Fire Safety Commission Decision Summary

DECISION NO. 2000A002-130
Date:May 12, 2000

SUBJECT MATTER

The owner of a group home submitted a Life Safety Study to the fire department in order to demonstrate compliance with Part 9, “Retrofit”, of the Ontario Fire Code. The main issue in the Life Safety Study was an open stair between the first and second floors. The study rationalized that upgrading was not required since the building operates as a dwelling and therefore Part 9 of the Fire Code does not apply. The Life Safety Study was rejected by the fire department and by the Fire Marshal on first level of appeal. This decision was further appealed to the Fire Safety Commission.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION O PREMISES

The building is detached, has wood-frame construction and exterior walls of brick veneer. It is about 15 years old, has two storeys above grade and one storey below grade. The building area is approximately 140 m². Walls and ceilings are covered with gypsum wallboard.

The building is occupied as a home for children who are autistic or have developmental delays. Funding is provided by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The children range in age from 8 to 18 years. Regular care consists of dispensing medication, assisting children with meals and schoolwork and preparing them for bed. All of the children require assistance to evacuate the building. One child requires assistance using stairs. There is at least one staff person on duty at all times. Staff is tested on emergency procedures within 30 days following commencement of employment and on a yearly basis thereafter.

Sleeping accommodation is provided on the second floor in four bedrooms that can accommodate up to 8 children. Common living areas are located on the first floor. The basement is restricted to staff.

An open circular staircase provides access and exiting from the second floor. It leads to the outside through the first floor foyer. The first floor can be exited through the front door, sliding doors leading from the kitchen and a door from the laundry room. The basement is accessed by an enclosed stairway located behind the open circular staircase.

One hard wired smoke alarm is installed in the second floor corridor. Battery powered smoke alarms are installed in each bedroom, the first floor staff lounge, the first floor hallway and the basement ceiling. Fire extinguishers are located throughout the building.

APPELLANT’S POSITION

The Appellant disagreed with the fire department’s position that the building is regulated by Section 9.5 of the Ontario Fire Code for the following reasons:

The fire department is incorrect in finding the occupancy of a group home as anything other than a dwelling unit;

The residents live as a single housekeeping unit;

The construction of the home complies with the Ontario Building Code requirements for group homes and is not consistent with the broad interpretation of ‘boarding, lodging and rooming houses’ as interpreted by the fire department.

It is further noted that complying with the fire department proposals would introduce additional safety concerns for the residents.

RESPONDENT’S POSITION

The fire department rejected the Life Safety Study for the following reasons;

The building is occupied as a group home and not a dwelling unit,
As a group home, the building is regulated under Section 9.5, “Boarding, Lodging and Rooming Houses”, of the Ontario Fire Code, and,
The contents of the study are not consistent with the fire safety issues addressed in Communiqué; No. 99-017 issued by the Office of the Fire Marshal;

COMMISSION RULING

It is the decision of the Commission that the fire department Notice of Violation and rejection of the Life Safety Study and the Review by the Office of the Fire Marshal be modified as follows:

The Ontario Fire Code Section 9.5 together with Communiqué; #99-01 as a reference document shall be implemented.
Notwithstanding the requirements of the preceding Sentence 1, if the building is provided with sprinkler protection in accordance with NFPA 13D “Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes”, 1999 edition, with the sprinkler water flow signal and control valve tamper signals transmitted to a listed central station, then the ground and second floors may be interconnected.

REASONS

Implementing one of the options outlined in the decision will achieve an appropriate level of life safety. The alternative of supervised sprinkler protection addresses the Appellant’s desire for openness between the ground and second floors and the Respondent’s concern with flashover, separation between floors and fire department emergency notification when only a single staff person is on duty.

Considerable material was presented at the hearing as to what constitutes a single housekeeping unit since this term is used in the definition of dwelling. While the Commission accepts that it is not intended that Part 9, “Retrofit”, of the Fire Code apply to dwelling units it did not accept the argument by the appellant that the building is a dwelling unit. The Appellant’s reference to “clinical staff”, “outside of own family home”, “caregivers for children” and “treatment facility” in her testimony helped persuade the Commission that the building is not a dwelling unit.