[Joseph Gardiner]

Hello Kevin,

I saw this when it came out and this is how i dealt with it. I looked up our local fire safety suppliers in North Bay and forward the hyperlink to them all advising them of the situation. Most of them were not aware. I also asked the OMFPOA administrator to post it on the OMFPOA website.

I think sharing it with your local stakeholders is a good way of handling it.

Joe Gardiner

North Bay

[Joseph Gardiner]

Good morning John,

Our website was developed by our city’s IT and the daily upkeep is done by our administrative assistant.

Hopefully this helps,

Joe Gardiner

North Bay

[Joseph Gardiner]

Good morning George,

Chuck Parsons, the fire chief of Kingsville gave a presentation at the fire college during the 2019 Fire Prevention Seminar regarding a bunch of buildings popping up in his jurisdiction similar to yours and how he and the city dealt with it.

I think it would be worth you reaching out to him.

Kingsville fire department  (519) 733-2314.

Joe Gardiner

North Bay

[Joseph Gardiner]

Hello Nicholas,

We do not track AIRBNB’s in North Bay. Our office would treat them as if they were a single family dwelling or a dwelling within a multi residential building. I don’t think tracking them in North Bay would serve any major benefit because we have not had any fires here relating to AIRBNB’s. Obvious there are benefits but resources would be better reverted to high priority areas/concerns.

Hopefully this helps,

Joe Gardiner

 

[Joseph Gardiner]

Hello John,

I am pretty sure our past president Gary Laframboise email: [email protected] might have one that he might share with you. I would send him an email and request a copy.

Joe Gardiner

North Bay

[Joseph Gardiner]

Hello Ben,

Our office would require the owner to get a building permit to decommission the sprinkler system. If they chose not to do that they would have to maintain the system.

Hope this helps,

Joe Gardiner

North Bay

[Joseph Gardiner]

Hello Mike,

Here are my thoughts with the information you have provided. I would first check that the building department knows this restaurant exist just in case the change of use has not been done. The change of use will almost always sort your problem out. I would then do the following if the change of use has been done.

·       Ensure the current situation applies to the Ontario Fire Code – under the application of Part 2 OFC and the articles I have provided below.

·       If the situation meets OFC requirements NFPA 2011-96 is applicable.

·       NFPA 96 states that All listed appliances shall be installed in accordance with the terms of their listings and the manufacturer’s instructions.

·       If you look up the manufacturer’s instructions you will find a clause in there somewhere that states “this device is not intended for commercial use”. If you can find that, it is a done deal.

·       If it doesn’t say that they will have to protect the device as per NFPA 96 2.6.1.12. & 2.6.1.13 which will more than likely correct the situation.

Hopefully this helps you out. See below.

Joe Gardiner, North Bay Fire,

O. Reg. 213/07: FIRE CODE

Exhaust and fire protection systems in cooking operations

2.6.1.12. (1) A cooking operation producing smoke or grease-laden vapours shall be provided with an exhaust system and fire protection system in accordance with NFPA 96, “Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations”.

(2) Despite Sentence (1), an existing exhaust or fire protection system may be approved.

(3) Sentence (1) does not apply to

(a) an individual suite of residential occupancy, or

(b) a cooking operation producing insignificant amounts of smoke or grease-laden vapours that are controlled by other approved measures.

(4) In a hotel establishment regulated by Section 9.9, a cooking operation that meets the requirements of Article 9.9.2.19. is deemed to be in compliance with Sentence (1).

Maintenance of exhaust and fire protection systems

2.6.1.13. Exhaust and fire protection systems required under Article 2.6.1.12. shall be maintained in accordance with NFPA 96, “Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations”.

2.6.1.14. (1) Instructions for manually operating the fire protection systems required under Article 2.6.1.12. shall be posted conspicuously in the kitchen.

(2) The instructions required in Sentence (1) shall be included in the fire safety plan where such a plan is required.

2011- NFPA 96 Chapter 12 Minimum Safety Requirements for Cooking Equipment
12.1.2 Installation.
12.1.2.1 All listed appliances shall be installed in accordance
with the terms of their listings and the manufacturer’s instructions.

[Joseph Gardiner]

Hello Randy,

Sorry for the late response. The occupancy is being changed from an E to a F2 or F3 and will need a “change of use” permit which will require the owner to more than likely get an architect to look at the process and determine OBC requirements. This will sort out all fire separation/equipment requirements.

Let me know if this helps?

Joe Gardiner

North Bay Fire

 

[Joseph Gardiner]

Hello Jon,

I find charging just one person for an expired smoke alarm/carbon monoxide alarm a very good way of spreading the news. I don’t suspect it is very creative but it is very effective. One charged person will reach out to hundreds of people.

Joe Gardiner

North Bay Fire

[Joseph Gardiner]

Good morning Jon,

I don’t know if there is a different reporting procedure.

I am interested to know who the testing agency was? CAN/UL? You may want to notify them and also the Electrical Safety Authority.

I have had a couple of instances now of owners buying CO alarms online not tested by any registered testing agency like CAN/UL. Obviously I had them remove the units immediately and purchase real ones.

Thanks Jon,

Joe Gardiner, North Bay

[Joseph Gardiner]

Hello Jon,

• Order is issued to create a service room to separate equipment from the remainder of the floor area.
• Drawings submitted to Bldg Dept and Permit issued
• Who does the inspection? Fire or Bldg?I’m thinking Bldg inspects, Reply – Our/Fire department does all followup visits. 
• Bldg Permit closed, Reply – After the fire department does the final inspections. 
• Report back to FD (by either the Owner or Bldg) Reply – Fire does final inspection. 
• Fire Order completed.

Hopefully this helps.

[Joseph Gardiner]

Hello Gwen,

I’m looking for information on municipalities who have a  false alarm by-law?https://www.cityofnorthbay.ca/media/13203/2016_002.pdf

What type of alarms does your by-law apply to? see hyperlink

What is the fine? see hyperlink – is there an education component to it? no

How successful has your by-law been in reducing false alarms? not sure, we don’t track this information.

Has your department reduced their Emergency response to alarms? not sure, we don’t track this information.

What challenges have you encountered during the process? unknown.

And anything else that you may find helpful.

That’s all I have, 🙂

Joe Gardiner

 

[Joseph Gardiner]

Hello Ben,

Nothing in North Bay.

Joe Gardiner

[Joseph Gardiner]

Hello Nicholas,

You may want to consider using 2.2.3.3. for your particular situation:

Operation of closures

2.2.3.3. Closures in fire separations shall not be obstructed, blocked, wedged open, or altered in any way that would prevent the intended operation of the closure.

The key for me in this sentence would be “altered”. It appears that the fire doors in this building have been altered from their original design/use.

Let me know what you think and good luck,

Joe Gardiner

North Bay Fire

[Joseph Gardiner]

Hello Ben,

Sorry for the late response. It seems there are hidden forums that I am discovering.

I would also agree with the both of you and would add that you consider “existing”. “existing” means in existence on October 9, 1992.

If you cannot establish when the doors were installed I would revert and enforce 9.5.2.8. (1).

Let me know what your thoughts are,

Joe Gardiner

North Bay Fire

[Author]

Posts