Akif Amin and Bushra Amin charged in Parkdale fire (3 dead in fire)

[TACO.VIDAL]

Theres both landlords and tenants on this forum.

Whats everyone think of the charges?
Do the landlords deserve jail time?

Sounds like the basement suite was a deathtrap with a tragedy waiting to happen. Old house... bars on the windows... only one way out. Basement was likely very cold so no option but to run a small space heater. And no smoke detectors.

IMO, Id like to see jail time. Its too bad more serious criminal charges relating to the deaths cant be laid.

Hopefully this is a wakeup call for other landlords and tenants. I know Ive friends on both sides of the coin... being the tenant in and being the landlord of suites that dont conform to the law and have many problems waiting to happen.

RIP to the 3 who died in this fire. And prayers go out to the lone survivor.

Anyone know how insurance works if this was an illegal suite and wasnt up to code? Would the landlord be out of pocket for the destroyed building and for any civil lawsuit brought against him by the families of the victims?
It seems a hit to the bank account might be the only punishment the landlords get.

Date: Wed Feb 11 15:08:52 2009
Subject: Fire Department lays charges in Parkdale fire
From: Fire PIO

-----BEGIN MD5 -----------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------
CITYBEAT - CITY OF CALGARY PRESS RELEASE
-----------------------------------------------------------------


Fire Department lays charges in Parkdale fire

The Calgary Fire Department laid five charges today against
the owners of a Parkdale house at 515 – 33rd St. N.W. where a
deadly fire occurred Jan. 26.

Charges were laid under the Alberta Fire Code against Akif
Amin and Bushra Amin who were served earlier today.

The charges are:

1. Bedroom window size (2 counts) – Failing to ensure that
each bedroom within a secondary suite has at least one
outside window that meets the requirements of the Alberta
Building Code.

2. Interconnected smoke alarms (1 count) – Failing to ensure
that smoke alarms are installed by permanent connections to
an electrical circuit and wired so that activation of one
smoke alarm causes all smoke alarms to sound within both
dwelling units (upstairs and downstairs).

3. Bedroom window bars (2 counts) – Failing to ensure that
security bars on bedroom windows can be opened from the
inside without the use of any tools or special knowledge.

Each count carries a penalty of up to $15,000 and/or six
months in jail. First appearance is Feb. 24, 2009 in
Courtroom 308 at Provincial Criminal Court.

For more information, call:

Brad Lorne
Deputy Chief of Community Standards.
Calgary Fire Department
287-4290 (w) or 863-6870 (cell)
(Prior to 6:30 p.m. and Thursday)


-30-


Public Contact Information:

Jeff Budai
Public Information Officer
403 268-8667

Public Email Contact:

[email protected]

-----END MD5 2d1c87449f2de5691d5b7cc471a04c7b-----

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by TACO.VIDAL

Anyone know how insurance works if this was an illegal suite and wasnt up to code? Would the landlord be out of pocket for the destroyed building and for any civil lawsuit brought against him by the families of the victims?

I can't say for certain, but I was under the impression that was how it worked.

[Masked Bandit]

Whether it's an illegal suite or not does not matter. Insurance can only deny the claim if the cause of the fire is what was lied about to the insurance company. Since it was a space heater, I think insurance will cover.

With that said, I will defer on property claims to 403Gemini.....

I know you love it when I drag you into these things....



As far as the punishment to the landlords goes, it's kind of hard to justify. There are hundreds if not thousands of suites in this city / province / country that are just like this.

[gatorade]

I heard that the tenants took the batteries out of the fire detector so that they could smoke and put the space heater there too

[TACO.VIDAL]

My thought was that youd have to insure the house properly as to its use. A single family home with one family living it would be different than the same building after its divided into two units with two separate entrances. And is there a difference in insurance for owner occupied buildings versus those that used for income purposes.
Anyone work in insurance that can answer how it works?

Originally posted by Masked Bandit
Whether it's an illegal suite or not does not matter. Insurance can only deny the claim if the cause of the fire is what was lied about to the insurance company. Since it was a space heater, I think insurance will cover.

