McKinnon v. St. Catharines Fire Services, 2025 ONFSC 50

Tribunals ontario

Fire Safety Commission

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO

Commission de la sécurité-incendie

Citation: McKinnon v. St. Catharines Fire Services, 2025 ONFSC 50

Date: 2025-11-10

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

Between:

Donald T. McKinnon

Appellant

and

St. Catharines Fire Services

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Order Made By: Anxhela (Angela) Peco, Vice-Chair (A) Claudine Wilson, Member

Appearances

For the Appellant: Donald T. McKinnon, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Patricia Kraft, Fire Prevention Inspector

Heard by Videoconference: September 19, 2025

INTRODUCTION

1Donald Todd McKinnon, the Appellant, is the Vice-president of the Board of Directors of Niagara North Condominium Corporation #32 (owner), located at 7 Gale Crescent in St. Catharines, Ontario. The building is a 13-storey residential occupancy high-rise condominium building. There are two storeys of underground parking below grade.

2St. Catharines Fire Services inspected the property in June 2024 and issued an Inspection Order to the owner pursuant to s. 21(1)(g) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4 (FPPA), which provides for remedying a contravention of the Fire Code, O. Reg. 213/07.

3At the time of the inspection, sections of the parking garage were being used to store numerous recycling bins used by the occupants of the building. The Inspection Order required the owner to remove this storage from the parking garage so that the garage would only be used for the storage and parking of vehicles, as required by Sentence 9.6.2.15.(1), Division B of the Fire Code. As an alternative, the owner was given the option to create a storage room separated from the remainder of the garage with a fire resistance rating of no less than 1.5 hours. Compliance was required by October 2, 2024.

4The Appellant requested a Fire Marshal review of the Inspection Order pursuant to s. 25 of the FPPA. On July 8, 2025, the Fire Marshal issued Review Decision and Order No. FM-24263 (Review Decision), in which it confirmed the action required in the Inspection Order but amended the compliance date to October 8, 2025.

5On July 22, 2025, the Appellant appealed the Review Decision to the Fire Safety Commission (“the Commission”) pursuant to s. 26(1) of the FPPA, requesting a 12-month extension of the compliance date to allow for the construction of a separate storage room.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE

6Should the Commission confirm, amend or rescind the Review Decision or make such other order as the Commission deems appropriate?

RESULT

7The Commission amends the Review Decision by extending the compliance date from October 8, 2025 to February 8, 2026.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

The Appellant

8The Appellant sought an extension of time to comply with the Inspection Order to allow for the construction of a separate storage room for the building’s recycling.

9The Appellant filed into evidence a series of photographs of the property, both from the exterior as well as from the interior of the parking garage area in question. He testified that the Board of Directors had reviewed the feasibility of various compliance options and had decided to proceed with the construction of the separate storage room. The Appellant testified that the parking spots of the condominium are deeded and they cannot simply take up these spots to create a fire separated storage room. The only spaces they could consider are common areas, which are not deeded to individual condominium owners.

10The Appellant testified that they had identified a suitable space that was part of a common temporary parking and unloading area across from the elevator lobby on parking level A, and that the Board of Directors was considering this the likely location of the fire separated storage room. The Appellant reported that there were no common areas inside the building to build a fire-resistant room to accommodate the waste and recycling bins, except for this temporary parking/unloading area and that construction of a fire separated room in this area required planning and coordination between various contractors. This was the basis for his request for additional time to comply.

11The Appellant explained that construction of the separate storage area was the optimal solution because it was not feasible to move the waste and recycling collection area outside of the building. He testified that doing so may present a fire risk because the property is surrounded by encampments and they have reported three fires at the encampments in the previous months. He stated that removing the waste and recycling collection area to the outside would attract members of the homeless population, some of whom are smokers, and that the cardboard and other items from the encampments would pose a greater danger than what was presently taking place with their recycling arrangement inside the garage.

12The Commission also heard evidence from Bruce Cooper, Senior Project Manager of Remy Consulting Engineers Ltd. He had been engaged with work on the property in different capacities over a number of years.

13Mr. Cooper testified that the construction of the separate storage room may take up to one year, with intent on delivering within six to ten months. He stated that he required time to assemble suitable specifications and referenced the mandatory requirements of the tendering process under the Condominium Act, which would add time to the completion of the project.

The Respondent

14The Respondent did not file any evidence at the hearing and relied on the submissions they had previously made to the Fire Marshal in response to the Appellant’s request for a Fire Marshal review. These submissions referenced the risk to fire safety stemming from a portion of the parking garage being repurposed as a recycling area for occupants to dispose of their recycling and organic materials, when the parking garage was designed for the storage of motor vehicles only.

15Inspector Patricia Kraft acknowledged that the Appellant is working to comply with the Inspection Order, and did not dispute that the Appellant needed more time if they planned to construct a fire separated room. However, the Respondent took the position that they did not have the authority to amend the Fire Marshal’s Review Decision by agreeing to an extension of the compliance date.

ANALYSIS

16For the reasons set out below, the Commission amends the Review Decision by extending the compliance date by four months, to February 8, 2026.

17Although the Appellant acknowledged the need to take steps to address the outstanding Inspection Order, the Commission was concerned by the lack of evidence demonstrating that any substantive steps had been taken prior to receipt of the Review Decision to address the fire safety risk. Based on the Appellant’s testimony, not much was done within the year that they were awaiting a decision from the Fire Marshal, other than waiting for an anticipated “discretionary compromise.”

18The Commission finds there has been some delay on the Appellant’s part in complying with the Inspection Order, which could have been prevented had the Board of Directors engaged professional services for proposals and explored the permitting and tendering processes sooner, even in anticipation of the Review Decision. Since the issuance of the Review Decision in July 2025, the Appellant has also had the benefit of three months to make progress toward compliance such that, taken together with the previous lack of action, the Commission is less inclined to grant a lengthy, one-year extension, as requested by the Appellant.

19The Commission finds that more recently, the Appellant has taken steps to advance the planning and construction of the fire separated room. The Board of Directors has retained the services of an engineer who will provide oversight for the building project. We accept Mr. Cooper’s evidence that the tendering process and the overall project will require additional time, and we are therefore granting a modest extension that balances the Appellant’s need for more time with the need to minimize the time period that building residents are exposed to the fire safety risks posed by the current arrangement. A four-month extension from October 8, 2025 to February 8, 2026 effectively gives the Appellant seven months from the July 2025 release date of the Review Decision to complete work on the project. The extension granted aligns with the lower end of the time range Mr. Cooper estimated would be required for the project and takes into consideration any work pauses during the holiday season. For these reasons, the Commission amends the Review Decision by extending the compliance date from October 8, 2025 to February 8, 2026.

ORDER

20The Commission amends the Review Decision and orders the Appellant to comply with the Inspection Order by February 8, 2026.