Gary Laframboise

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Parking in Fire Lanes #10987
    Gary LaframboiseGary Laframboise
    Participant

    Oakville is the same as Richmond Hill.

    in reply to: Vulnerable Occupancies #2675
    Gary LaframboiseGary Laframboise
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Fire Prevention Guidelines #2340
    Gary LaframboiseGary Laframboise
    Participant

    Hi Denis,

    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.

    in reply to: Accelerant detectors #2033
    Gary LaframboiseGary Laframboise
    Participant

    Hi Darren,

    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.

    in reply to: Smoke Alarm Policy #1467
    Gary LaframboiseGary Laframboise
    Participant

    Ken,
    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.

    in reply to: Smoke Alarm Policy #1464
    Gary LaframboiseGary Laframboise
    Participant

    Oakville is trying to get away from installing them and placing the responsibility on the owner to install and maintain the alarms.

    in reply to: Smoke Alarm Policy #1462
    Gary LaframboiseGary Laframboise
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Smoke Alarm Policy #1461
    Gary LaframboiseGary Laframboise
    Participant

    Hi Alan,

    Do you screw the alarm into the existing holes in the ceiling?

    in reply to: Section 21 Committee – Fire Prevention Officers #1177
    Gary LaframboiseGary Laframboise
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Fire Marshal's Orders #1176
    Gary LaframboiseGary Laframboise
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Title Search and Corporate Profiles #1175
    Gary LaframboiseGary Laframboise
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Keeping Ontarians Safe from Carbon Monoxide #979
    Gary LaframboiseGary Laframboise
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Fire Access Routes #978
    Gary LaframboiseGary Laframboise
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Patches #947
    Gary LaframboiseGary Laframboise
    Participant

    They are in the mail…………….

    in reply to: Hay Maze – 2.14.1.2.(2) #922
    Gary LaframboiseGary Laframboise
    Participant

    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.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)