Ontario Fire Safety Commission

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Fire Marshal review decision confirming an inspection order that required the removal of household items from wire-caged storage lockers located in an underground parking garage.

The appellant argued that the individual locker owners should have been made parties, that the storage complied with the Ontario Fire Code, and that an exemption applied because the lockers complied with the Ontario Building Code.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness in not adding the individual owners.

The Commission held that the Fire Code requires parking garages to be fire-separated from the rest of the building, meaning household items cannot be stored in unseparated lockers.

The Commission also found insufficient evidence that the lockers complied with the Building Code, as approved drawings only permitted bicycle storage.

The review decision was amended to expressly permit bicycle storage and to extend the compliance date.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order issued by Oshawa Fire Services requiring her to address the issue of two exit stairs being within a single fire compartment in her 5-unit residential building.

The appellant argued that physical limitations of the building, potential Building Code contraventions, historical context, and financial burden justified rescinding or amending the order.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the present use and occupation of the building was not in compliance with the Ontario Fire Code and that the appellant's arguments did not justify rescinding the order.

The appeal was denied, but the compliance date was extended by 120 days.

The appellants appealed an Inspection Order issued by the Kitchener Fire Department under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The order alleged that the appellants' nine-bedroom student rental property violated the Ontario Fire Code by creating a hazard not allowed for in the original design.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the Inspection Order failed to provide valid reasons related to fire safety or specific Fire Code violations, improperly relying instead on zoning and building code issues outside the Commission's jurisdiction.

The Commission rescinded the Inspection Order.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order issued by the Hamilton Fire Department requiring her to remove excessive combustible materials and clear pathways in her apartment to ensure fire safety.

The Fire Marshal referred the matter directly to the Fire Safety Commission.

The Commission found that the quantity and location of combustible materials in the apartment posed a significant fire safety risk, endangering the occupant, neighbours, and first responders.

The Commission confirmed the Inspection Order but amended the compliance date to allow the appellant 30 days to complete the required actions.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal confirming an Inspection Order but extending the compliance date.

The appellant requested a further extension to complete the conversion of his building into a registered two-unit dwelling, citing municipal delays in issuing a building permit and supply chain issues for an egress window.

The Fire Safety Commission found the appellant made good faith efforts to comply and granted a short extension to December 28, 2022, to allow for final inspections and registration.

The appellants appealed two inspection orders issued by the Brockville Fire Department regarding a mixed-use condominium building.

The orders required the removal of door stops from fire separation doors and the removal of combustible furniture from the residential lobby and corridors.

The Fire Safety Commission upheld the order regarding the door stops, finding that they impermissibly wedge open and alter fire separations in violation of the Ontario Fire Code.

However, the Commission rescinded the order regarding the combustible furniture, finding that the furniture was placed in spaces specifically designed for it, which is permitted under the Code.

The appellants appealed an Inspection Order issued by the Oshawa Fire Services requiring Fire Code compliance for their multi-unit residential building, specifically regarding exit stairways and fire separations.

The Fire Marshal referred the appeal directly to the Fire Safety Commission.

The Commission found that the appellants no longer disputed the violations and were taking steps to comply.

The Commission confirmed the Inspection Order but, at the respondent's request, extended the compliance date to 90 days from the release of the decision.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that dismissed her appeal of a Fire Marshal's Review Order for lack of jurisdiction.

The original decision found the appeal moot because the underlying Fire Code violation had been remedied by the landlord.

The appellant argued procedural unfairness and errors of mixed fact and law, asserting she had not complied with the order and feared future prejudice in tenancy matters.

The Commission dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no procedural unfairness and confirming that the dispute was moot and outside its jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed two inspection orders issued by the Smith Falls Fire Department regarding multiple alleged Fire Code violations at a large, multi-building complex.

The parties settled most issues, leaving seven items for the Fire Safety Commission to determine.

The Commission confirmed the orders requiring a fire separation for the theatrical stage, repairs to ensure certain fire separation doors close and latch, the maintenance of standpipe testing records, and the installation of exit signage.

The Commission rescinded the orders regarding two sets of doors, finding they were not required fire separations because they did not open onto public corridors or were not originally built as fire separations.

The appellant, a residential tenant with a mobility disability, installed a chairlift on a shared interior exit stairway.

The local fire department issued an inspection order requiring its removal, citing a violation of the Ontario Fire Code requirement that means of egress remain free of obstructions.

The appellant appealed to the Fire Safety Commission, arguing the chairlift was necessary for accessibility and did not impede passage.

