RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Peter Simmons, Member
Commission File Number(s): 16885/FSC
Case Name: Amanda Hanson v. South Dundas Fire and Emergency Services
Written submissions by:
For the Appellant: Jeff Bogaerts, paralegal
For the Respondent: Clara McGregor, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On August 1, 2025, Amanda Hanson (Appellant) filed a request for reconsideration of a decision of the Fire Safety Commission (Commission) issued July 24, 2025: Hanson v. South Dundas Fire and Emergency Services, 2025 ONFSC 44 (Decision).
2The matter relates to a building owned by the Appellant located at 4 Elizabeth Drive, Iroquois, Ontario (Building). The Building is a former place of worship.
3In the Decision, the Commission amended a Review Decision (Review Decision) of the Office of the Fire Marshal (Fire Marshal) and ordered the Appellant to complete the following within 45 days of the release of the Decision:
a. immediately cease activities in the workshop area of the former nave space of the Building, and;
b. remove 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.
4The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I, (October 2, 2017) as amended (Rules). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Commission must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:
a. The Commission acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness;
b. The Board made an error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made;
c. The Board heard false evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result; or
d. There is evidence that was not before the Board 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.
5The Appellant seeks a reconsideration of the Commission’s decision under Rule 18.2 submitting there are 13 separate grounds for reconsideration.
6The Appellant also seeks a ‘stay’ of the Commission’s Order pending the reconsideration.
RESULT
7The Appellant’s request for reconsideration is denied.
BACKGROUND
8On November 28, 2024, Fire Chief Jeremy Aldred-Hughes of the South Dundas Fire and Emergency Services (Respondent or SDFES) 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 Ontario Fire Code (OFC or Fire Code) to be remedied, to ensure fire safety at the property.
9The Inspection Order contained two items requiring compliance by January 17, 2025.
a. Item 1 – OFC 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).
b. 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.
10The 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.
11On March 11, 2025, the Fire Marshal issued Review Decision and Order FM-24474 (Review Decision), in which they confirmed Item 1 from the Inspection Order noting that the “fabrication operation” in the Building “creates hazards that were not considered/anticipated in the design of the former place of worship”. The Fire Marshal amended the date for compliance of Item 1 from January 17, 2025, to April 11, 2025.
12The Review Decision also rescinded Item 2 from the Inspection Order.
13On March 24, 2025, the Appellant appealed the Review Decision to the Commission pursuant to s. 26(1) of the FPPA. In the appeal, the Appellant sought to have Item 1 of the Review Order rescinded because the Appellant believes the Building construction is more than adequate for the activities conducted in the former nave space.
14On June 10, 2025, the Commission heard the appeal, and on July 25, 2025, released its Decision amending the Review Decision requiring the Appellant to:
a. Immediately cease all activities in the workshop area formerly the nave of the Building.
b. 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.
15On August 1, 2025, the Appellant submitted a request for reconsideration of the Decision.
16On August 13, 2025, the Commission requested submissions from the parties concerning the request with a due date of August 25, 2025, and reply submissions due on August 29, 2025.
17On October 8, 2025, the Appellant submitted a late email submission to the Commission. Submissions concerning the email were requested from the Respondent by October 26, 2025.
ANALYSIS
18The Appellant submitted several grounds to support their reconsideration request; several of which do not all align with the reconsideration criteria in Rule 18.2. I have reviewed all the submissions and address in this decision those that meet the criteria, while realigning those with the appropriate criteria of Rule 18.2 where appropriate.
The Commission did not violate the rules of procedural fairness
19I do not agree with the Appellant’s submission that the Commission failed to inform the Appellant of their right to request a reconsideration. Parties are responsible for being familiar with the Commission’s Rules, which govern the proceedings including reconsideration requests, and which the parties were made aware of the at the case conference of April 14, 2025. The Commission does not provide legal advice, and it does not presume to know a party’s next step at any point during proceedings which, in this case, was the Appellant’s request for reconsideration submitted less than 7 days after the release of the Decision by the Appellant’s experienced representative.
20I do not agree with the Appellant’s submission that they were denied procedural fairness when the Commission addressed “issues not relevant to the original order”. The Commission determines the relevance and weight of the evidence presented to it on the principal issue, OFC Article 2.1.2.2 and activities that create a hazard not allowed for in the original design of the Building, which both the Appellant and Respondent actively argued in their respective case presentations and cross examinations.
21I do not agree that the Appellant was denied procedural fairness regarding their submission involving “existing use” of the space and that it was “protected if it complied with the OBC (Ontario Building Code) at the time of construction or approval”. The Commission considered evidence from both parties in rendering its decision, and no evidence was submitted by either party that the “workshop” was an approved use in the original building permit drawings.
22I disagree with the Appellant’s assertion that there was a lack of opportunity to present evidence and/or refute any claims and testimony from the Respondent. The Appellant’s submissions do not point to any specific lack of opportunity. Both parties were provided equal time to present their cases, witnesses, enter evidence, and provide closing submissions and neither party raised any concern at the hearing concerning lack of time or opportunity.
