blank space

Fire Safety Commission Decision Summary

DECISION NO. 2001A002-132
Date:March 29, 2001

SUBJECT MATTER


The Fire Department issued an order to a group home requiring that a fire rated door be installed, complete with self-closing hardware between the basement and first floor to achieve a floor to floor separation.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES


The building is a single storey detached house with a basement and is located in a residential subdivision. The house has a building area of approx. 1187 ft² and is of combustible construction, which is estimated to be between 40 and 45 years old. The main floor level of the house contains four bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen, living room, dinning room and an office. The basement contains three bedrooms, bathroom, storage/laundry room, furnace room, playroom, locker/storage room, and a mudroom.

The building is operated as a Children's Residence under the Child and Family Services Act and is licensed for eight children. At the time of inspection there were eight children, ranging from 12 to 16 years of age, residing in the home. The children are described as having learning disabilities and/or conduct disorders with, in some cases, impaired physical motor skills. The children are continuously supervised while in the home. There are generally three staff persons on duty in the day and one staff person overnight.

Heat detectors are installed in most of the rooms except bedrooms. Manual pull stations are located at the front and rear exits on the main floor and at the entrance to the mudroom in the basement. The heat detectors, pull station and bells are connected to normal house power. There are also battery-powered single station smoke alarms mounted throughout the home. The home has a fire safety plan and maintains annual maintenance records for the fire safety systems and monthly check records for the smoke
alarms and fire extinguishers.

REASON FOR APPEAL


The owner strongly felt that a door would create greater concern and present a significant hazard in managing day-to-day safety for a group of children with potential for physically aggressive and oppositional behaviour.

APPELLANT'S POSITION


The owner presented evidence that while the appeal was based on the need for a door, the real issue is the applicability of Ontario Fire Code, Section 9.5 to this group home. The owner described that the goal of a group home is to provide a non-institutional setting for the occupants. The owner understood the need for fire safety particularly as some of the children had been involved in fire related incidents.

RESPONDENT'S POSITION


The fire department described the present legislation that applies to group homes, mainly Section 9.5, Ontario Fire Code. The fire department also stated that there is some ambiguity in applying Section 9.5 to a single storey building of this type.

COMMISSION RULING


It is the decision of the Tribunal that the Inspection Order be modified as follows:

  1. The building shall comply with the requirement of Section 9.5, however an overall compliance plan shall be developed and accepted by the Chief Fire Official before site modification commences, or alternatively
     
  2. The owner shall develop and submit a Life Safety Study as defined in the OFC Subsection 9.1.4. for acceptance by the Chief Fire Official, and when accepted the work shall be implemented in accordance with the schedule of compliance.

REASONS


The Tribunal was concerned that while the appeal dealt with the lack of a door, it quickly became evident that the bigger issue is the applicability of Section 9.5 to group homes, especially single storey group homes. The Office of the Fire Marshal in August 1999 issued a Communiqué; in an attempt to clarify this issue. In the opinion of the Tribunal this clarification has not been accepted by the group home industry.

The Tribunal believes that a home for unrelated individuals requires a degree of life safety measures that is different from a home for a traditional family. The Life Safety Study provides an opportunity to develop a reasonable level of life safety for buildings of this size and occupant load without the necessity of strict compliance to Section 9.5. During the hearing, both parties indicated the willingness to cooperatively arrive at a reasonable fire safety solution.

It is in the owner's interest that he is not faced with a series of fire department Orders over time based on a particular code subsection. Therefore, items 1 and 2 above require a comprehensive plan be developed and agreed to by both parties before on-site work is commenced. While this requires a higher level of effort initially, over time it should minimize orders being issued on the same subject.

Should an acceptable Life Safety Study not be attained to the satisfaction of the Chief Fire Official and the owner then, strict compliance with Section 9.5 is required.