The Commission upheld the order, finding that the chairlift significantly reduced the stairway width and constituted an obstruction that could delay or impede occupants and firefighters during a fire emergency.

The compliance date was extended to allow the appellant time to find alternative accommodations or propose an alternative solution.

The Kitchener Fire Department brought a motion to partially lift the stay of an inspection order regarding a single-family dwelling with nine student tenants.

The property owners had appealed the order, which automatically stayed it.

The Fire Department sought to prevent new tenants from moving in before the appeal hearing, citing public safety concerns due to unauthorized bedrooms.

The property owners did not attend the motion hearing.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence that lifting the stay was necessary in the interest of public safety, especially given the upcoming appeal hearing and the five-month compliance period originally granted.

The appellant appealed an Order of the Fire Marshal confirming an Inspection Order that required her to remove combustible materials from a means of egress.

By the time of the appeal, the fire safety issue had been remedied, but the appellant wished to proceed to address alleged procedural fairness issues and to clear her name.

The Fire Safety Commission brought a motion to determine its jurisdiction.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the fire safety issue was moot and that it lacked the statutory mandate to grant the remedies sought by the appellant, such as conducting a systemic review or clearing her name.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission order that denied its motion to extend the time to file an appeal under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.

The Commission had previously ruled it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time because the request was made beyond the strict 30-day statutory limit.

The appellant argued the Commission violated procedural fairness and erred in law by not applying a liberal interpretation to the time limits.

The Commission dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no errors of law or procedural fairness, and affirmed that the strict statutory time limits precluded granting the extension.

The appellant tenant brought a motion for costs against the respondent fire services, alleging the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith by informally suggesting an appeal was no longer necessary shortly before a scheduled case conference.

The appellant claimed $1,000 for mental distress and for having to attend the case conference.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding the respondent's actions in updating the Commission on the status of the inspection order were entirely proper and did not meet the high threshold for a costs award under the Common Rules.

The appellant appealed a Review Order from the Fire Marshal requiring fire safety upgrades to her student rental property under section 9.3 of the Ontario Fire Code.

At the time of the initial inspection, the building housed five tenants, but the appellant subsequently reduced the occupancy to four tenants with no intention of renting the remaining rooms.

The Fire Safety Commission found that because lodging was no longer provided for more than four persons, section 9.3 of the Fire Code did not apply.

The items under appeal from the Review Order were rescinded.

The Kitchener Fire Department appealed a Fire Marshal Review decision that rescinded an inspection order issued to the respondent.

After the property was sold, the Commission ordered the parties to file submissions on whether the appeal was moot.

When both parties failed to file submissions, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The parties again failed to file submissions.

The Commission found that the appellant had abandoned the appeal and dismissed it without a hearing.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal an Office of the Fire Marshal decision regarding a fire safety inspection order.

The appellant missed the 15-day appeal deadline and the 30-day deadline to request an extension under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, citing delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and contractor issues.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding it had no statutory authority to grant an extension because the application was made more than five months after the 30-day time limit expired.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that rescinded inspection orders but imposed additional fire safety measures on their student-occupied residential properties.

The appellants argued the Commission erred in fact and law, and breached procedural fairness, particularly regarding the requirement to install fire-rated bedroom doors without their consent.

The Commission dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that its authority to impose additional safety measures under section 26(6) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act does not require the appellants' consent nor depend on the properties' Fire Code classification.

The Hamilton Fire Department appealed a Review Order of the Ontario Fire Marshal that found exit doors opening onto a fire escape complied with the Ontario Fire Code.

The respondent, who had sold the building prior to the hearing, did not appear.

The Fire Safety Commission found the appeal was not moot because a live controversy remained regarding the physical composition of the doors.

The Commission rescinded the Review Order, finding the exit doors did not meet the 20-minute fire rating requirement under the Ontario Fire Code.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal's Review decision requiring the installation of a fire alarm system in his three-storey building, which operates as a seven-suite hotel.

The appellant argued that the building should be exempt from the fire alarm requirement and proposed an alternative solution allowing occupants of a third-floor suite without direct exterior access to exit through an adjacent suite using a key.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the building meets the definition of a hotel under the Ontario Fire Code and is subject to the fire alarm requirement.

The Commission rejected the appellant's proposed alternative solution, concluding that it violated the Fire Code by requiring specialized knowledge and a key to access the exit, and failed to provide a dedicated exterior exit facility.

The order to install a fire alarm system was confirmed with an extended compliance date.