FOI Request #2019 -- 02704

This is a separate page showing how tricky it can be to communicate an FOI question. A request submitted on Dec.14, 2019 has now had to be resubmitted so that the response is not due until Feb.27 2020 -- 75 days instead of 30. Here's how that happened:

Original question:

Dec.14, 2019: Please send me, electronically, any reports and relevant fire incident analyses that the Fire Prevention office used to make the 1-meter (distance between houses) fire access requirement. City Division (optional): Fire Services

Dec.16, 2019, from FOI staff:

Dec.16, 2019, from CELOS:
"The documents I'm seeking are those that would support the MOU between Toronto Fire and Toronto Buildings (my other request), whenever that was drafted. The Laneway bylaw was passed in August 2018. Fire staff can tell you when they were working on the MOU and what specific documents they used to support their requirements.

If they cannot cite 5 or 6 specific documents that they used to explain the MOU, that is a significant finding in itself. That would indicate that the MOU, which makes most downtown properties ineligible for laneway housing infill, was not evidence-based.

So I'm not talking about a general run-down on fire risk. Sorry that I didn't clarify that in my request."

January 22, 2020:
Response (2019 -- 02704) arrived, in paper form. My question had been restated as:

January 23, 2020:
Two amails sent to FOI (Thelia-Lee.Cole@toronto.ca) (1) asking for an electronic copy and (2) asking why my question had been restated.

January 24, 2020:
Called Ms.Cole and found out that the response was unintentionally not to my question. She said that and the original question (looking for actual data) will now be resubmitted to Fire Services.

Jan.27, 2020, from FOI staff:

Jan.27, 2020, from CELOS:
Isn't clear language a tricky thing, my goodness.

I see now where my referencing the MOU could make the whole thing pretty general. However, in the same Dec.16 attempt to clarify my request to your colleague Edward Scanga, the second paragraph specified that I wanted the evidence on which the FS requirements were based:

"If they cannot cite 5 or 6 specific documents that they used to explain the MOU, that is a significant finding in itself. That would indicate that the MOU, which makes most downtown properties ineligible for laneway housing infill, was not evidence-based."

What I got was just:
1. a drawing of the FS requirements
2. a copy of the Oct.2019 MOU.

My original document asked for
"An electronic copy of any reports and relevant fire incident analyses that the Fire Prevention office used to make the 1-meter (distance between houses) fire access requirements."

I received no reports or fire incident analyses that could explain why FS requires a one-meter distance between houses. But that is what I asked for. Sending me a drawing and a copy of the MOU does not show any evidence that the requirements were based on.

Although the city collects very detailed fire incident data, it's quite possible that FS did not put together any internal report on fire incidents in laneways (these would be mostly -- but not only -- garages, some of which are used as workshops), and made no data analyses of causes, severity, blocked access, etc., that specifically supported the laneway FS requirements. "None" is also a possible answer to my request. But so far my question has not been addressed. I think the operative term here is evidence.

Does that clarify my question?

Jan.29, 2020, from FOI staff:
Thanks for explaining. So based on the original request, the clarified version and the documents released; could you please formulate exactly how you wish for me to present this to Fire. That is please state what your ask is. Once I hear back I will sent it off to them for you.

Jan.29, 2020, from CELOS:

My request is for exactly the information I asked for originally on Dec.14, 2019, see below in red. I have added only one word, so it's in black. I have added an explanation (in black italics) of what I mean by the phrase "fire incident analyses" -- in case the word "analysis" was hard to understand. That wording could be appended to the resubmitted FOI request to Toronto Fire. The second part is not a replacement of the original question.

"Please send me an electronic copy of any reports and relevant fire incident analyses that the Fire Prevention office used specifically to make the 1-meter (distance between houses) fire access requirements.

The city collects very detailed fire incident data, and I'm looking for any internal reports (since none are public) that FS used, containing data analyses re fire incidents in laneways. These relevant data reports would be mostly -- but not only -- about fires in garages. Such analyses would include causes, severity, blocked access, electrical fires based on workshops in garages etc..

