Application under s. 33 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4
Between:
Brampton Fire and Emergency Services Applicant
and
Emelia Bobobtan Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicators: Mark Sraga, Member
For the Applicant: Kritika Seth, Counsel
Raenelle Manning, Counsel
For the Respondent: Did not attend
Held by Videoconference: October 30, 2025
OVERVIEW
1On September 16, 2025, Brampton Fire and Emergency Services (Applicant) applied to the Fire Safety Commission (Commission) seeking authorization pursuant to s. 33 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, C. 4 (FPPA) to do work to bring a residential property into compliance with an outstanding Inspection Order issued to the Respondent, Ms. Bobobtan, on May 11, 2023.
2The work that the Applicant is seeking authorization for entails the removal of excessive items that are contained in the Respondent’s house.
ISSUE
3The issues to be decided are:
a. Should the Commission issue an order authorizing the Applicant to cause the action items contained in the Inspection Order to be done; or
b. Should the Commission rescind or amend the Inspection Order, or make such other order as the Commission deems should have been made under the relevant section, and order the inspector to do what is ordered in accordance with the amended order or the other order?
RESULT
4The Commission:
Declines to exercise its discretion under s. 33 of the FPPA to authorize the Applicant to do the work set out in the Inspection Order;
Rescinds Item 1 of the Inspection Order, regarding the creation of 3 feet (914 mm) wide egress routes;
Amends Item 2 of the Inspection Order, regarding the requirement to maintain piles to a maximum height of 3 feet (914 mm) to ensure stability, as follows:
Maintain a minimum clearance of 3 feet (914 mm) from the ceiling to stored items in the basement, to ensure adequate clearance for smoke alarm operation, to be completed within 4 weeks of the release of this decision.
- Amends Item 3 of the Inspection Order, regarding the providing a 3 feet (914 mm) clearance from combustibles to all ignition sources, as follows:
Combustible material shall be spaced a minimum of 3 feet (914 mm) from the furnace, stove and oven, to be completed within 2 weeks of the release of this decision.
BACKGROUND
5On May 9, 2023, Fire Prevention Officers Alana Detcheverry (FPO Detcheverry) and William Underwood conducted an inspection of a two-storey plus basement semi-detached house located in Brampton, Ontario. The house is owned and occupied by the Respondent.
6On May 11, 2023, FPO Detcheverry issued to the Respondent Inspection Order 164008 pursuant to s. 21(1)(f) of the FPPA requiring the following actions to be taken:
Provide access to exit pathways from all areas within the home with a minimum three feet (914 mm) clearance to obstructions. The pathways must be clear of any obstruction from floor to ceiling, with the intent to provide a safe means of egress for occupant(s) and ingress for emergency services personnel;
Reduce the quantity of stored combustible materials that has accumulated within the home to a height not exceeding more than 3 feet (914 mm). Storage of materials to be arranged and stabilized so that they will not fall into or impede the required means of egress; and
Remove combustible material in the unit, to maintain a distance of 3 feet (914 mm) from all ignition sources, to ensure that there is no accidental ignition. Ignition sources include the kitchen stove and other cooking appliances, forced air registers and baseboard heaters if any, electric wall plugs (receptacles), etc.
7The Inspection Order had a compliance date of August 10, 2023. There is no record of the Respondent requesting a review of the Inspection Order by the Fire Marshal.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
8Section 33(4) of the FPPA provides that the Fire Safety Commission may authorize an inspector to cause to be done any thing required to be done by an order made under subsection 21(1) or (2) or section 25 or 26 if,
(a) the person required by the order to do the thing,
(i) has refused to comply with or is not complying with the order,
(ii) is not likely, in the Commission’s opinion, to comply with the order promptly,
(iii) is not likely, in the Commission’s opinion, to carry out the order competently, or
(iv) requests the assistance of the inspector in complying with the order; and
(b) in the Commission’s opinion, failure to do the thing would seriously endanger the health or safety of any person or the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it.
In this case, the Applicant seeks authorization to do the work required in the Inspection Order it issued to the Respondent under subsection 21(1) of the FPPA because:
The Respondent did not comply with the Inspection Order by the compliance date of August 10, 2023;
As of June 4, 2025, the Respondent still had not complied with the Inspection Order, and as of September 2, 2025, alternative legal routes pursued by the Applicant to resolve ongoing non-compliance have proved to be unsuccessful; and
The Applicant believes that failure to comply with the Inspection Order 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.
