Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Rob, I know I’m chiming in late but let me just add my two cents. Once you have a conviction and the time you have given for compliance has passed, you need to reinspect to determine if the deficiencies are still outstanding.
On determining that there are still deficiencies, these are your options:
1. Issue a new Inspection Order (always the risk of appeal and delays compliance)
2. Charge for the actual fire code violations (on conviction have the Prosecutor ask for two things in addition to any fine: a probation order prohibiting the commission of the same or similar offence and if the work has not been complied with at the time of the plea, an adjournment for sentencing to allow the defendant to comply before sentencing (this usually prevents the situation which you are finding yourself currently in)
3. S. 31 application (you will need legal counsel for this and puts the responsibility on the FD)
4. s. 32 application (you will need legal counsel for this. Breach of this Order can result in jail time)
5. s. 33 Fire Safety Commission (initial cost to the FD but recovery of cost available through s. 35Hope that helps.
NanDoug:
I apologize but I haven’t been on this site for a while. My email address is nancy.macdonald-duncan@mississauga.ca. Please email and I’ll send you whatever you need. I apologize for the delay. Nan
Sorry, I am just getting to these now but I have a number of presentations dealing with Part I and Part III. Is there specific information that you want addressed? I would be happy to send you one if you let me know how much or how little information you want contained in the presentation.
Nancy Macdonald-Duncan
Mississauga Fire and Life SafetyDuncan:
You will also notice that 2.6.1.3.(2) now stipulates that 2.6.1.3.(1) does not apply to a single suite or residential occupancy. That was not included in the previous edition of the fire code.
2.6.1.3.(1) was often used when dealing with a MGO in a single family dwelling.
Nancy Macdonald-Duncan
Duncan:
The difference in the colour of the offence notice goes to the options that the defendant has to deal with the ticket. If you have first attendance court, the offence notice would be one colour and if that is not available in your jurisdiction, the offence notice would be a different colour. (currently I think it is either blue or green) In most jurisdictions, current ticket books can be obtained at the Provincial Offences Court. The last revisions to the Offence Notice was in 2012 and that should be shown at the bottom.
Nancy Macdonald-Duncan
Scott:
The discussion regarding ordering an owner to have an inspection done with respect to audibility was an issue identified by the OFMEM during the review process.I believe that if you have conducted testing of a number of units and have found that the audibility does not meet the requirement, you have two options:
1. Order the upgrade based on the testing of several units;
2. Order that the entire building have audibility testing completed.The important part of both of these is the reasons for the Order. You need to provide reasons based on your inspection and observations.
What was happening in the past was that departments were testing one or two units and ordering an entire upgrade of the system. Although that might have been what was needed, on review and appeal, it was found that there was insufficient evidence that the entire system needed upgrading.
Another situation which was happening was that departments were not conducting any tests themselves and based solely on complaints by tenants they were ordering “testing to be completed”. Again, on review, the OFMEM took the position that the requirement is for the FD to conduct an inspection and based on those observations, they make an Order.
I believe there was a recent Order upheld by the OFMEM regarding audibility but I don’t recall if it came from Owen Sound or Guelph. I will look into it and try to get a copy. If anyone is already aware of the decision, please advise.