In other words, I am looking for documentation showing that the 1-metre rule was evidence-based, and specifically what the evidence was that was used to support the FS requirement. If there were no evidence-based reports or analyses used to support the 1-meter requirement when it was issued, that is an acceptable answer too. I do not need to know the cost to the public of generating such a report now.

You said you wanted to know what I got from you --
1. a diagram showing the requirements
2. a memorandum showing a different set of drawings for the requirements
3. a memorandum about permits, inspections by TB and TF, and rules for construction and demolition of mid-rise wood buildings.

None correspond to my initial request.
Regarding your colleague's restatement of my original question: I have recently been in touch with the IPC and so I learned that they ask that "institutions work with requesters to ensure that access requests are as concise and detailed as possible to cut down on the search time."

This case is a good example of why, before your staff send off a request rewritten by them, it would be good to recheck with the requester to ask whether the restating of the access request is right. In this case, the form of the restatement, of which I was not aware, has resulted in making a simple question take over 75 days for an answer -- assuming that you will allow TF the 30 days from when you receive this and send it to them.

Jan.30, 2020, from Thelia-Lee Cole, FOI

Thanks Jutta

April 6, 2020, Jutta to FOI

My request about the documentation by Fire Services (re why so many laneway houses cannot get a permit) was due a few weeks back. It's possible that the Fire Chief will be more amenable to removing the obstacles to "age in place," now that the evidence of the danger of concentrating old people into nursing homes is mounting.

The link to the request and its career so far is here: https://www.celos.ca/wiki/wiki.php?n=Neighbourhoods.FOI02704ToFireS

When you have a chance, could you give me an update?

April 6, 2020, from Thelia-Lee Cole

Yes we are working from home, some days trying to. Access is not as straight forward as is being onsite as there is a major strain on the IT infrastructure; which I am experiencing the effects of now.

At last we left off Planning was to provide our office with a response as to whether they had responsive records.

Beyond providing you with a response, I am not able to speak on the Fire Chief's position on the matter. I would encourage you to reach out to Toronto Fire for the appropriate response.

At this time I am unsure when planning will be able to get back to me… I am doing my best within the limitations we have all been forced into.

April 6, 2020, to FOI

My FOI question was to Fire Services and if they have no specific documentation, I just need to have that in writing. I am not asking for a response from the Fire Chief personally but I believe the rest of his management are also working. Plus they had their month to respond before any of this really got going. (You acknowledged my clarification on Jan.30.) If you had no documentation response by 30 days after Jan.30, I just need that in writing.

April 27, 2020, from FOI

Please see attached a copy of our decision letter in response to our second search. Letter

Re the decision letter: my original request, then restated again exactly the same except for one additional word (in italics) was this:

"Please send me an electronic copy of any reports and relevant fire incident analyses that the Fire Prevention office used specifically to make the 1-meter (distance between houses) fire access requirements."

As you see I was asking for this information from Fire Services, specifically Fire Prevention. Your letter mentions that my request was passed along to City Planning and then, at my request, passed back over to Fire Services instead.

I'm sending this letter to reconfirm that the rewording of my request as "any documentation that would support the MOU...(etc.)" (quoting from your decision letter) is less specific than what I needed.

But it appears from your decision letter that Fire Services staff did finally search for "any reports and relevant fire incident analyses" relating to the one-meter access rule and found none "despite a thorough search."

That's what I'll quote in our working group's report, unless you feel that I've misunderstood.

April 29, 2020 to FOI

The below snippet of my retrieval email to planning outlines what was requested for and the responses I received.

From Lynda Macdonald: "Initial searches including a follow-up were all conducted by Toronto Fire."

April 29, 2020 to FOI

Thanks, that seems quite clear. It's Fire Services that's made so many houses ineligible for old people to "age in place."
People want to move into a laneway house and keep their garden and their neighbors.
Not to mention high rise dwellers who are isolated far from nature during the covid rules.
The Fire Chief is the head of the city's emergency response team. Now he and the MOH are talking about all the people catching each other's viruses in nursing homes.

The laneway house issue has been a bit of an orphan at city hall.
Fingers crossed that it will become more an interest for the city.
And that the Fire Chief will change his position after the city reopens.
(As soon as building can begin again.)
This FOI response should help. They haven't analyzed their data. But I have.