The defendant corporation was charged with three offences under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act for violations discovered at a residential building following a fire on April 3, 2009.
The charges involved: (1) providing devices on required doors that could prevent them from being readily opened from the inside; (2) failing to maintain the fire alarm system in operating condition; and (3) failing to maintain smoke alarms in operating condition.
The prosecution proved the actus reus of all three charges.
The defendant raised a due diligence defence, arguing it had taken reasonable care.
The court found the defendant's fire prevention plan was inadequate, haphazard, and reactive rather than preventive, with poor coordination and no regular monitoring.
The defendant failed to meet its burden of proving due diligence and was convicted on all three charges.