9When an application for an authorization to do work is filed with the Commission, section 33(5) of the FPPA provides that the Commission may, in addition to authorizing an inspector to cause to be done any thing required by the inspection order,
(a) rescind the inspection order; or
(b) amend the inspection order, or make such other order as the Commission deems should have been made under the relevant section, and order the inspector to do the thing in accordance with the amended order or the other order.
10In refusing the request for authorization to do work, and in rescinding one item of the Inspection Order and amending the remaining items, I considered the following evidence and submissions.
11FPO Detcheverry testified that on May 9, 2023, she and FPO William Underwood conducted a fire safety inspection of the Respondent’s house in response to a complaint received by Brampton Fire and Emergency Services. FPO Detcheverry also stated that it was necessary to obtain an Entry Warrant to gain access to the Respondent’s house due to the Respondent not responding to multiple inspection requests that were made previously.
12FPO Detcheverry stated that she and her colleague found there to be a large amount of combustible items including furniture, clothing, household decorative items and appliances throughout the house. The Respondent submitted a series of photographs taken during this inspection as evidence to support their findings that there were fire safety issues at this house and establish the reason for the issuance of the Inspection Order dated May 11, 2023.
13FPO Detcheverry testified that the piles of materials throughout the house, were three to five feet high, and that these materials were impeding egress routes on all levels of the house and would also impede access for first responders to any emergency calls to this property. FPO Detcheverry also stated that some of the rooms in the house could not be used due to the volume of materials stored in them along with the fact that none of the windows on the second floor are accessible for fire suppression crews as a means of escape in an emergency.
14FPO Detcheverry further stated that there are three hazards within the house that created an immediate and ongoing risk to the occupants and adjoining house due to the amount of material found within the home, which were;
Fire hazard for the occupant and adjoining house due to the amount of combustible material stored in the house would catch easily, burn very hot and create a significant amount of smoke.
Owner or occupant would not be able to exit quickly in the event of a fire due to the impeded egress routes and first responders would also have difficulty gaining access to conduct a rescue if necessary.
Items in close proximity or immediately adjacent to sources of ignition along with the inability to see if there were any hidden or unseen ignition sources due to amount of items stored in the rooms within the house.
15FPO Detcheverry testified that on September 19, 2023, a follow-up inspection was conducted of the Respondent’s house and referenced numerous photos that the Applicant entered as evidence during the hearing. FPO Detcheverry further stated that the Respondent had made some progress in complying with the Inspection Order, but it was not sufficient to deem her compliant with the Inspection Order, adding that charges were ultimately laid against the Respondent under the Provincial Offences Act for non-compliance with the Inspection Order. FPO Detcheverry stated that the Respondent was convicted following trial held on March 26, 2025 that she did not attend. She was convicted for failing to comply with the Inspection Order, fined $1,000.00 and issued a probation order not to commit the same or similar offence for a period of two years after the conviction date.
16FPO Detcheverry also stated that during the Justice of the Peace had stated that they were issuing the Probation Order to help motivate the Respondent to bring the property into compliance with the Inspection Order.
17FPO Detcheverry further testified that on June 4, 2025, another inspection was conducted of the Respondent’s house and that there were some areas of the house that were in compliance with the Inspection Order. These included some of the egress areas being cleared as well as some pile heights being reduced to the required height. FPO Detcheverry said the Respondent informed her that she was working on bringing the property into compliance.
18Regarding the intended removal of items from the Respondent’s house if the Commission were to grant the Applicant’s request, FPO Detcheverry stated that any removed items would be placed in a storage facility to allow the Respondent to sort through them. She added that the Applicant would keep them for at least 15 days but may keep them longer for up to 60 days. FPO Detcheverry also stated that any costs associated with the removal, storage and disposal of any items removed from the Respondent’s house would be charged to the Respondent.
19FPO Detcheverry stated that she relied on the following Commission decisions and a Fire Marshal Review Order when questioned on what the rationale was for the egress widths, pile heights and clearance distance to combustibles that were specified in the Inspection Order:
Hasselsjo v Hamilton Fire Department, 2022 ONFSC 16 ;
Wittig v Guelph Fire Department, 2021 ONFSC 4; and
Fire Marshal Review Decision 19116.
