Administrative Law - OFSC

The appellant, a tenant growing medicinal marijuana in an industrial building, appealed two inspection orders issued by the Halton Hills Fire Department under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.

The orders required various measures to address alleged fire safety hazards and Fire Code contraventions, including repairing fire separations, removing plastic tarps, and addressing ventilation and sprinkler issues.

The Fire Safety Commission reviewed each item, finding that some measures, such as repairing concrete block walls and ceiling membranes, were necessary for fire safety.

However, the Commission rescinded other items, finding that certain walls were not required to be fire separations and that lack of a building permit for approved electrical work was not a fire safety compliance issue.

The orders were confirmed in part, amended in part, and rescinded in part.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order requiring it to remedy the audibility levels of the fire alarm system in its older residential building.

The appellant argued that the Office of the Fire Marshal exceeded its jurisdiction in creating the audibility Guideline, and that the Fire Department unlawfully fettered its discretion by treating the Guideline as a mandatory regulation.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the OFM had the statutory authority to issue the Guideline, the Guideline was permissive rather than mandatory, and the Fire Department appropriately exercised its discretion.

The Commission concluded that the Inspection Order was necessary to ensure fire safety and confirmed the order.

The Greater Sudbury Fire Services brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of an Inspection Order pending an appeal by the appellant.

The fire department argued the stay should be lifted so it could proceed with prosecution due to the appellant's failure to comply with a previous consent order to obtain a building permit.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant's failure to comply with the consent order did not give rise to an issue impacting the interest of public safety sufficient to warrant lifting the stay under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The appellant brought a motion seeking production of inspection orders issued to 102 other properties by the respondent.

The appellant argued these documents were relevant to show that the respondent's inspectors treated a fire alarm acoustics guideline as mandatory.

The tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering the production of inspection orders that specifically dealt with acoustic issues related to fire alarm systems, subject to redactions for privacy.

The Office of the Fire Marshal brought a motion to intervene in an appeal regarding a fire safety inspection order.

The appellant challenged the inspector's jurisdiction to enforce technical guidelines issued by the Fire Marshal.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the motion, adding the Fire Marshal as a party limited to the issue of its jurisdiction to make the guideline and its effect on fire inspections, without the right to argue the merits of the underlying appeal or augment the record.

The appellant, operating an addiction recovery centre, appealed four inspection orders issued by the respondent fire department.

The orders required the installation of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, the submission of a fire safety plan, and the remediation of various Fire Code contraventions including damaged fire separations and obstructed means of egress.

The Fire Safety Commission confirmed the requirement for smoke alarms and a fire safety plan, finding them necessary to ensure fire safety regardless of the building's specific occupancy designation.

The Commission also confirmed most of the Fire Code remediation measures, but rescinded the requirement for a carbon monoxide detector and a metal dryer vent, and amended certain measures relating to fire separations and egress obstructions.

The appellant appealed a Review Order made by the Fire Marshal's Delegate regarding fire safety measures at an apartment building.

The original Inspection Order required the appellant to clean a stove and replace smoke detectors with heat detectors due to frequent false alarms caused by tenants smoking and cooking.

The Review Order modified this to only require replacing the smoke detector in one unit.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the frequent false alarms caused tenant complacency and increased the risk of tampering, posing a fire safety issue.

The Commission amended the Review Order to require the replacement of smoke detectors with heat detectors in all bedrooms on each floor of the premises.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision upholding Inspection Orders issued by the Hamilton Fire Department following a fire at his rental property.

The property, originally a two-bedroom house, had been renovated without permits to contain nine bedrooms and two kitchens, occupied by university students.

The appellant argued the building was an individual dwelling unit exempt from certain Fire Code requirements.

The Fire Safety Commission found insufficient evidence of a single tenancy or collective decision-making to classify the property as a single dwelling unit.

The Commission concluded the property operated as a lodging house and that the ordered fire safety measures, including fire separations and a second basement exit, were necessary to ensure fire safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the Review Decision was confirmed with amended compliance dates.

The appellant appealed a review decision upholding an inspection order that required him to remove excessive combustible materials (hoarding) from his home.

The appellant argued the inspection violated Charter values due to alleged harassment, that hoarding is not a fire safety issue, and that he had since complied with the order.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of harassment, that hoarding poses a significant fire safety risk to occupants and first responders, and that subsequent compliance does not invalidate the original order.

The Kingston Fire and Rescue Services (KFRS) issued an Inspection Order requiring the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board to construct a fire separation in a school's stairwells.

