do not include requirements for egress routes within a dwelling. Generally, egress routes are required in public spaces of a building for occupants to egress in a fire emergency and for access for fire emergency responders. In this case, I find that ordering egress routes is necessary, because it is clear from the photographs that egress may not be otherwise possible. Section 21(1)(f) of the FPPA provides for ordering requirements where they are not otherwise provided for in the OFC.

50Therefore, pursuant to my authority in s. 26(6) of the FPPA, I make the following new Order:

The Appellant is required to provide egress paths from the doorway of each room leading to the front entrance and to the side entrance. The egress paths shall be no less than 0.61 m in width, and clear of any objects from the floor to the ceiling. Objects adjacent the egress paths shall be stable such that there is no risk that they may fall into the egress paths and obstruct it.

c) Item 2: Remove combustible materials situated too close to ignition sources is modified

51For the reasons that follow, I modify Item 2 of the Order as follows:

Combustible material shall be spaced a minimum of 1 m from all ignition sources including the stove and water heater.

52The Respondent submitted that clearance of combustibles to the stove was measured as 0.20 m, with photographs to support this. Photographs of the water heater were also provided, and while measurements were not, I am concerned that as an ignition source, the materials appeared are proximate and therefore present a fire hazard.

53I agree with the Respondent's submissions that combustible materials are situated too close to ignition sources such as the stove top, and water heater, and constitute a fire hazard as they present a risk of accidental ignition.

54Section 2.4 of the OFC provides that combustible materials shall not be accumulated in areas such that it creates a fire hazard. The section includes requirements for various locations, rooms, and spaces, with the proviso that accumulated combustibles are not permitted unless the space is designed specifically for that use (e.g. a storage room). Requirements include that combustibles shall not accumulate within means of egress, and service rooms (e.g. where furnaces and water heaters are located).

55Article 2.1.1.3. however, states that Section 2.4 does not apply to individual dwelling units; the Building is an individual dwelling unit.

56While not regulated in dwelling units, combustible materials accumulated within a space normally designed to contain service equipment such as a furnace or water heater, may pose a fire hazard if these are fuel-fired and the combustible materials are in close proximity. Photographs submitted by the Respondent indicate that the water heater is in close proximity to the boxes and large plastic bags stored there. The Appellant made no submissions that these are not combustibles or are greater than 1 m from the ignition sources.

57No evidence was provided by the Respondent that there were combustibles on top of the stove, or inside the oven. However, if there are combustibles in these locations, these should be removed because when the oven or stove is turned on, it is an ignition source and poses a fire hazard. I recognize that this is a transitory issue, as combustibles may only be within this space on some occasions. The requirement, however, is to be maintained on all occasions.

58No evidence was provided to support that a 1 m clearance is required around baseboard heaters, either by regulation or by manufacturer. For this reason, I have removed reference to it from Item 2 of the Order.

59The Respondent relied on the decisions described above in paragraph [42] to support this Item. It summarized the Fire Marshal's Review Decision in Wittig, in which the order was amended to maintain a minimum 1 m clearance from ignition sources to reduce the risk of accidental ignition.

60In Wittig, the Commission found that while baseboard heaters may pose a risk of ignition, "we decline to impose a 1 m clearance requirement, as that appears overly restrictive in the absence of a regulatory requirement or technical guideline specifying clearances of both furnishings and combustibles."

61The Appellant did not provide any submissions to dispute the Respondent's position that combustibles were in close proximity to ignition sources and created a fire hazard.

62For the reasons above, I modify Item 2 of the Order to remove reference to baseboard heaters and to add the water heater as examples of ignition sources:

Combustible material shall be spaced a minimum of 1 m from all ignition sources including the stove and water heater.

Item 3: Maintain a maximum height of 1m piles to ensure stability of the piles is rescinded

63For the reasons that follow, I rescind Item 3.

64The Respondent made no submissions regarding how stability of the piles was a fire hazard or related to other fire safety issues.

65The Respondent provided photographs of areas inside the Building which indicated stacks of boxes to varying heights, and in some cases almost to the ceiling. Large volume plastic bags were also seen at lower levels, with no indication what they contain.

66A photograph of the kitchen shows the counter adjacent the stove has a large plastic bin with small plastic containers stacked high inside. A photograph of the basement shows boxes of varying sizes stacked one upon the other, and judging from the angle, do not appear to be as stable as those indicated in the rooms on the main floor of the Building. Another photograph in the basement indicates boxes on top of large volume plastic bags. They appear stable, but there is no way of assessing this without knowing the contents.

67Despite these photographs, I do not find the Respondent provided sufficient support for the ordered 1 m height of the stored items based on stability, as it did not explain how it is a fire hazard (s. 21(1)(c), FPPA).

68The Respondent referenced Commission decisions in its Book of Authorities, as described above in paragraph [43]. It did not point me to any paragraph within these cases to show the Commission's findings related to this issue.

