blank space

Fire Safety Commission Decision Summary

DECISION NO. 2001A003-133
Date:July 24, 2001

SUBJECT MATTER

An order was issued on an office building for lacking a second means of egress from each floor area for the escape of occupants in the event of fire. The existing one means of egress was identified to also have integrity issues. Among other items, the order required a plan of compliance for providing a second means of egress with a schedule of implementation. The plan of compliance and schedule of implementation were required to be submitted to the Fire Department for approval by March 12, 2001.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES

The building is ten storeys in building height, of non combustible cast in place concrete construction, and classified as a Group ‘D’ office building. The building is rectangular in shape and has a building area of approximately 3,850 ft².

The ground floor is occupied by a clothing store, bar and main lobby for the office floors. The clothing store and bar open directly to the exterior. Floors two through ten contain various commercial office tenancies, although floors two, nine and ten were vacant at the time of inspection.

There are two elevators that serve every floor in the building and are accessible from the lobby on the main floor. Egress from the building is provided by one exit stairwell that serves floors two through ten and the mechanical penthouse located on the roof. The stairwell opens onto the ground floor lobby and occupants can pass through the lobby to the exterior.

REASON FOR APPEAL

The owner appealed to the Commission on the basis that the order was incorrectly issued as it required structural alterations to the building contrary to s.22 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. Furthermore, the owner argued it would be impossible to construct an additional interior means of egress due to physical constraints or an exterior means of egress or any structures such as a fire escape on the existing building as it is built on a zero lot line.

APPELLANT’S POSITION

The owner presented evidence that the building had been constructed in 1927 and was built in conformance with the City By-law in existence at the time. He also indicated that the building is constructed to the lot-line on all sides, except for a narrow light well on the west side of the building. He suggested that this lack of available land would make the construction of a code conforming staircase very difficult.

He further presented evidence that it was possible to construct an exterior second means of egress on the west side of the building although it would not comply fully with the Ontario Building Code, and would terminate on the roof of a building on the adjacent property. He indicated that he was a part owner of the adjacent property to the west.

The owner’s counsel argued that the order is a violation of Section 22(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, in that the inspector was requiring a structural change to the building. He further argued that the City By-law was a predecessor to the Building Code Act and submitted that the Fire Safety Commission should rescind the order.

RESPONDENT’S POSITION

The fire department presented evidence indicating that, if a fire were to occur in the building, there is a likelihood that the only stairwell would be filled with smoke, making the building unsafe both to the occupants of the building and to the firefighters called upon to extinguish such a fire. This likelihood is increased by the fact that the only standpipe system is located in the stairwell, causing firefighters to potentially breach the stairwell fire separation with their fire hoses.

The fire department’s counsel argued that the By-law was not a predecessor to the Building Code Act, as it is a By-law, not a predecessor Act, and that the Order was properly issued under Section 21(1)(f) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. She submitted that the Fire Safety Commission should confirm the Order or order alternatives that would meet the objective of fire safety.

COMMISSION RULING

The Tribunal modified the Inspection Order as follows:
  1. The owner shall be required to provide a second means of egress for the safety of the occupants of the building. As a minimum, a fire escape, accessible to all floors terminating at the roof of the adjacent building, is an acceptable means of egress. The fire escape submitted by the owner as an Exhibit is acceptable to the Tribunal. The design of the fire escape shall be carried out by a Professional Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario and work shall be completed no later than August 1, 2002; and
     
  2. The existing means of egress shall be upgraded with an installation of a standpipe system in a location that is accessible to the general public on each floor and that is not within the existing stairwell. The work shall be completed no later than March 1, 2002.
     
  3. In the alternative to satisfying conditions stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the owner shall install a sprinkler system throughout the building. The sprinkler system shall be approved by a Professional Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario. This work shall be completed no later than August 1, 2002.

The owner shall notify the City in writing before November 16, 2001 as to his selection of the above options. Until this order is satisfied, the occupant load of the building shall not be increased beyond the current levels.

REASONS

The Tribunal believes:
  1. that the public is entitled to a minimum level of fire safety in a building in the Province of Ontario;
     
  2. that the building, with the presence of only one means of egress and the condition of the one means of egress, does not meet the minimum level of safety;
     
  3. that Section 22(a) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act does not apply to the installation of a fire escape. The construction of a fire escape does not constitute a structural change to the building.