Reply To: Replacement of fire alarm systems

Latest News

Message from our Symposium Keynote Speaker Peter Katz

A message from our Symposium Keynote speaker Peter Katz Peter Katz is a Juno Award- and Canadian Screen Award-nominated singer-songwriter who has spent the past 20 years touring internationally. He has been described by many of his fans and speaking clients as “a thunderbolt for the soul”. A gifted storyteller fluent in English and French,

Read More »

Membership Renewal Reminder

OMFPOA Memberships expire at the end of each calendar year. As we have had ongoing website construction and upgrades being completed we have not removed any accounts that have yet to pay for 2023. Our membership continues to increase and we hope to have you as part of our association. This post is to serve

Read More »

HOME Forums Reply To: Replacement of fire alarm systems

#2209
Dave BakerDave Baker
Participant

IMHO,

It is not only the building, but the occupancy that must be considered. What is happening in the building? Has that changed? Remember that Part 2 of the OFC requires the CFO to classify a building based on its major occupancy in conformance with the building code.

If the installation was prior to a building code then the minimum would be the Part 9 of the OFC depending again on the occupancy. If Part 9 does not apply because of the building design one would have to review the associated risk and issue an Inspection Order based on some reasonable/logical measure.

Monitoring realistically is based on size, occupancy and occupant load, all risk factors. So, if the shoe fits…

Audibility is actually a good example. Current OBC requirements have a minimum level of audibility. Fire alarms installed prior to these requirements have been successfully upgraded by Inspection Order throughout the Province. The technical guideline is just a reasonable/logical measure.

Now my head hurts! Thanks for making me think!