The School Board appealed the order but completed the required work prior to the appeal's final disposition.

KFRS brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of mootness.

The Fire Safety Commission denied the motion, finding that the live controversy regarding KFRS's authority to issue the order remained unresolved.

The Commission further held that even if the matter were moot, it would exercise its discretion to hear the appeal due to the important public safety issues and broader implications for other schools.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision by an Ontario Fire Marshal Delegate upholding an Inspection Order issued by Toronto Fire Services.

The order required the installation of interconnected smoke alarms, fire protection features for openings near fire escapes, and a fire-rated furnace room door at the appellant's residential building.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the building accommodated more than 10 residents and was a three-storey building, meaning it did not qualify for exceptions under the Fire Code.

The Commission confirmed the required measures as necessary to ensure fire safety and amended the compliance dates.

The City of Kitchener Fire Department applied to the Fire Safety Commission for an order authorizing it to complete work required by an Inspection Order issued to the respondent apartment building owner.

The respondent had failed to comply with the order and was convicted in the Ontario Court of Justice, receiving a Probation Order to remedy the deficiencies.

The parties submitted Minutes of Settlement agreeing that the respondent would complete the work by January 19, 2016, failing which the Fire Department would be authorized to do so.

The Commission found the measures necessary for fire safety and granted the order in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal upholding an Inspection Order that required the removal of excessive combustible materials from his property to ensure safe egress.

The appellant argued that the inspector did not have the right to enter the premises.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the inspector had full authority to inspect the property under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, having obtained a warrant.

The Commission accepted the respondent's evidence regarding the fire hazards and dismissed the appeal, confirming the order with an amended compliance date.

The appellant appealed two Review Decisions upholding Inspection Orders regarding fire safety measures at a seniors' home.

The parties reached a Terms of Resolution prior to the hearing, agreeing to classify the buildings as care occupancies.

The Fire Safety Commission accepted the resolution, upholding and amending the orders to require the installation of a fully addressable fire alarm system, an interim fire watch, and the distribution of fire safety educational materials.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order issued by the Burk's Falls and District Fire Department under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The order required the appellant to comply with the Ontario Fire Code provisions for vehicle and scrap metal salvage yards, including organizing combustible salvage piles, draining gas tanks, and separating tanks and drums.

The appellant argued the property was a public garage and repair shop, not a salvage yard.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the property constituted a salvage yard in terms of fire safety and upheld the Inspection Order, concluding the measures were necessary to protect occupants and emergency responders.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal's delegate that upheld an inspection order requiring the removal of an obstruction to sprinkler discharge caused by a newly constructed vestibule ceiling.

The appellant argued the vestibule did not interfere with water discharge and that sprinklers were not required for such a small area.

The Fire Safety Commission accepted the respondent's evidence that the vestibule ceiling obstructed the sprinkler system and created a fire safety hazard, confirming the Review Decision and ordering compliance.

The applicant fire department sought an order under section 33(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act authorizing it to demolish a vacant building owned by the respondent.

The respondent had failed to comply with a prior inspection order requiring demolition.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the building was in extreme disrepair, frequently insecure, and occupied by trespassers, creating a high risk of fire that endangered public safety and first responders.

Concluding that the respondent was unlikely to comply promptly or competently, the Commission granted the application and authorized the applicant to demolish the building.

The Kitchener Fire Department applied for an order under section 33(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, authorizing it to complete work required by two previous inspection orders issued to the respondent property owner.

The respondent had failed to comply with the orders, which addressed numerous Fire Code violations in an eight-unit residential building, citing financial constraints.

The Fire Safety Commission found sufficient grounds under section 33(4) of the Act, noting the outstanding items posed a severe threat to life and safety, and granted the order authorizing the applicant to carry out the work.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal's delegate that upheld an Inspection Order requiring the removal of excessive combustible materials from her residential unit.

The appellant argued that the 30-day compliance period was unfair given her health problems.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the excessive combustible materials created a severe fire safety hazard and that the appellant had been given ample time to comply.

The Commission upheld the order with specific directions for clearing combustibles and providing access to exits, setting a new compliance date.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal's delegate upholding an Inspection Order requiring the reduction of stored combustibles to ensure clearance for sprinkler deflectors.

The appellant argued he was not personally responsible as he was not the renter, but an employee of the corporate tenant.

The Commission found the appellant had control over the contents and was a tenant.

The appellant abandoned the hearing after being refused permission to record it.

The Commission proceeded in his absence due to severe life safety hazards and upheld the Order, amending the compliance date.