Tribunals ontario
Fire Safety Commission
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO
Commission de la sécurité-incendie
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Claudine Wilson
Adjudicator
05/06/2026
17404/FSC
Case Name:
Niagara North Condominium Corporation #32 v. St. Catharines Fire Services, 2026 ONFSC 56
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
For the Respondent:
Edward Poole, President, Board of Directors
OVERVIEW
1This matter relates to a building owned by Niagara North Condominium Corporation #32 (NNCC#32) 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.
2On November 20, 2025, the Fire Safety Commission (the Commission) initiated a Reconsideration of a decision of the Commission issued on November 10, 2025: McKinnon v. St. Catharine’s Fire Services, 2025 ONFSC 50 (Decision). The Reconsideration was initiated by the Commission pursuant to Rule 18.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board and Fire Safety Commission’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) as amended (Rules).
3The Decision related to an appeal brought on behalf of NNCC#32 of an Ontario Fire Marshal Decision and Order dated July 8, 2025 (the OFM Decision). That OFM Decision was the result of an application initiated by Donald T. McKinnon, on behalf of NNCC#32, seeking review of an Inspection Order issued by St. Catharines Fire Service. Mr. McKinnon was the Vice President of the condominium corporation’s Board of Directors at the time.
4In its Decision of November 10, 2025, the Commission amended the OFM Decision by extending the date for compliance from October 8, 2025 to February 8, 2026.
5In the context of this Reconsideration, the Commission invited the parties to make submissions on whether the Rule 18.2 criteria are met. Specifically, the reconsideration would focus on whether the Commission erred in law and/or fact in naming Donald T. McKinnon as the Appellant, when the initial Inspection Order that gave rise to the Review Decision and to the subsequent appeal to the Commission was issued to NNCC#32. The Commission invited submissions on whether the Appellant can be renamed from McKinnon to NNCC#32.
6In response to the Commission’s request for submissions on that specific issue, a submission for the reconsideration of the Decision was filed by the President of the condominium, Edward Poole, on December 15, 2025 on behalf of NNCC#32.
7NNCC#32 submitted that the Commission had incorrectly identified Donald T. McKinnon as the Appellant in the Decision and that the correct named Appellant should be NNCC#32.
8Further, in the same submission, NNCC#32 made its own request for reconsideration pursuant to subsections 18.2(b) and 18.2(d) of the Rules. The NNCC#32 submitted that the Commission erred in law or fact and did not fully consider the evidence provided by the Appellant’s expert witness when making its decision on the compliance date. As such, they requested a variation of the compliance date in the Commission’s Decision to be extended from February 8, 2026 to May 8, 2026.
RESULT
9The Decision is varied to name the Niagara North Condominium Corporation #32 as the Appellant. The Appellant’s request for reconsideration to impose a new compliance date is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
10On June 25, 2024, Inspector Patricia Kraft of the St. Catharines Fire Services conducted an inspection of the property and issued an Inspection Order to NNCC#32.
11At the time of the inspection, sections of the parking garage of the property location 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 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.
12The Inspection Order had a compliance date of October 2, 2024.
13The Appellant pursued a Fire Marshal review, seeking 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. The Review Decision confirms that “the Fire Marshal Review was requested by Donald T. McKinnon, Vice-President of the Condo Board, NNCC#32…referred to herein as Applicant.”
14The Appellant then appealed the Fire Marshal Review Decision to the Commission. The Notice of Appeal was filed by Donald T. McKinnon on behalf of the NNCC#32’s Board of Directors. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, Donald T. McKinnon also appeared before the Commission in his capacity as President of the NNCC#32’s Board of Directors.
15Further, at the time of the appeal hearing, Mr. McKinnon advised the panel that he was accompanied by Mr. Edward Poole, also a member of the NNCC#32 Board, who attended to observe the hearing. Mr. McKinnon testified that his retirement was imminent and described Mr. Poole as the individual who would be assuming the role of Board President.
16Rule 18.1 of the Rules provides that the Commission may initiate a reconsideration, on its own initiative, of any decision of the Commission that finally disposes of an appeal.
17A request for reconsideration of a Commission decision can be made pursuant to Rule 18.2. It sets out that a Tribunal must be satisfied that:
a. The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness;
b. The Tribunal 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.
18In Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, 1989 CanLII 41 (SCC), [1989], 2 SCR 848, the Supreme Court of Canada held that once a tribunal issues a decision, the tribunal may, at any time clarify a misstatement or ambiguity that is not substantive and does not change the order or decision. This would include correcting a name or address, for example.
19I find that it was appropriate for the Commission to review, at its own initiative, whether a correction was required to reflect the actual owner of the property, Niagara North Condominium Corporation #32 as the named Appellant in the case. There is no dispute with respect to building ownership. As such, the Commission is prepared to amend the Decision to reflect this, pursuant to Rule 17(b). Rule 17(b) provides that the Commission may at any time clarify an order or decision that contains a misstatement or ambiguity, which is not substantive, and does not change the order or decision. I find that to be applicable here.
Appellant’s Request for Reconsideration
20Rule 18.1 provides that the Tribunal may, upon request of a party reconsider any decision of the Tribunal that finally disposes of an appeal. The request must be made within 21 days of the date of the decision.
21NNCC#32 filed its request for reconsideration of the November 10, 2025 Decision on December 15, 2025, which was outside of the 21 days. Consequently, the reconsideration request is dismissed.
ORDER
22The named Appellant shall be amended to Niagara North Condominium Corporation #32.
23The Appellant’s request for reconsideration with respect to amending the date for compliance in the Order of November 10, 2025 is dismissed.
Claudine Wilson
Member, Fire Safety Commission
Tribunals Ontario
Released: May 6, 2026