23The Appellant is introducing evidence in the form of load calculations in their submission, and Rule 18.2(d) spells out that only evidence that was not available at the time the Decision was rendered is eligible. The load calculations could have been produced at the hearing. Even if this evidence were accepted at this stage, it would not have materially affected the Decision, as the key issue to be decided was whether the Appellant had introduced an activity creating a hazard not allowed for in the original design.
24The Appellant’s submission includes allegations of municipal misconduct and a false affidavit from the Respondent. The submission also alludes to the Appellant’s appeal with another tribunal that the Commission “could not have known” at the time of the hearing. These are issues more appropriately captured under Rule 18.2(c) and/or (d), that false evidence from a party was not discovered until after the hearing and affected the result, and there was evidence not before the Board when rendering its decision, that could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it and would likely have affected the result.
25While I agree with the Appellant, that the Commission did not have knowledge about the Appellant’s efforts at another tribunal, the Appellant was aware of those proceedings, and the potential to affect this appeal and neglected to inform the Commission or challenge the Respondent’s testimony or evidence when it had the opportunity to do so.
The Commission made no errors in law or fact
26I am not persuaded by the Appellant’s submissions that the Commission exercised “jurisdictional overreach” under Rule 18.2(a), in that it acted outside its jurisdiction, by making use of the OBC related ratings in the Decision. As pointed in the Decision (paras 13 and 14) the OBC is commonly used in the building industry and to which the OFC conforms.1 Further, the Commission did not “rule” on the OBC as the Appellant claims or make an error in law under Rule 18.2(b) in that it would have reached a different result had the error not been made. I also note that OFC Article 1.2.3.1., (Division A) identifies that owners are not excused from their responsibility to comply with other applicable Acts and regulations, including the OBC.
27The Appellant’s reference to “jurisdictional overreach” also includes reference to a “breach of agreement” involving the Respondent and a third party (the Province of Ontario). As the Appellant correctly points out, that matter is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission, and is therefore not an error in law as the Commission did not hear any evidence concerning that matter.
28I disagree with the Appellant’s submission that the Commission erred in concluding there was “no persuasive evidence” about the use of the workshop supporting the A-2 occupancy. This is an attempt by the Appellant to re-argue the case. The Commission does not dispute that the workshop is only used by the Appellant to fabricate exhibit and display pieces as the Appellant submits, however, the Commission relies on the evidence presented and provided to it and it does not, as the Appellant suggests, “provide evidence” at a proceeding to justify not being persuaded.
29I do not agree with the Appellant that the Commission erred in law and fact in not assessing “the building’s non-combustible construction.” The Commission is a trier of fact, and as previously stated, the Commission relies on the evidence before it and does not conduct or perform its own assessment of building combustibility.
30I do not agree with the Appellant’s submissions that the building’s construction and other features such as “proposed” fire doors, and “self-imposed restricted use hours” constitute “approved provisions” as there is no consent or agreement from the Respondent on these contemplated potential improvements or enhancements.
31The Commission did not dismiss the engineer’s reports and blueprints as the Appellant suggests. The Commission is not required to speak to, or respond to, every argument from the parties but to receive evidence and weigh all that is centrally relevant to the issues and concerns which the Review Decision makes clear is the “fabrication operation” in the Building “creating hazards that were not considered/anticipated in the design of the former place of worship”.2
Other arguments and submissions
32The Appellant submitted other arguments do not fit cleanly into the criteria for reconsideration, however, some response is warranted.
33The Appellant submitted that the Commission failed to create the opportunity for the parties to discuss “approved provisions”. The parties’ relationship was established before the Commission became involved in this matter, and they were free to discuss the Inspection Report, and the “good faith efforts” that the Appellant suggests at any time. Further, proceedings such as the case conference of April 2025 are openings for the parties to engage in dialogue both during and following the case conference.
34The Appellant alludes to a “Charter” issue in their submissions, specifically, “Charter sections 15 and 7” which I infer to be Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Appellant did not raise a Charter argument at the hearing and the submission is an attempt to re-argue the case citing an “unsubstantiated claim” by the Respondent. Further, Board Rule 11, and section 109 of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c. C.43 require that constitutional questions be served on the Attorney Generals of Ontario and Canada, and the Commission, and Appellant has provided no evidence that this was completed.
35The Appellant also alludes to seeking costs; however, it is not supported by submissions pursuant to Rule 19 regarding the unreasonableness, frivolous or vexatious actions or bad faith demonstrated by the other party. What is more a request for costs is a separate matter from a reconsideration request and is not, therefore, addressed in this decision.
36The Appellant’s late submission from October 8, 2025, concerning an “HR issue” involving the Respondent and the municipality (South Dundas) contains speculative comments about a closed (in-camera) meeting from September 22, 2025. It is not germane to the appeal and has not been considered in this decision.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
37The request for reconsideration is not a re-litigation of the appeal nor the opportunity to introduce new evidence. Relevant new evidence is only considered if it conforms to Rule 18(d).
38The Appellant’s submissions have not justified a reconsideration of the Decision nor a staying of the Order.
39The request for reconsideration is denied.
Released: October 31, 2025
Peter Simmons, Member
Footnotes
- Hanson v. South Dundas Fire and Emergency Services 2025 ONFSC 44, paras 13 and 14
- Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 74