Other Tribunals - OFSC

The appellant fire department appealed a Review Decision by the Fire Marshal that rescinded an Inspection Order requiring the respondent hospital to re-install fire doors (closures) between a third-floor elevator vestibule and an adjacent corridor.

The Inspector found the doors had been removed without a building permit, contrary to the Fire Code and Building Code Act.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the closures were part of a required fire separation and had been removed without a permit.

The Commission revoked the Review Decision and ordered the respondent to re-install the closures to ensure fire safety.

The Kitchener Fire Department appealed a Fire Marshal Review Order that rescinded an Inspection Order against the respondent homeowners.

The homeowners rented out eight bedrooms in their single detached dwelling to students.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the property functioned as a boarding, lodging, and rooming house under section 9.3 of the Fire Code, rather than a single family dwelling, based on factors such as individual rent payments and locks on bedroom doors.

Because the basement had only a single means of egress, the Commission amended the Inspection Order to require the removal of the two basement bedrooms for fire safety reasons.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal's review decision confirming an inspector's order regarding her residential property.

The property, originally designed as a single-family dwelling, was being used as a two-unit dwelling with an unregistered basement apartment.

The inspector ordered the appellant to either revert the residence to a single-family dwelling or obtain a building permit for a two-unit dwelling.

The appellant argued that physical modifications she made to the property mitigated the fire risk, rendering it compliant with the Fire Code without a building permit.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the modifications did not satisfy section 2.1.2.2 of the Fire Code and the property remained a fire hazard because its use was contrary to its original design and no building permit had been obtained.

The applicant fire department applied for an order under s. 33(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act to authorize it to carry out work required by an Inspection Order issued to the respondent, who had accumulated a large amount of combustible materials in her home.

The respondent's son indicated a plan to clear the materials, but progress was delayed by the COVID-19 Emergency Order.

The Fire Safety Commission found that there was a bona fide intention to comply and granted an extension of time, ordering that if the respondent failed to comply within 30 days of the lifting of emergency restrictions or by July 2, 2020, the applicant would be authorized to enter and complete the work at the respondent's expense.

Toronto Fire Services appealed a decision of the Fire Marshal rescinding an inspection order issued to the respondent property owner.

The order required the owner to replace windows surrounding third-floor balconies to protect occupants using the balconies as areas of refuge during a fire.

The Fire Marshal had rescinded the order because the balconies were previously approved as a compliance alternative.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the previous approvals exempted the building from strict retrofit requirements, the inspector's broad powers to order fire safety measures justified requiring protection for the third-floor windows directly exposing the balconies.

However, the Commission found that windows on lower floors did not require protection given the building's fire alarm system and protected primary exits.

The Commission amended the Fire Marshal's decision to require protection only for the third-floor windows, while allowing the owner to submit alternative compliance options.

The appellant appealed five inspection orders relating to five residential properties used to house its international employees.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the properties were being operated as boarding, lodging, or rooming houses rather than single dwelling units.

The Commission confirmed the inspector's orders, finding that the living arrangements, lack of proper lighting, cooking spaces, and emergency exits posed serious fire safety risks, and amended the compliance timelines.

The respondent, Toronto Fire Services, issued an Order to Close the third floor of the appellant's building, alleging it was an illegal rooming house lacking a second exit.

The appellant appealed to the Fire Safety Commission, which automatically stayed the order.

The respondent moved to lift the stay pending the appeal hearing, arguing it was necessary in the interest of public safety.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent had known of the risks for over a year and failed to establish an urgent need to displace the tenants before a hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision upholding an Inspection Order that required a second and separate exit for five bachelor apartments in its building.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the open hall and stairway area constituted a single exit, and residents of the bachelor units had to enter this space to access the fire escape.

As there was no direct access to a second exit, the Commission confirmed the order, finding a clear fire safety issue, and extended the compliance date.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal's Review Decision confirming an Inspection Order that classified her property as a rooming house under the Ontario Fire Code.

The appellant argued the property was rented as two separate housekeeping units.

The Fire Safety Commission applied factors from case law to determine the nature of the tenancy.

Finding that the tenants shared a single lease, paid rent collectively, provided their own furnishings, and shared meals and social activities, the Commission concluded the upper unit was a single dwelling unit rather than a rooming house.

The Review Order was rescinded.

The appellant appealed five review decisions made by the Fire Marshal regarding fire inspection orders for residential buildings housing seasonal offshore workers.

The central issue was whether the buildings should be classified as 'dwelling units' or 'boarding, lodging and rooming houses' under the Fire Code.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the living arrangements, which were contingent on employment and controlled by the employer, met the criteria for boarding, lodging and rooming houses.

The Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders with amended compliance dates, finding the ordered measures necessary to ensure fire safety.

The appellants appealed a Review Order of the Fire Marshal upholding an inspection order that required a fire safety plan and supervisory staff for alleged care occupancy suites in a condominium.

Following case conferences, the parties resolved the dispute on consent.

The Commission amended the Review Order to rescind the disputed items and confirmed compliance with the remaining item.

The appellant, a tenant operating an auto body repair shop on the main floor of a mixed-use building, appealed an Inspection Order and an Order to Close issued by the Toronto Fire Services.

The orders were issued due to fire safety risks posed by the combination of the industrial occupancy and residential units on the second floor.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the orders were substantively necessary for fire safety, the Order to Close was invalid because the Fire Marshal's Extension of Delegation of Authority did not explicitly delegate the power to issue such orders to Deputy Fire Chiefs.

Consequently, the Commission confirmed the Inspection Order with a modified compliance date but rescinded the Order to Close.

The Kitchener Fire Department appealed a decision of the Fire Marshal that rescinded an inspection order issued to Bingemans Inc. The original order prohibited the use of an open chain-driven pizza oven under a tent at an outdoor music festival, citing the risk of fire from grease-laden vapours.

The Fire Safety Commission confirmed the Fire Marshal's decision, finding insufficient evidence that the specific pizza cooking operation produced a significant amount of grease-laden vapours.

The Commission held that the risk could be controlled by other approved measures and exercised its broad discretion to order a specific fire protection and risk management protocol for future uses of the temporary pizza oven setup on the respondent's property.

The London Fire Department applied for an order under section 33(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act to authorize its inspector to install a visual and audible trouble signal device in the respondent's multi-residential building.

The respondent had failed to comply with a previous inspection order requiring the installation.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the building had sleeping accommodations for more than 10 people, making the trouble signal mandatory under the Fire Code.

The Commission granted the application, ordering the respondent to install the device within 14 days, failing which the fire department is authorized to complete the work.

The appellant, owner of an apartment building, appealed a review decision upholding an inspection order that required her to separate exit stairways from the remainder of the building with a 30-minute fire separation.

The appellant did not dispute the fire safety risk but argued that, as a small landlord, she should not be required to follow the formal alternative solution process under the Ontario Fire Code, which requires retaining an engineer or architect.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the alternative solution process is mandatory and cannot be waived.

The Commission confirmed the inspection order and provided amended compliance dates.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that confirmed four Review Orders regarding fire code compliance at its cheese manufacturing facility.

The applicant argued that the Commission made errors of fact and law concerning spray-foam insulation and an inoperable sprinkler system, relied on false evidence, and that new evidence was available.

The Commission dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate issues already decided, failed to prove false evidence was relied upon, and presented a letter that was already in evidence at the original hearing.

The respondent issued an Order to Close an auto repair shop located on the ground floor of a building with residential units above.

The appellant appealed the order, which triggered an automatic stay.

The respondent moved to lift the stay pending the hearing.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the motion, finding that the co-location of the auto repair shop and residential units posed a significant fire safety risk due to the presence of flammable liquids, combustible materials, and ignition sources, making it necessary in the interest of public safety to lift the stay.

The appellant appealed a review decision upholding an inspection order that required him to reduce combustible materials in his home to maintain clearances from appliances and ceilings, and to provide clear access to exits.

The appellant did not dispute the fire safety concerns but requested more time to comply due to personal circumstances, including his wife's illness.

The Fire Safety Commission found the ordered measures necessary to ensure fire safety but amended the order to extend the compliance date.

The appellant appealed four Review Orders confirming Inspection Orders that required the appellant to apply thermal protection to spray-foam insulation and to repair or decommission an inoperable sprinkler system.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the spray-foam insulation required thermal protection under the Building Code to ensure fire safety.

The Commission also held that the Fire Code requires the sprinkler system to be maintained in operating condition unless decommissioned through an approved process, regardless of how long it had been inoperable.

The Review Orders were confirmed with amended compliance dates.

The appellant appealed a review decision that upheld an inspection order requiring him to remove combustible materials from his apartment unit to maintain a 1-metre clearance from kitchen appliances, ceilings, and egress pathways.

The appellant, an artist who used his unit as a live/work space, argued the requirements were unnecessary and that he had complied with a previous verbal order.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the excessive accumulation of combustible materials posed a significant fire safety risk by acting as fuel, trapping smoke, and obstructing egress for both the occupant and emergency responders.