Appeal under s. 26(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4.
Between:
Simran Sahi
Appellant
and
Brantford Fire Department
Respondent
amended DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Ziba Heydarian, Vice-Chair Gary Houghton, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Simran Sahi
For the Respondent: Stephen Brogden, Counsel (DOR) Dwayne Armstrong Darren Zettler, Fire Prevention Officer Patrick Erskine Building Enforcement Inspector Todd Binkley, Fire Chief Tomi McMillan, Law Clerk Scott Hardwick, Chief Fire Prevention Officer
Heard by Video Conference: April 8, 2026
OVERVIEW
1Simran Sahi (the “Appellant” or “Sahi”) owns the building located at 90 Queen Street in Brantford, Ontario (the “Property”).
2Inspector Zettler of the Brantford Fire Department (the “Respondent”) described the property as:
- a two-storey commercial building of approximately 1000 square meters with two partial basement sections.
- The exterior is brick with flat and sloped roof sections.
- The building does not have a fire alarm system.
- A dry sprinkler system riser found in the basement has been turned off.
- The building is currently being used as a lodging house with up to 71 sleeping rooms, shared kitchen and multiple bathrooms.
3In October, the Respondent received a complaint about an illegal lodging house operating at the Property. On November 20, 2025, Inspector Zettler did an initial inspection of the building using an entry warrant, and an inspection order (“Inspection Order”) was issued to the Appellant on December 18, 2025 under s. 21(1)(g) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4 (“FPPA”), which requires the owner or occupant of the premises to remedy violations of the Ontario Fire Code, O. Reg. 213/07 (“Fire Code”).
4The Inspection Order identified twenty-three (23) separate items requiring completion by February 16, 2026. It also set out a further requirement where two alternative options were available, specifically either obtaining a change of use permit from the City of Brantford to convert the building to a lodging house, or returning the building to its approved use as a commercial building without any residential components, use, or occupancy.
5On or about December 22, 2025, the Appellant requested a review of the inspection order by the Ontario Fire Marshall (“OFM”) pursuant to s. 25 of the FPPA.
6On January 8, 2026, the OFM referred the matter to the Fire Safety Commission (“Commission”).
7On February 12, 2026, the Commission held a case conference, which both parties attended, and a case conference continuation that took place on March 10, 2026.
8As the parties were unable to resolve the matter, a hearing was scheduled for April 8, 2026. In this appeal, the Appellant seeks additional time to comply with the Inspection Order. The Appellant further states that he is engaged in a separate legal matter with the City of Brantford involving the same Property and those proceedings may influence the path and timeline for compliance.
9The Appellant did not dispute the validity of any of the twenty-three Fire Code violations in the Inspection Order and acknowledged that the Property was not zoned for residential use. With no objection by the Appellant to the Fire Code violations listed in the Inspection Order, the Commission did not evaluate the merits of the individual violations.
10The Respondent asks that the Inspection Order be confirmed.
11Pursuant to s. 26(6) of the FPPA, after holding a hearing, the Commission may confirm, amend or rescind the order of the Fire Marshal or make such other order as the Commission deems appropriate.
12The Appellant did not dispute the validity of any of the twenty-three Fire Code violations in the Inspection Order and acknowledged that the Property was not zoned for residential use. With no objection by the Appellant to the Fire Code violations listed in the Inspection Order, the Commission did not evaluate the merits of the individual violations.
ISSUES
13Should the Commission confirm, amend, or rescind the Inspection Order, or make such other order as the Commission deems appropriate?
RESULT
14Pursuant to s. 26(6) of the FPPA, the Commission amends the Inspection Order by changing the compliance date to June 30, 2026.
EVIDENCE
Respondent’s Evidence and Submissions
15The first witness called by the Respondent was Darren Zettler (“Zettler”), Fire Prevention Officer. Zettler testified as to the inspections that were completed. The first inspection was November 20, 2025. He described difficulties in obtaining access, including the need for an entry warrant to conduct this initial inspection.
16Zettler testified that in an email exchange and phone call with the Appellant, a follow-up inspection was sought by Zettler. The Appellant agreed to undertake some fire prevention measures. An Order was not issued at this time. An entry warrant was required for a follow-up December 11, 2025, re-inspection to determine if interim measures discussed after the first inspection, had been completed. The interim measures were not completed, including a fire watch. Building construction violations were also observed. As the discussed measures had not been taken, an Immediate Threat to Life Notice was posted as the items needed to improve the safety of the residents and property had not been undertaken and the Property had a lack of fire safety protection.
17Zettler testified that on December 11, 2025, while on site, the City of Brantford undertook fire safety measures to reduce the risk of fire. They hired a contractor to install wireless smoke and heat detectors in every room and in the corridors, the stove was unplugged to avoid fires starting in the kitchen, and a firm was hired to do a twenty-four hour a day fire watch. This was to make the building safer for occupants and improve fire detection until the Appellant came into compliance. These measures were at the City of Brantford’s expense. Under cross examination, Zettler stated that he understood the costs could be recovered from the owner under the FPPA.
18Zettler testified that since the inspections there have been three fire-related incidents at the Property. The first fire was on the second floor and was from a lit cigarette that rolled under the door igniting a towel. The second fire was from a non-resident that entered one of the washrooms and ignited some clothing in the shower stall, then closed the door. The third fire was also on the second floor in a room rented by a couple and though it is not clear, it appears a lit lighter was left on top of clothing in a bin.
