Fire Code Commission Decision Summary
DECISION NO.:92A014-080
DATE:April 9, 1992
SUBJECT MATTER:
Items in contravention of the Fire Code that must be brought into compliance:
- Provide written test records of the fire alarm system
- Damage to fire separation in third floor hallway
- Accumulation of combustible materials under the stairs on the main floor and in the third floor hallway
- First floor washroom ceiling does not have a thirty minute fire resistance rating
- Third floor lacks a second exit located remote from the other exit
- Closet, living room, kitchen, dining room and closet under the stairs on the main floor and all rooms on the second floor lack twenty minute rated doors that self-close and latch
- Door at the top of the stairs from the basement and the door to the rear stairway in the kitchen lack a twenty minute fire protection rating and a self-closing and latching device
- Building lacks exit signs throughout
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:
The building is one half of a semi-detached house and consists of three storeys and a basement. The main floor has a small addition that measures approximately 7 feet wide by 9 feet long. The exterior walls are solid masonry and all interior partitions, floors and roof are of wood frame construction. The building is occupied by six university students, one student per bedroom. The bedrooms do not appear to be kept locked and all students have access to all common areas of the building. The basement area consists of several storage rooms, one of which includes laundry facilities, and a boiler room. The main floor consists of a kitchen, dining room, living room and bathroom. All doors are wood panel type and there are no self-closing devices on any of these doors. The second floor has four bedrooms and one bathroom. The doors are wood panel type with no self-closing devices. Each door has an interior dead bolt or slide bolt which could be used to lock the room when it is occupied. The third floor has two bedrooms and only one means of egress, down the main stairway. There are no exit signs in the building. The building is equipped with interconnected smoke alarms and fire extinguishers on all floors and has pull stations at each of the exits on the main floor. There are two manual gongs in the building.
REASON FOR APPEAL:
The building is not a rooming house as described and is in compliance with all regulations and therefore there is no need for renovation.
APPELLANT'S POSITION:
The appellant feels that the building should be considered unique from the normal description of a rooming house and therefore not be forced to comply with the strict guidelines of the Code for rooming houses. Also the building met the retrofit requirements of Ontario Regulation 730/81 and is exempt from any order to further upgrade. And since the building was in compliance with the Building code at the time of construction that any order for further alterations or structural repairs is prohibited by the Fire Marshals Act.
RESPONDENT'S POSITION:
The building is occupied such that fire would endanger the occupants and the property. Compliance with the Fire Code will ensure proper fire and life safety.
COMMISSION RULING:
The Commission understands that items one, two and three have been completed to the satisfaction of the Toronto Fire Department.
Item 4 Upheld
Item 5 Upheld - the Commission will accept installation of a fire escape at the rear of the property serving the third floor corridor or installation of a minimum 1m by 1.5m balcony accessible directly from each room on the third floor. Access to these alternative means of egress may be through the existing windows.
Item 6 Revoked - no need for twenty minute rated doors on the first floor
Item 6 Upheld - twenty minute rated doors on all doors on the second floor
Item 7 Upheld
Item 8 Upheld
This decision is contingent upon the provision of interconnected smoke alarms, pull stations, extinguishers and a fire safety plan satisfactory to the Toronto Fire Department.
REASONS:
The reasons for the decision are based on enhancing the fire safety to the occupants and the property.
The Commission accepts the uniqueness of cooperatives as distinct from the traditional boarding houses, but has concerns that the private nature of the individual residents' rooms may detract from the purely "familial" nature of the living arrangements. The Commission therefore declines to make a decision as to whether Section 9.3 of the Ontario Fire Code applies to Campus Cooperative Residence Inc. and has made its decision on the merits of the life safety issues at the property under Section 18(2) of the Ontario Fire Code.