With that said, I will defer on property claims to 403Gemini.....

I know you love it when I drag you into these things....



As far as the punishment to the landlords goes, it's kind of hard to justify. There are hundreds if not thousands of suites in this city / province / country that are just like this.

[kaput]

.

[Amysicle]

Originally posted by gatorade
I heard that the tenants took the batteries out of the fire detector so that they could smoke and put the space heater there too

That's what I heard too.

I know it's pretty taboo to blame the victim(s) and all, but if the situation quoted was true, I feel they are also partially to blame for the situation. Why does everyone expect someone else to look out for them?

[ragu]

^^For sure, both are liable. Occupiers Liability Act

And I have to agree that I am surprised that it doesn't happen much often.

[Anomaly]

Originally posted by gatorade
I heard that the tenants took the batteries out of the fire detector so that they could smoke and put the space heater there too

2. Interconnected smoke alarms (1 count) – Failing to ensure
that smoke alarms are installed by PERMANENT connections to an electrical circuit and wired so that activation of one smoke alarm causes all smoke alarms to sound within both dwelling units (upstairs and downstairs).

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by TACO.VIDAL
My thought was that youd have to insure the house properly as to its use. A single family home with one family living it would be different than the same building after its divided into two units with two separate entrances. And is there a difference in insurance for owner occupied buildings versus those that used for income purposes.
Anyone work in insurance that can answer how it works?

Absolutely. There is a big difference between a primary residence and rental property from an insurance perspective. Being that both the upstairs & downstairs were rentals, I would be surprised if it wasn't insured properly. However we (the insurance companies) never do personal inspections to see if everything is up to code. That is up to the property owner.

[Crymson]

Im kind of with Masked Bandit.

Sure, nobody is happy this happened. It's a huge tragedy. However, this city is absolutely 100% reliant upon the 1000's of "illegal" suites availalbe at low cost throughout town. Without them, life would not be possible for alot of people in Calgary. I'm not away of the laws that make a suite illegal or not -- but if it's too costly to do it "properly", then the city may need to adjust it's requirements so at least it can be done safely rather than have nothing done at all. Simply "cracking down" would hurt more people than it would protect by leaving low income tennants with no where to go.

Blame for something like this is hard to place. It truely was an accident. Those bars could have been removed, and the tenants should have been more aware of the dangers they faced by using a space heater and not having a working smoke detector.

[CUG]

I think fines are in order, but jail time is a bit much. Unless they can prove there was genuine criminal negligence, there should be zero jail time.

[urban.one]

From the articles, one of the charges is:

2. Interconnected smoke alarms (1 count) – Failing to ensure
that smoke alarms are installed by permanent connections to
an electrical circuit and wired so that activation of one
smoke alarm causes all smoke alarms to sound within both
dwelling units (upstairs and downstairs).

You couldnt take a battery out of one those.

[em2ab]

Originally posted by urban.one
From the articles, one of the charges is:

2. Interconnected smoke alarms (1 count) – Failing to ensure
that smoke alarms are installed by permanent connections to
an electrical circuit and wired so that activation of one
smoke alarm causes all smoke alarms to sound within both
dwelling units (upstairs and downstairs).

You couldnt take a battery out of one those.

You can disconnect them. If you twist them and pull down, there's a connector that you unplug and the whole unit comes out. I disconnected both of mine in the last apartment I had because they kept going off when I would cook in the oven. The problem was they also had batteries so after I threw them on the floor, they would keep going. I had to pitch them into the closet.

This seems to me more like the renters' faults, not that I don't feel bad for them or their families. The way I thought it worked was like seatbelts in a car......if the building was built up to code and codes change, you don't have to keep changing the building to keep it up to code. For instance, if you have an old buildings where the studs aren't 16 inches apart (or whatever the code, I have no idea), then are you expected to tear it down and rebuild it with new studs? Hell no, it's like buying a car pre 1970, if it didn't have seatbelts, you're not required to install them. Now this is just what I thought, probably not very true.