19Due to lack of fire protection and safety measures, Zettler testified that the Inspection Order for the Fire Code violations was issued to the Appellant on December 18, 2025, and compliance was required by February 16, 2026. The Order listed twenty-three violations and provided three options to achieve compliance:
- Correct all 23 Fire Code violations
- Obtain a change of use permit for legal lodging house, or
- return the building to its prior use, non-residential
20The second witness for the respondent was Patrick Erskine (“Erskine”), Building Enforcement Inspector.
21Erskine testified that he conducted an inspection of the building in September 2025. The inspection was made in response to a formal complaint received by the Building Department about construction at the Property. Prior to attending the site, he determined that there was no building permit for the site. He observed construction inside the building through a loading bay door at the back. Building material was observed (framing materials, drywall, ventilation materials), as well as the construction of demising walls.
22Erskine testified that the activities he observed would require a building permit. He relayed information about his inspection and the requirements for a building permit to the Appellant by phone. After the phone call, Erskine issued an Order to Comply (issued September 4, 2025) by registered mail requiring compliance with the Building Code with respect to obtaining a building permit or removal of the demising walls.
23On October 7, 2025, an on-site meeting was held with Erskine, the Appellant and a bylaw enforcement officer to discuss the fire department’s concerns and the issues respecting zoning compliance. Erskine noted that when the Appellant took him to the back of the Property, he was able to observe more construction taking place. Erskine advised a building permit would be required and discussed the requirements to obtain this including hiring an architect and engineer, and the Appellant confirmed he wished to obtain a permit and keep the construction as he had invested a lot.
24Erskine testified that based on what he saw, he issued a second Order to Comply under the Building Code Act, 1992 on October 7, 2025. He also brought charges under Building Code Act due to lack of response from the Appellant to the earlier order to bring the building into compliance.
25As of the date of this Commission hearing, the outcome of the charges under the Building Code Act is not complete, and no application has been commenced for a building permit. No evidence was provided on re-inspection by Mr. Erskine to determine compliance.
Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions
26The Appellant testified in his capacity as owner of the property and stated that he purchased the building with the seventy-one rooms existing. He stated that he installed locking mechanisms to control access to the individual rooms. Under cross examination, the Appellant testified that construction activities observed by the fire department in September and October 2025 were related to flooring only.
27The Appellant testified that certain fire protection activities as discussed following the November 20, 2025 meeting, have taken place. Extinguishers were installed. A fire watch, funded by the City of Brantford, but billed to the building owner, was put in place. The Appellant also retained a fire security firm in addition to the fire watch.
28The Appellant testified that the Property is not zoned for residential use. He testified that zoning had been changed since his purchase of the building but produced no evidence to support this claim.
29The Appellant testified that he was planning to close the Property for residential use by the end of 2025 but stated that he continued to keep it open as he felt this was supported by the Fire Department. Under cross examination, the Appellant stated that he had issued verbal notices to evict tenants but did not post any notices on the Property or follow the steps required for eviction. Several times in the Appellant’s testimony, he restated his intention to close the Property to residential use by the end of December 2025, but he did not.
30The Appellant testified that while the fire protection measures listed above have been put in place, he has not proceeded to complete the items in the Inspection Order as he needs more time and due to financial constraints. The Appellant testified that he concurred with the fire department that the Property is not meant to be residential in use, that it was dangerous without the proper fire safety precautions in place, and that he brought forward the appeal to get an extension because of the lengthy process required to get things up to code.
ANALYSIS:
31The testimony of the Appellant, and his actions since the issuance of the Inspection Order, indicate that he is not proceeding with a sufficient level of activities that show he is undertaking the required actions to achieve compliance with the Inspection Order.
32The grounds for appeal given by the Appellant reference a legal undertaking with the City of Brantford regarding use of the property for residential purposes. The Commission cannot consider the schedule of this legal undertaking or its outcome in assessing the time required for compliance. Planning status and fire safety compliance are distinct matters. The existence of an outstanding court planning process does not on its own justify delaying necessary fire safety measures where the building is occupied and ongoing fire safety risks exist.
33The Appellant has had several months to bring the Property into compliance, but on his own admission no steps have been taken towards remedying any of the 23 items in the Inspection Order, nor has a building permit been obtained to convert the building into a lodging house or return it to its original approved use as a commercial building. Short term fire protection measures have been implemented, but there remains a significant risk to life and property, as indicated by the observations during the inspections of ignition sources such as lack of stands or available locations for ash trays.
34Both the Appellant and Respondent witnesses indicate that there were discussions of evicting all residents by the end of 2025. This was not done as of the date of the Commission hearing and no proper steps were taken to enforce eviction other than verbal notices to some tenants, which proved ineffective.
35The compliance date ordered because of this hearing is to replace the compliance date in the Inspection Order and is provided to allow the Appellant to commence compliance activities to achieve one of the three Options in the Inspection Order.
36Overall, the witness testimony confirmed lack of compliance by the Appellant. The evidence presented, including three fire incidents from the time the Inspection Order was issued, also illustrates the significant risk that exists to life and property and the immediate need to address these risks. The Commission amends the date of compliance deadline to allow a minimal amount of time for the Appellant to comply with one of the three Options outlined in the Inspection Order.
ORDER
37Pursuant to s. 26(6) of the Act, the Commission amends the Brantford Fire Department Inspection Order “90 Queen St 2025-1”.
38The compliance date is amended changing the compliance date to June 30, 2026.
Released: June 3, 2026
_________________________
Ziba Heydarian
Vice Chair
_________________________
Gary Houghton
Member