Forum Replies Created
Oakville is the same as Richmond Hill.
I would like to thank the members who responded either through the forum or by sending me an email. I appreciate the time and effort people took with this issue.
If you check under Forums on the OMFPOA web site and pick File Manager you will see a listing of departments that have provided copies of their policies and guidelines.
I would check with the OFMEM as I assisted with an arson case in Oakville and the investigator stated that using a detector would or could cause the case to be through out of the courts. Unfortunately I can’t remember why he stated this.
Thanks for the response.
Regarding the instructions, as we would be only leaving the alarm for 48 hours we should be fine without leaving any maintenance instructions. If Oakville moves towards a loner program it is more of a gap filler until they install their new alarm.
Our legal department if fine with installing a battery operated alarm as the owner will be required to install the proper alarm on the same day but prevention will return within 48 hours to confirm.
I never thought about the idea of the owner to provide a new alarm, this will be discussed with management.
You definitely bring up some interesting points.
Oakville is trying to get away from installing them and placing the responsibility on the owner to install and maintain the alarms.
We will also be using a form explaining why an alarm was installed. We are considering a period of 48 hours and then an FPO will attend and if they have not installed an alarm we will then issue a ticket.
Do you screw the alarm into the existing holes in the ceiling?
Regarding vehicles, do we carry items in the passenger seats that could become air born in even a minor collision? There should be proper storage in vehicles, think back to when you pack a van up for a public education event, is everything secured down.
Oakville follows the FPPA but our officers have some discretion when posting if the situation will cause more problems for the owner/tenant. An example would be when dealing with hoarding in an apartment building, there is no benefit with posting an order for all building occupants to read. Usually we are dealing with people who have other mental issues and this would just cause more problems.
Hi Brent, Oakville has been advised my our legal department to complete title searches and also corporate searches. This has become more of an issue because when a defendant does not pay in court, the court can’t go after the fine if not all the “owners” have been served/charged.
Regarding CO alarms, there are two dates for enforcement. April 15, 2015 is for buildings that contain no more than six suites of residential occupancies. October 16, 2015 is for buildings that contain more than six suites of residential occupancies.
This can be reviewed on e-laws under the regulation.
Regarding what the news is saying, they are misleading the public.
Also be aware that Division B, Section 2.13 has also been amended regarding smoke alarms and is now enforceable.
I don’t know of any alternative compliance that was submitted under the life safety study for Oakville. In cases of not meeting the 45 meter requirement it becomes a judgment call. Was the hydrant 46 meters from the pumper connection or 55 meters. I would suggest having the suppression crews attend and give their opinion on if the distances will work for them. Usually in Oakville the owners had to relocate the pumper connection or install a new fire hydrant.
They are in the mail…………….
Oakville has never had to deal with this but I would look at the Ontario Fire Code, Division B, Section 2.14.
Also look at NFPA 1, Section 10.15 (edition 2009.