Tribunals Ontario
Fire Safety Commission
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Anxhela (Angela) Peco, Vice Chair (A)
Date of Order: 10/28/2025
File No.: 17426/FSC
Case Name: The Villages of Rosedale Inc. v Brampton Fire and Emergency Services, 2025 ONFSC 48
Written Submissions by: For the Applicant: Domenic L. Chiarini For the Respondent: No submissions were requested
OVERVIEW
1On September 2, 2025, The Villages of Rosedale Inc. (applicant) filed a request for reconsideration of a motion decision issued by the Fire Safety Commission on August 29, 2025. The Commission’s decision denied the applicant’s request for an extension of time to file an appeal with the Commission.
2In that decision, the Commission found that the motion for an extension of time to appeal was itself filed late and, even if the Commission considered the motion on its merits, the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for extending the time to appeal as set out in sections 26(3) to 26(4.1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, SO 1997, c 4 (FPPA).
3The applicant now requests that the motion decision be set aside and asks the Commission to accept the late appeal. They rely on Rule 18.2(d) of the Commission’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, which sets out the following criterion for granting reconsideration:
- There is evidence that was not before the Commission when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
4In the alternative, the applicant seeks direction from the Commission to facilitate compliance with the Fire Marshal decision and underlying inspection order.
RESULT
5For the reasons set out below, the applicant has not satisfied the criterion for granting reconsideration under Rule 18.2(d) and the request is dismissed. The applicant’s alternative remedy request is also denied.
ANALYSIS
6The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to refile evidence or re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the Commission’s decision, including with the weight assigned to the evidence. The requestor must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
Remedial work and related correspondence are not new evidence that could not have been obtained previously
7The applicant submits that the following is “new evidence” that supports their reconsideration request under Rule 18.2(d):
a. The applicant has been actively engaged in remedial work and in regular communication with Brampton Fire and Emergency Services on the status of the required fire alarm system repairs. The applicant has provided a timeline of the remedial work it has undertaken, along with related correspondence;
b. The applicant initially misunderstood the procedural distinction between reporting progress to the fire department and formally filing an appeal with the Commission within statutory timelines, and they regret this process error; and
c. The applicant has received a contractor quotation for the replacement of the sprinkler pipeline and nitrogen generator that was approved by their Board of Directors. The contractor expects the work will take four to six weeks to complete. Completion of this project will help bring the applicant into compliance with the inspection order.
8In determining whether the applicant has met the test under Rule 18.2(d) such that a reconsideration should be granted, there must be evidence that was not before the Commission when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result. I find that the “new evidence” submitted by the applicant does not meet the test under Rule 18.2(d).
9For example, the remedial work and related correspondence span the period of March 10, 2025 to July 2, 2025 and therefore predate the filing of the applicant’s Notice of Motion on July 25, 2025. It is unclear why the applicant could not have previously obtained this information and provided it to the Commission at the time of the motion hearing when they were a party to that correspondence and authorized the remedial work.
10Additionally, while the applicant’s submission that they misunderstood the appeal process is responsive to paragraph 20 of the Commission’s motion decision, which stated that the applicant offered no explanation for why they were unable to bring the appeal by the statutory deadline, it is unclear how this information could not have been previously obtained by the applicant when they originally filed their late appeal and motion for an extension of time to appeal.
11Finally, the applicant received the contractor quotation for the replacement of the sprinkler pipeline and nitrogen generator on August 14, 2025, and the contractor was awarded the project on August 26, 2025. While I agree that the quotation was not yet made when the applicant filed their motion, I find that it was available to the applicant before the decision on the motion was issued. As a result, it was open to the applicant to bring a motion or take any other step required to have the quotation brought to the Commission’s attention and have it considered on the motion. Instead, for reasons unknown, the applicant waited until the release of the motion decision to raise the contractor quotation. It was not reasonable for the applicant to wait and then choose to advance the quotation after receiving an unfavourable decision.
12For all these reasons, I find that the applicant has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the evidence that was not before the Commission when rendering its decision could not have been obtained previously by the applicant.
Alternative remedy
13As an alternative remedy, the applicant seeks in their request for reconsideration submissions direction from the Commission “to support coordinated compliance while this work is being completed.”
14The applicant provides no submissions on the substance of the proposed direction. It is also unclear if the applicant is relying on s. 26(3) of the FPPA in requesting this remedy. That section states that the Commission “may extend the time for appealing an order … and may give directions that it considers proper consequent upon the extension” (emphasis added). Based on the wording of this provision, the Commission’s power to give directions under s. 26(3) is available only after the Commission has already granted an extension of time to appeal, which it has not done in this matter.
15For these reasons, the applicant’s request for an alternative remedy is denied.
ORDER
16The request for reconsideration is dismissed and the applicant’s request for an alternative remedy is denied.
Anxhela (Angela) Peco Vice Chair (A) Tribunals Ontario
Released: October 28, 2025