Forum Replies Created
Thank you! I have spoken to him and he is looking into it.May 4, 2020 at 8:01 am in reply to: Inspection – 2 apartments over an insurance business #12710
Vicky did a great job with her explanation but I just wanted to show you why 9.5 does not apply and how I would handle this. All municipalities and fire departments will handle something like this differently depending on a number of factors. I really try to consider the risk associated to the occupant/building(s) and achieve fire safety economically. I think hearing how different fire departments deal with this situation is a good thing.
SECTION 9.5 BUILDINGS UP TO AND INCLUDING 6 STOREYS IN BUILDING HEIGHT WITH RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCIES
Subsection 9.5.1. Application and General
18.104.22.168. (1) This Section applies to buildings up to and including 6 storeys in building height with residential occupancies and containing
(a) more than two dwelling units where
Because 9.5 requires more than two dwelling units you cannot apply retrofit as Vicky has explained.
We have a lot of these buildings in North Bay and utilize an F order which Vicky did a great job explaining. These are the things I cover in my order depending on the configuration of the building and its associated fire risks. I have them protect all closures opening into the exit stairway (a door I feel will provide 20 minute fire protection rating, i.e. steel clad exterior door and not necessarily a fire rated door), install self closing devices on the doors, protect the of the exit stairway with type X drywall from the commercial occupancy if there is no fire separation , and if there is no acceptable fire separation between the commercial and dwelling units I would have them install hardwired interconnected smoke alarms at each level of the commercial occupancy and at each level of the exit stairway for the dwellings. This would provide early detection for the two dwelling units. Generally these buildings are in the downtown area and are interconnected with several others.
How much further I went with this building would depend on its complexity but generally how I would handle a building like this.
Plus, part 2 & 6 OFC…
Hopefully this also helps you.
Hopefully this helps.
I have never seen a rating tag on a Kalamein door and I honestly don’t know if they come with one. I am sure there will be various opinions around the province on your question. I would more often accept a kalamein door but would consider the following conditions prior to my determination.
- Condition of the door – is it flimsy or sturdy.
- Occupant load of the floor area that the appliance room is on and the total occupant load of the building.
- Location of the appliance room. For example, does it open into an exit, is it in the basement or is adjacent to the assembly.
- Does the room posses automatic detection.
- Condition of the appliance(s).
I have done a lot of fire investigations and doors aren’t typically the weakest area of construction because they do not typically sustain direct flame impingement.
Hopefully this helps you.
We are pretty much under the same restrictions. Only perform inspections if they are absolutely necessary.
I only enforce the requirements of the OFC unless the sprinkler company service report indicates they have inspected/tested as per NFPA 25. In my opinion there are no provisions for an FPO to only enforce NFPA 25. I commonly get questions from our local sprinkler companies about this very topic and I always reply I can only enforce the OFC requirements and leave it with the owner and sprinkler company to decide.
Keeping this in mind, I always inform the owner that they should seek guidance from their insurance company because their contract may stipulate they use NFPA 25. I find that in most cases their insurance company will require their sprinkler system to be inspect/test as per NFPA 25.
If I am at an inspection and see violations of the OFC I will always enforce by way of a fire inspection order.
Joe GMarch 2, 2020 at 11:40 am in reply to: Interconnected Smoke Alarms in 9.5 building – annual #12020
Good morning Jon,
Our office will always issue a fire order for your particular predicament if the owner cannot provide annual testing reports in conformance with CAN/ULC-S552 requirements. I would tell the “company” you are dealing with to follow CAN/ULC-S552 maintenance requirements. We do no education on this specific item and only issue fire orders for noncompliance. I would suggest that the company provide a report that will confirm they have tested the system to CAN/ULC-S552 maintenance requirements. Send me an email if you need further information.
JoeGFebruary 25, 2020 at 4:44 pm in reply to: Looking for a Power Point Presentation aimed towards Landlords #11824
Send me an email and I will provide you with what I have.
Joe GardinerFebruary 13, 2020 at 8:13 am in reply to: Fire Marshal’s – Electrical Inspection Order Response #11493
Good morning Jon
Said Ismail from ESA wants more information.
“Thanks for bringing this to my attention. To be able to better understand the circumstances, I would like to know more about this situation, then I may be better equipped with a more complete picture. Some basic questions I would have are as follows:
– How much info was given to the ESA inspector (e.g. was the name of said building inspector provided?)
– Who was the inspector?
– How long ago was this?
– What was the nature of the questionable wiring, was it serious (i.e. hazardous) or did it just appear non-compliant), or was it only a qualification issue with the person who did the work?
– If they can provide address and any other pertinent info I can look into it and get a better understanding of what occurred”
The OMFPOA members are currently having our general meeting and brought your question forward. No one currently sitting on the executive has a spare or extra challenge coin available for you.
Sorry we could not help you out,
To add to Steve’s comments. Please refer to enforcement TG-01-2012 link below. It is currently under review but this paticular topic is relevant and current. http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/FireMarshal/Legislation/TechnicalGuidelinesandReports/TG-2012-01.html#P347_68300
See excerpt below:
8.4 Swearing the Information and Service of Summons
The informant (assistant to the Fire Marshal) must prepare and bring the Information Form 105 before the justice who will consider the matter in the presence of the informant pursuant to Section 23 of the POA. The informant must bring a completed Summons for authorization by the justice in Form 106. The informant must demonstrate reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the person(s) named in the Information committed an offence, and swear under oath to the facts contained in the Information.
I don’t know if you are aware but you can go to their website and look at it for free. You will have to sign up first. See link
North BayJanuary 9, 2020 at 8:40 am in reply to: Ticketing – Laying of Charges in relation to Structure Fires #11017
Fire prevention personnel in North Bay generally issue s & c/o alarm tickets post fire although it is left up to the discretion of the fire prevention officer. Some of our people will only charge by way of part 1 even if it is the owner.
Joe GardinerJanuary 8, 2020 at 3:32 pm in reply to: HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Also, a question about inspection software? #11015
There was a question similar to this one posted a while ago that also might offer some additional information. Below is the link.
Joe, North Bay
North Bay does the same thing as Richmond Hill .
Because of the seriousness of this.
“Issue: The product may fail to activate, causing users and central monitoring stations to not be alerted to the elevated temperature, in a location, which could lead to the spread of fire.”
“The product is a mechanical heat detector used in specific indoor applications to detect the presence of an elevated temperature. It does not detect smoke, nor does it contain an audible notification device as part of the assembly. This product is professionally installed and used as part of a fire detection system, in places where a smoke alarm would be unsuitable. In residential settings this product is installed in kitchens, attics and garages for the purpose of property protection, but not life safety. This detector must be connected to a fire alarm or security panel for monitoring and supervision, as the panel, and not the affected product, drives the connected alarm signals. “
I have not dealt with this type of situation yet. If I did come across this during an inspection and identified there were detectors falling under this recall I would have the building start a documented “fire watch” until the devices were replaced. Unless, they the owner can prove it does not affect life safety which I believe will be hard to attain. If they can justify that it does not affect life safety, provisions in the fire safety plan to elevate emergency procedures could be amended until the affected devices are replaced. You may also consider updating your fire cad system so that attending fire crews are aware of the situation.
Hopefully this helps,