Court docs reveal Sault landlord fined $47K for fire code violations

A property owner in Sault Ste. Marie has been ordered to pay a staggering $47,000 in fines after he was found guilty of fire code violations in provincial offences court last week. 

Garfield Leonard Brown has six months to pay the fines, which were slapped on him by a fire prevention officer following an inspection of 129 Pozzebon Crescent — a multi-residential building tucked away in the city’s west end — in January of this year. 

It appeared as though an envelope containing the court documents notifying the landlord of the convictions was affixed to the front door of the apartment building when SooToday paid a visit to the property Wednesday.  

Brown was charged with the following Ontario Fire Code violations: 

• Failure to maintain smoke alarms ($18,000 plus court costs and victim surcharge)
• Failure to maintain and test portable fire extinguishers ($7,000 plus court costs and victim surcharge)
• Failure to test smoke alarms annually and provide test records and maintenance records ($7,000 plus court costs and victim surcharge)
• Failure to affix emergency notices to manual pull stations ($15,000 plus court costs and victim surcharge)

Brown, who initially pleaded not guilty to all four charges, failed to appear in provincial offences court and was subsequently found guilty of all charges Oct. 25.

Two other fire code violations, concerning carbon monoxide alarms and the fire alarm system, were withdrawn.    

On top of the hefty fines, Brown has also been placed on 12 months probation with conditions. 

Sault Ste. Marie Fire Services announced the fines in a press release last week, but refused to name the landlord or the property address. 

During an interview with SooToday last year, Sault Ste. Marie Fire Services Deputy Chief Paul Milosevich said there are policies in place in terms of how it handles releasing information to the public.

“The reason is, we don’t believe it’s necessary. The person’s already been charged, the individual has already gone through the court system — they have to pay the fines,” said Milosevich. “We don’t believe their name should be put in there so they’re judged by the public opinion as well.

“That’s not just our opinion, but that was our legal department’s opinion. They asked us, when we do media releases, just to leave it as a general statement. There’s no gain for us — we certainly don’t receive the money from the fines, that’s provincial offences. 

“We use it as a deterrent, so other owners out there know that they’re liable for these sort of fines if they don’t take corrective action.”

SooToday was unsuccessful in tracking down Brown for comment.