20However, these three referenced decisions were not provided as part of the Applicant’s hearing materials, and the Applicant did not indicate which specific paragraphs or findings they were relying on to justify the requirements they imposed and were seeking to enforce through this application.
21As I am not bound by other decisions made by the Commission or Fire Marshal’s decisions, and in the absence of any specific paragraphs from these decisions or the availability of Fire Marshal Review decision, I could not make any determination as to the relevance of these referenced matters with respect to this Application.
Should the Commission grant the Applicant authorization to complete the work?
22The Applicant has the onus to show that one of the four grounds prescribed under s. 33(4)(a) of the FPPA has been met in order for the Commission to authorize an inspector to carry out the work that has been identified in an order issued pursuant to s. 21(1) of the FPPA, as was the case here.
23For the following reasons, I find that the Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that demonstrates that the Respondent has refused or is not complying with the Inspection Order, is unlikely to comply, is unable to competently comply or that the Respondent requested assistance to comply with the Inspection Order.
24FPO Detcheverry testified, and the documentary evidence submitted by the Applicant shows that the Respondent has made efforts to comply with the Inspection Order. This effort at compliance was noted by Inspector Detcheverry during both the September 19, 2023, and the June 4, 2025, compliance inspections.
25In addition to the identified progress made by the Respondent, the last inspection conducted of the Respondent’s house was more than four months prior to the hearing and no further information has been provided by the Applicant to substantiate that the Respondent has not complied or is unable to competently comply with the Inspection Order.
26In addition to the Applicant demonstrating that one of the provisions of s. 33 (4)(a) have been met, it must also persuade the Commission that failure to have the work done as requested by the Applicant would seriously endanger the health or safety of any person or the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it per s. 33(4)(b) of the FPPA. The Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to persuade me that the condition of the Respondents house seriously endangers the health or safety of any persons or the quality of the natural environment.
27I also find that the amount of time that has lapsed between the initial inspection on May 9, 2023, to the Application being submitted to the Commission on September 16, 2025, along with the Applicant’s own submission that the Respondent has made progress in coming into compliance with the Inspection Order does not support their submission that a serious fire hazard exists within the Respondents house. If the Applicant is of the opinion that the existing situation in the Respondents house was of such an imminent fire hazard threat, then the Applicant could have utilized the remedies available to them pursuant to s. 15(1) of the FPPA to remove or reduce the immediate threat to life.
Should the Commission rescind, amend or make any other order?
28For the reasons that follow, I find that some of the required actions in the Inspection Order are not related to fire safety and pursuant to the authority provided to the Commission by s. 33(5) of the FPPA, I amend the Inspection Order as stated in paragraph [4].
Item 1 – Creation of egress routes
29For the reasons that follow, I rescind item 1 of the Inspection Order, which required the creation of 3 feet wide (914mm) egress routes.
30FPO Detcheverry’s testimony was that the need for the creation of 3 feet wide (914 mm) egress routes throughout the house is to provide a safe means of egress for the occupant(s) and ingress for emergency services personnel. She said that emergency services personnel included both fire suppression personnel as well as paramedics. The Applicant did not identify any prescriptive requirements from either the Ontario Building Code, O.Reg 332/12 (OBC) or the Ontario Fire Code, O.Reg 213/07 (OFC), regarding the provision of egress routes in a residential dwelling unit or widths for fire safety.
31In reviewing the photos that the Respondent took during the September 19, 2023, inspection, there appear to be pathways that are sufficiently wide to allow a person to egress the house. I also note that the inspection notes from the June 4, 2025, inspection state that the Respondent has made progress in bringing portions of the house with respect to the pathways into compliance as required by the inspection order.
32I also note from FPO Detcheverry’s testimony, photographs taken during the inspections and the inspectors’ notes that there are certain rooms in the house that are not accessible or usable due to the amount of items stored in them, these rooms included the living room, dining room and two bedrooms on the second floor. Based on these facts, I do not find it necessary for egress pathways to be provided from these areas since the Applicant has identified that these rooms are not accessible or usable by the Respondent.