69I take note of the Respondent's concern regarding stability of the piles, requiring piles adjacent to the egress routes to be stable, and to ensure objects don't fall into them and obstruct them. I have addressed this concern for stability in a new ordered item above (see paragraph [50]).

70As described above in paragraph [46], I can make any other order I deem appropriate pursuant to s. 26(6) of the FPPA.

71In reviewing the referenced Commission decisions relied upon by the Respondent, I find that the Orders or the Fire Marshal's Review Decisions required storage limited to 1 m from the ceiling. In Wittig and K.R., for example, the Orders required a minimum distance of 1 m from the ceiling to ensure adequate clearance for smoke alarm operation.

72In the Respondent's submissions, there was an email dated December 20, 2024, to the Appellant from Inspector Midgley providing clarification for Item 3 as "maintaining a maximum height of storage of 1 m unless the pile is stable that it will not be a hazard falling into a mean of egress in which case up to 1 meter from ceiling." This is not consistent with the contravention to the Fire Code identified in the Order, or to the Ordered item 3 (see paragraphs [32] and [33] above).

73Section 21(1)(f) of the FPPA permits an inspector to order the occupant of premises to take any measure necessary to ensure fire safety at the premises and may order the occupant to do anything respecting fire safety, including anything related to fire alarms and detection. This section more accurately reflects an order for limiting the height of storage in a dwelling unit to ensure operation of smoke alarms, where neither the OBC nor the OFC have provisions for such.

74For all these the reasons, and pursuant to my authority in s. 26(6) of the FPPA, I make the following Order:

The Appellant shall maintain a minimum clearance of 1 m from the ceiling to stored items to ensure adequate clearance for smoke alarm operation at all times.

Other Issues identified by the Appellant

75The Appellant made submissions to have more time to comply; in particular to proceed at a self-paced timeline in keeping with her disability-related needs.

76The Appellant provided no explanation of how her disability would prevent her from complying with the ordered items, nor what an appropriate timeline would be. There is no need for the Appellant to personally do the work to comply with the Order; she may engage other people to carry out the necessary work.

77I have considered how each item ordered relates to the risk of fire, and the difficulty to comply, in setting the compliance deadlines that follow. For example, Item 2 addresses a risk of fire, and it is critical to comply with quickly. The ordered item that I have added, addressing egress routes, is important

78The other ordered item that I have added relates to providing clearance to the ceiling so smoke alarms can work. It is also important to ensure that smoke alarms operate and provide early warning to occupants so they may evacuate the Building in the event of fire.

79I amend the ordered compliance date in the Order from February 19, 2025, as follows:

2. Removing combustible materials for all ignition sources including the stove and water heater, shall be complied with within 2 weeks of the release of this decision;

3. Providing egress paths from the doorways of each room leading to the front and side entrances, shall be complied with within 8 weeks of the release of this decision; and

4. Maintaining a minimum clearance of 1 m from the ceiling to stored items, to ensure adequate clearance for smoke alarm operation shall be complied with within 4 weeks of the release of this decision.

80Also, in response to the Appellant's Application, which alludes to the Building owner's responsibility for the Appellant's inability to comply, complaints against the Building owner is outside the jurisdiction of this Commission and it can therefore not make an order respecting that ground.

ORDER

81Pursuant to s. 26(6) of the FPPA, I order the following:

a. Item 1 as set out in the Order is rescinded;

b. Item 2 as set out in the Order is amended regarding providing 1 m clearance from combustibles to all ignition sources, as follows:

Combustible material shall be spaced a minimum of 1 m from all ignition sources including the stove and water heater, to be completed within 2 weeks of the release of this decision.

c. Item 3 as set out in the Order is rescinded; and

d. Item 4 is added to the Order as follows:

Provide egress paths from the doorway of each room leading to the front entrance and to the side entrance. The egress paths shall be no less than 0.61 m in width, and clear of any objects from the floor to the ceiling. Objects adjacent the egress paths shall be stable such that there is no risk that they may fall into the egress paths and obstruct it. Item 4 shall be completed within 8 weeks of the release of this decision.

e. Item 5 is added to the Order as follows:

Maintain a minimum clearance of 1 m from the ceiling to stored items, to ensure adequate clearance for smoke alarm operation, to be completed within 4 weeks of the release of this decision.

Footnotes

1. 1The Appellant's written request, not on the Board's forms for either Adjournment or Accommodations were 10 pages in length, but generally asked for an adjournment and numerous accommodations.
2. 2The key accommodation requested was the need for the hearing to be in written format with specific formatting. The Appellant requested confidentiality, pointing to the need for "online privacy and security", requesting that "personally and geographically identifying information" not be posted online or sent via email to herself or any parties, including her name, address, or fire order number which contains her address.