Fire Code Commission Decision Summary
DECISION NO.:92A015-081
DATE:April 9, 1992
SUBJECT MATTER:
Items in contravention of the Fire Code that must be repaired or installed:
- Damaged fire separations
- Portable fire extinguishers overdue for inspection
- Means of egress - second and third floors lack two exits to grade located remote from each other
- Floor separations are lacking at interior stairways that are not required exits
- Exit stairway doors do not self-close and latch
- First floor doorway to basement lacks a door having a twenty minute fire protection rating with a self-closing and latching device
- Building lacks exit signs
- Building lacks emergency lighting
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:
The building is a fully detached house with three storeys and a basement. The exterior walls are solid masonry and all interior partitions, floors and roof are of wood frame construction. The building is occupied by thirteen university students, one student per bedroom. All of the bedrooms are kept locked. The basement area consists of a number of storage areas, a laundry room and a boiler room. The main floor contains three bedrooms, a kitchen and a living room. The bedroom doors, on all floors, are solid core wood doors with locks and latches but no self-closing devices. There is no door at the top of the basement stairs. There are two stairways in the building, a main stairway that connects the first and second floors, and a secondary stairway that connects the first, second and third floors together. The second floor consists of six bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. It is possible to exit this floor via the main stairway, which is completely open, or the secondary stairway, both of which are located in the centre portion of the house, within approximately 10 feet of one another. The third floor consists of 4 bedrooms and one bathroom. The secondary stairway is the only means of egress from the third floor. It is fully enclosed down to the main floor with doors equpped with self-closing devices at each floor level. The building does not have any exit signs or emergency lighting. The building is equipped with interconnected smoke alarms and most of the bedrooms have battery operated smoke alarms. There are pull stations, fire extinguishers and alarm bells located on all floors.
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 so 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 and two have been completed to the satisfaction of the Toronto Fire Department.
Item 3 Revoked
Item 4 Revoked
Item 5 Upheld
Item 6 Upheld
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.
