blank space

Fire Code Commission Decision Summary

DECISION NO.:95A001-101
DATE:February 21, 1995

SUBJECT MATTER:

Informal Review - refusal of a request for an extension of time - Section 9.5

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:

No report was done. It was understood that the subject premises was a detached house that had been divided into 3 apartments.

REASON FOR APPEAL:

The owner was unaware of the amendments contained in Section 9.

APPELLANT'S POSITION:

The appellant believes that she is being singled out due to a disgruntled tenant and that the cost of complying is too much at this time due to extenuating circumstances. Therefore, an extension until the summer of 1995 is requested.

RESPONDENT'S POSITION:

The application was received after the October 9, 1994 deadline.

COMMISSION RULING:

The Commission modified the Order:

  1. The informal review be modified to require doors and closing devices in accordance with the Fire Code by March 31, 1995.

  2. That the appellant perform a Life Safety Study in order to demonstrate proposed compliance with the Ontario Fire Code and this study be submitted to the Scarborough Fire Department by March 31, 1995.

REASONS:

  1. Testimony provided indicated that doors included a hollow core door and one with glazing which do not provide a minimum level of life safety to the building occupants.

  2. Testimony indicated that there are other deficiencies to Section 9.5 that have not yet been addressed by the fire department, the informal review or this hearing.