Forum Replies Created
Here is a link to free ULC document access. Just follow the steps.June 4, 2020 at 11:38 am in reply to: Inquiry on Residential Sprinklers and Municipal Economic Incentive #12802
Have they considered a multipurpose combined system like uponor?June 4, 2020 at 7:15 am in reply to: Best Fire Records Management Software (FireHouse being replaced by ESO) #12797
We use FDM. It does the trick. I don’t have experience with other systems, so I can’t compare. There are modules that have been added over the years, but we haven’t caught up.June 3, 2020 at 3:31 pm in reply to: Inquiry on Residential Sprinklers and Municipal Economic Incentive #12794
It may also be worthwhile contacting some of the departments in Lower Mainland BC. They’ve required residential sprinkler systems for some time now. But I’m not sure what incentives they provide or how they were implemented.June 3, 2020 at 3:20 pm in reply to: Inquiry on Residential Sprinklers and Municipal Economic Incentive #12793
Hi Jessica, Del,
See the link below from Swift Current, Saskatchewan. Of note in the link, “In 2015, Council adopted a Residential Sprinkler Tax Incentive Policy. The intent of this policy is to ease the burden of costs incurred for the installation of residential sprinklers in homes that would not be required to have sprinklers by any other Act, Code, or Regulation. The incentive is for 50% of the annual municipal portion of the property taxes over a period of 5 years to a maximum of $4,000.”
If you need any further information contact Deputy Chief Pete L’Heureux. He may have additional information on other municipalities that have similar or other provisions.May 14, 2020 at 9:56 pm in reply to: Ticketing – Laying of Charges in relation to Structure Fires #12735
Not sure if this has been resolved, but thought I would chime in.
This topic was covered in the fire investigation program offered at Laurentian University, (the program was cancelled this past year).
I would review this with the OFMEM and your legal counsel, as there may be differing opinions. Specifically, I would ask about “predominant purpose” and regulatory inspections. Why did you originally enter the structure? If the initial entry into the structure was for an investigation. Then under the FPPA, Section 14(2) allows the investigator to take photographs for the purposes of cause. This means you cannot take photographs of code deficiencies, or no-working smoke alarms, unless these pertain specifically to the cause of the fire. (Note that I haven’t reviewed if there have been any revisions to the FPPA since I took the course last year. So my reference may be off and the section may have been revised, but I doubt it. The instructor was Chris Williams formerly with OFMEM.) The way we discussed it was that, in the ideal world, the investigator conducts an investigation into the origin, cause and circumstances of the fire. A second, and separate inspector can enter, under whatever authority they may need to, ie. entry warrant, consent, whatever. If you, as the investigator notice a violation and subsequently charge the offender, the evidence may be thrown out as you didn’t have legal authority to enter the premises for inspection: you entered to investigate the cause of the fire. In addition, you may be violating their charter rights.
If it was me, I would approach OFMEM and legal counsel to obtain their opinions on the current state of affairs.
If you decide to research predominant purpose, add in regulatory inspections as well. This should bring up relevant topics and issues as predominant purpose also other legal meaning.
Let me know if you need anything and I can try dig up any other information I may have. But your legal counsel and OFMEM would be better. As an FYI. I’m in Saskatchewan. Not to muddy the waters, but I asked our legal counsel and they said, no. Predominant purpose does not apply. But it’s a different province.
If your municipality has not been reviewing hydrant installation I would suggest you have someone conduct a check. We had a near miss a few years after a non-standard hydrant was installed. Luckily nobody was injured. But it did scare the firefighters that were involved.
I don’t believe that propane cylinders would fall under the requirements of Subsection 4.2.4 for Assembly or Residential Occupancies as propane is a liquefied gas under pressure. Therefore propane does not fall under the definition of Flammable Liquid (within the defined terms of Sentence 126.96.36.199.(1) of Division A) or the Scope of Subsection 4.1.1 of Division B.
My apologies if my references are slightly off as I’m referencing the National Fire Code of Canada.
I don’ have a copy available to me at the moment, but I would check CSA B149.1 – Natural Gas & Propane Code.
In Regina we have one investigator on call at all times. We receive $10 a day for weekdays, $25 a day for weekends and stats. We are on call for one week at a time. We switch the on call on Mondays, unless it is a long weekend. In that case the person on call over the weekend remains on call for the Monday and we switch on Tuesday. If a fire comes in over the weekend and the investigator is not called out, the fire investigator taking over Monday follows up on the investigation.
Typically we do not investigate during the night. We will attend scene to gather information from owner/occupants, neighbours, etc. We will speak with the crews to find out the fire fighting tactics, observations, etc. We then call city facilities to board up the scene. A bill is sent to the owner for the board up costs.
There are some areas for improvement in our system. We need to figure out a better way to alleviate the ongoing stress on busy weeks. This is a timely conversation, as our investigator on call this week has been called out to house fires every night, and there were two garage fires during the day. Unfortunately, last night there was a fatality. He still has the weekend. It makes for long days and nights. I’ll offer to take the weekend, but he may not accept.
We don’t have any, but I have heard of these facilities. From my understanding they have become really popular over the past few years. I beleive many of our Cities will see these in the coming years.
I would agree with Duncan, the building department should be involved; as they have altered the original design of the building related to egress and exiting. In addition, I would not accept the reliance on an employee opening doors with a key.
From a code perspective, I believe if they contact the right consultant, they could develop an acceptable alternative solution with the installation of proper locking hardware connected to the fire alarm system, provision in the fire safety plan, etc.