Fire Code Convictions

Here are some recent Fire Code Convictions we have recently obtained here in Brantford.

A. The owner of a residential duplex was charged with the following three counts:

1. While being the owner of xxxxxxx, Brantford, Ontario did fail to have the residential duplex subjected to a general inspection by the Electrical Safety Authority as required by Article 9.8.6.1. of O.Reg. 388/97 as amended and did thereby commit an offence.
2. While being the owner of xxxxxxx, Brantford, Ontario did fail to have the electrical hazards as identified by a general inspection by the Electrical Safety Authority repaired as required by Article 9.8.6.1. of O.Reg. 388/97 as amended and did thereby commit an offence.
3. While being the owner of xxxxxxxxxx, Brantford, Ontario did fail to provide a letter of compliance from the Electrical Safety Authority as required by Article 9.8.6.1. of O.Reg. 388/97 as amended and did thereby commit an offence .

The owner plead guilty to count numbers 1 and 2 and was fined $1,000.00 on each count, plus $125.00 victims surcharge and $ 5.00 court costs on each count. Total costs $2,260.00. Count number three was dropped.

B. A husband and wife who own a residential duplex were both charged individually with the following:

While being the owner of xxxxxxxxxx, Brantford, Ontario did fail to have the house subjected to a general inspection by the Electrical Safety Authority.

They both plead guilty and each were fined $1,000.00 plus $125.00 victims surcharge and $5.00 court costs.

C. A numbered company and it's directors (all family members) who own a residential triplex were all charged individually with the following two counts:

1. While being the owner or directors or officers of a company that owned xxxxxx, Brantford, Ontario the accused did fail to provide a fire separation with a 30 minute fire resistance rating between the basement and the first floor
2. While being the owner, or directors or officers of a company that owned xxxxxxx. Brantford Ontario, did fail to provide a fire separation with a 30 minute fire resistance rating between each apartment.

One of the owners plead guilty to item number 2 on behalf of the company and the directors and he was fined $3,000.00 plus $750.00 victims surcharge and $5.00 court costs. Total costs $3,755.00. All other counts were dropped.

D. A numbered company and it's two directors (family members) who own a storage warehouse property were all charged individually with the following:

While being the owner or directors or officers of a company that owned xxxxxxxx, Brantford Ontario the accused did fail to maintain the fire sprinkler systems in operating condition.

One of the owners plead guilty and was fined $1,500.00 plus $375.00 victim's surcharge and $5.00 court costs. Total costs $1,880.00. All other counts were dropped

E. An owner of a residential duplex was charged with the following three counts:

1. While being the owner of xxxxxxxx, Brantford Ontario, did fail to install and maintain a working smoke alarm in a manner as to protect the front bedroom of the upper floor apartment.
2. While being the owner of xxxxxxx, Brantford, Ontario did fail to have the house subjected to a general inspection by the Electrical Safety Authority.
3. While being the owner of xxxxxxxxx, Brantford Ontario, the accused did fail to install and maintain working smoke alarms in a manner as to protect each of the two rear bedrooms of the main floor apartment.

He was found guilty on all three counts at a trial in absentia. He was fined $1,500.00 on all three counts, plus $375.00 victim's surcharge plus $5.00 court costs. Total costs $5,640.00

Eight months later the owner had still not complied with number 2. He was charged again was convicted at trial in absentia and was sentenced to 10 days in jail.