Item 2 - Reduce the height of stored materials and ensure stability of the stored items
33For the reasons that follow, I amend Item 2 of the Order as follows:
Maintain a minimum clearance of 1 metre from the ceiling to stored items in the basement, to ensure adequate clearance for smoke alarm operation, to be completed within 4 weeks of the release of this decision.
34FPO Detcheverry testified that the height and quantity of the stored items in the house were a fire hazard due to the amount of heat, smoke and toxic fumes that these items would produce should a fire occur. However, the Applicant provided no analysis or expert reports to support their opinion that the amount of stored materials constitutes a fire hazard.
35As identified in paragraph [20], the Applicant stated that they relied on previous Commission decisions in coming to the determination that the height of the stored materials should not exceed three feet. The Applicant also stated that the height of the stored items resulted in them being in an unstable condition. However, no evidence was submitted to substantiate the Applicant’s position regarding the stability or the actual height of the stored items. Therefore, I find that in the absence of any factual basis to identify this maximum height requirement or the instability of the stored items, there is no fire hazard identified by the Applicant to support this requirement. I am not persuaded that the height of the stored items was unstable as the Applicant provided no evidence to substantiate that conclusion.
36However, in reviewing the photographs the Applicant provided of the basement area, it is apparent that there are areas in the basement where the stored items are within 3 feet (914 mm) or less to the underside of the exposed wooden floor joist for the first floor, and I find that the storing of materials this close to the underside of the floor for the first floor would impede the operation of the basement smoke alarm.
37For the reasons stated above, I amend Item 2 of the Inspection Order to only require that the height of the stored items in the basement be reduced to maintain a minimum clearance of 3 feet (914 mm) from the ceiling in the basement, to ensure adequate clearance for smoke alarm operation, to be completed within 4 weeks of the release of this decision.
Item 3 – Clearance to ignition sources
38For the reasons stated below I amend Item 3 of the Inspection Order as follows:
No combustible material shall be placed or stored within a minimum of 3 feet (914 mm) from the oven, stove and furnace, to be completed within 2 weeks of the release of this decision.
39Based on FPO Detcheverry’s testimony and the photographs the Applicant filed in evidence, it is evident that there are combustible materials placed immediately adjacent to the fuel-fired furnace, which is an ignition source. Therefore, ensuring that there are no combustible materials within 3 feet (914 mm) of this ignition source is a matter of fire safety. FPO Detcheverry also stated that no combustible materials were stored or placed within 3 feet (914 mm) of the fuel-fired hot water heater.
40FPO Detcheverry testified that she had not verified if the stove and oven were functional. Based on the photos submitted from the September 19, 2023, inspection, it appears that the stove may not be functional as the photos clearly show that the heating elements on the stove are all displaced and not functional. However, since there is no definitive determination that the stove or oven is operational and recognizing that stoves and ovens are ignition sources, I find that requiring there to be no combustible material within 3 feet (914mm) of the stove and oven is necessary for fire safety purposes.
41Regarding the requirement to keep combustible materials 3 feet (914 mm) from baseboard heaters, forced air registers and electrical receptacles, the Applicant did not provide any evidence either by regulation or manufacturer’s instruction that these elements could be possible ignition sources or that combustible materials should not be placed within a specific clearance distance to such elements. Therefore, I do not find the placement of combustible materials closer than 3 feet (914mm) to these elements to be a fire safety hazard.
42For the reasons stated above, I amend Item 3 of the Order and remove the reference to forced air registers, baseboard heaters and electric wall receptacles.
ORDER
43Pursuant to my authority in s. 33(5) of the FPPA, I order the following:
a. Item 1 of the Inspection Order is rescinded;
b. Item 2 of the Inspection Order is amended regarding the maximum height of 3 feet (914 mm) and stability of the stored items, as follows:
Maintain a minimum clearance of 1 metre from the ceiling to stored items in the basement, to ensure adequate clearance for smoke alarm operation, to be completed by the Respondent within 4 weeks of the release of this decision.
c. Item 3 of the Inspection Order is amended as it relates to the clearance of combustibles to ignition sources, to read as follows:
No combustible material shall be placed or stored within a minimum of 3 feet (914 mm) from the oven, stove and furnace, to be completed by the Respondent within 2 weeks of the release of this decision.
Released: December 24, 2025
Mark Sraga, Member