Reply To: Inspection – 2 apartments over an insurance business

HOME Forums Forums Fire Code & Enforcement Inspection – 2 apartments over an insurance business Reply To: Inspection – 2 apartments over an insurance business

#12713
John WilsonJohn Wilson
Participant
  • Department Name: Perth Fire Services

I look at situations like this very different than Vicky and Joe. I stick with (g) Orders and have not yet used an (f).

You will get many different versions of essentially this same question: “Does the building meet Fire Code?”. Some of the common ones I’ve had are retrofit inspection, Code inspection, compliance letter (which realistically you can’t give without conducting an inspection), upgrade inspection and I’m sure a few others that I’m forgetting.

In a situation like yours, and every time I get a request for an inspection that doesn’t meet the requirements of any of the application statements of Part 9, I stick to Parts 2 & 6 and enforce those. When I write my letter, I spell it out very clearly “The building does not meet any of the application statements of Part 9 Retrofit of the Ontario Fire Code.” Now if an owner asks my opinion on other things they could do to increase fire safety within the building, I will gladly share. Every time an (f) Order is issued, I would expect it to be appealed as those Orders are open to interpretation and judgement whereas (g) Orders are very clear…the owner is responsible for complying with the Code.

“Does it meet Fire Code?” is what the lawyers care about so that’s what I stick with which means no (f) Orders.

I would dearly love to see the Code updated to take out some of the many loopholes and standardize things between Parts and Sections. Our jobs would be easier and buildings would be safer but this is where we are currently.