And it's up to the tenant to make sure any fire protection device is working prior to staying there. Check all the smoke detectors, windows, extinguisher service chart, everything.....at least I do.

Am I wrong anywhere here?

[Amysicle]

Originally posted by urban.one
From the articles, one of the charges is:

2. Interconnected smoke alarms (1 count) – Failing to ensure
that smoke alarms are installed by permanent connections to
an electrical circuit and wired so that activation of one
smoke alarm causes all smoke alarms to sound within both
dwelling units (upstairs and downstairs).

You couldnt take a battery out of one those.

Originally posted by Anomaly
2. Interconnected smoke alarms (1 count) – Failing to ensure
that smoke alarms are installed by PERMANENT connections to an electrical circuit and wired so that activation of one smoke alarm causes all smoke alarms to sound within both dwelling units (upstairs and downstairs).

Someone made a pretty good point in the comments section in the Calgary Herald article:

Diana Braine

... The by-law that required hard wiring came into effect January 1st of this year, we must remember that the landlord needs permission to gain access to the house to re-wire the fire alarm. Were the plans for this underway and, in the meantime, are we saying that the landlord should have visited these tenants every day to ensure that the batteries were kept in the smoke detector? ...

[kenny]

For the last couple years when there was a huge shortage of rental units, the province proposed changes to the rules for basement suites in an effort to increase the number of these units.

They admitted that they rely on these illegal suites to help control the number of homeless people out on the streets and now because of this tragedy the public wants to throw the book at these landlords so it never happens again.

Seems a bit strange to me.

[Melinda]

I thought one of the charges had to do with illegal bars on the windows, closing off one of the exits that could have saved their lives? If that's been thrown out, then forgive me, but if the landlord had locked bars on the windows, then yeah, jail time might be in order. If it was just a smoke detector, then no. We rented a place for a year and we took it upon ourselves to make sure the smoke detectors worked. Sure the landlord should do it, but people have to take *some* responsibility for their own lives.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by kenny
For the last couple years when there was a huge shortage of rental units, the province proposed changes to the rules for basement suites in an effort to increase the number of these units.

They admitted that they rely on these illegal suites to help control the number of homeless people out on the streets and now because of this tragedy the public wants to throw the book at these landlords so it never happens again.

Seems a bit strange to me.

Bingo.

I agree with 1 and 3. That why I don't do basement suites even if it means less income.

Heck, even my own basement isn't really up to code for 1 and 3.

2 is new. While all my smoke detectors are wired, multiple detectors are not wired to go off at the same time. And really, other than the bathroom, smoke detectors and the next most abuse item in a rental property. While a landlord need to do periodic check, and should fix it if tenants raise issues, landlords should not be charged unless the they failed to address both.

Heck I even install new smoke detectors every 5-7 years. Because their performance decreases over time.

[enough]

I just would like to point out that this situation is unbelievably tragic but I don't believe sending the landlord to jail is the solution. In all honesty, there are facts that have not yet been released. Yes, the bars were on the windows, however, those exact ones are still legally sold all over the country. Should they have been removed? Absolutely...but the tenants wanted them there for their safety. The landlord should have removed them regardless, but that is easy to say AFTER something horrible has happened. This suite was a legal suite, inspected by the City (I'm assuming, since it was a permitted suite)...why did the City not enforce the larger windows before it was approved for rental? Everyone wants to point fingers in a situation like this; 3 people lost their lives and I can guarantee that the landlord and his family are heartbroken. NO-ONE would have ever wanted this to happen and there are clear "mistakes" on both sides. Let everyone mourn the loses and heal. Sending someone to jail and destroying another family will not mend any hearts. Telling the story and ensuring that the emphasis is put on the proper bars on windows and NOT DISABLING A SMOKE DETECTOR (and yes, the hard wired ones can be disabled as well, if they wanted to smoke in the suite they could have disabled those kind as well) should be everyones focus....not revenge on a man who doesn't deserve everyone's contempt.