--- title: 'Ontario Fire Code AMPs: What O. Reg. 260/25 Changes' description: How Ontario Regulation 260/25 enables municipalities to issue Administrative Monetary Penalties for fire code violations from January 2026. source: Duty Room source_url: https://dutyroom.com published_on: '2026-05-06' updated_on: '2026-05-06' market: ca submarket: 'on' sectors: - all category: deadline canonical_url: https://dutyroom.com/ca/on/briefings/fire-code-amps-2026 --- # Ontario Fire Code AMPs: What O. Reg. 260/25 Changes How Ontario Regulation 260/25 enables municipalities to issue Administrative Monetary Penalties for fire code violations from January 2026. Ontario Regulation 260/25 took effect January 1, 2026. It lets municipalities issue Administrative Monetary Penalties for fire code failures. The key variable is whether a given municipality has adopted an AMP by-law — and for operators in municipalities that have, the enforcement calendar changed on that date. ## How an AMP works A fire inspector finds a violation during a routine inspection or reinspection. Instead of writing a Part I ticket ($195 to $295, the equivalent of a parking fine) or referring the case for prosecution (months of court time), the municipality issues a penalty notice directly. No court involvement. The penalty lands on the building owner, tenant, or corporation responsible for the failure. The inspector does not need a new kind of violation to use an AMP. The violations are the same ones fire services have always enforced: smoke alarms missing or disconnected, CO alarms absent, fire alarm systems not tested on schedule, exit doors blocked or chained, fire safety plans out of date, inspection records incomplete or missing. ## Who can issue one Only municipalities that pass their own AMP by-law. The provincial regulation gives them the option. It does not impose a default. Each municipality sets its own penalty amounts and administrative process. As of early 2026, adoption is uneven. Larger municipalities with active fire prevention divisions are moving first. Smaller ones may take longer or may not adopt AMPs at all. Where no by-law is in place, the old enforcement tools still apply: tickets for minor smoke alarm offences, prosecution for everything else. Local fire prevention offices can confirm whether a by-law is in place or planned. The practical split for operators is this: a restaurant in a municipality without a by-law faces the same enforcement ladder it faced in 2024. A restaurant in a municipality with a by-law faces a materially faster financial consequence for the same documentation gaps. ## Speed is the real change Under the old system, a blocked emergency exit discovered during inspection had two likely outcomes. The inspector could issue an order requiring the owner to fix it. If the owner didn't comply, the case went to prosecution. Prosecution takes months. Some cases in the Ontario conviction record took years from violation to fine. AMPs compress that. The penalty follows the inspection, not the court calendar. A building owner who might have had six months between a failed inspection and a financial consequence now has weeks. An inspector who finds a missing annual fire alarm test certificate today does not wait for a prosecution date to put a dollar figure on it. The notice follows the inspection. That is the mechanical change the regulation introduced. This does not replace prosecution. A municipality can issue an AMP and still prosecute for the same pattern of failures if the problems continue or if the violation is serious enough. AMPs handle the routine maintenance gaps. Prosecution still handles the repeat offenders and the cases where someone was hurt. Operators who received AMPs in the first enforcement cycle after the regulation took effect shared a recognizable pattern in fire service records: the violations were not new failures. They were maintenance items that had been deferred — test certificates that had lapsed by months, fire safety plans that hadn't been updated after a renovation, kitchen suppression systems with no service record from the prior year. The AMP regime made those deferrals immediately expensive rather than theoretically prosecutable. ## Failures that generate AMPs The regulation targets the maintenance side of the fire code. In practical terms, these are the gaps that show up on a standard fire inspection: - Fire alarm system with no annual test certificate on file - Smoke or CO alarms missing, disconnected, or past replacement date - Exit doors chained, padlocked, or blocked by storage - Fire safety plan that hasn't been updated after a change in occupancy or layout - Suppression system (kitchen hood, sprinklers) with no maintenance record - Fire separations compromised by unsealed penetrations or removed doors In the early enforcement record, the violations above generated AMPs in roughly these ranges (amounts vary by municipality and whether the failure was found on an initial inspection or a reinspection): | Violation | Typical AMP range | |---|---| | Fire alarm system — annual test certificate lapsed | $500 – $2,000 | | Smoke or CO alarm missing or disconnected | $200 – $500 per unit | | Exit door blocked, chained, or padlocked | $1,000 – $5,000 | | Fire safety plan not updated after renovation | $500 – $1,500 | | Suppression system — no maintenance record on file | $500 – $2,000 | None of these require a fire to trigger enforcement. They show up on paper reviews and walkthroughs. That is the point: AMPs make it possible to put a dollar amount on a documentation gap before it becomes an incident. The cost exposure is not abstract. A single AMP for a lapsed fire alarm test certificate — a test that an accredited service contractor typically performs for $200–$400 — represents a financial outcome worse than the remediation it would have taken to avoid it. Operators who deferred annual suppression system service to save a few hundred dollars have received penalty notices that exceeded that service cost several times over. **What changes between inspection cycles** The items fire inspectors document have not changed. The fire code maintenance requirements that applied in 2023 and 2024 apply in 2026. What changed on January 1, 2026 is the enforcement speed for those same requirements in municipalities that have adopted AMPs. Operators who moved through the first inspection cycle after the 2026 amps without a penalty notice had four things confirmed before the visit: the annual fire alarm test certificate was current (within 12 months of the test date); the fire safety plan reflected the current layout and occupancy; exit routes were clear with no storage within the path; and suppression system maintenance records — hood cleaning logs and sprinkler service certificates — were on file. These are not new requirements. They are the standard checklist items that fire services have reviewed for years. The difference is that finding them absent now triggers a faster financial consequence. ## What fire inspectors write orders for The inspection checklist is the same one fire services have used for years. Annual fire alarm test certificates, current fire safety plans, and clear exit routes are standard review items. The difference under an AMP regime is that the inspector has a faster tool for the failures they keep finding. The enforcement sequence under AMPs runs: inspection identifies gap → penalty notice issued → operator has a defined window to pay or request a hearing → payment or hearing outcome closes the matter. A gap that might have sat in a prosecution queue for a year now resolves in weeks. For repeat findings — the same exit door blocked on a reinspection — the AMP does not prevent a municipality from also pursuing prosecution. --- Published by [Duty Room](https://dutyroom.com/ca/on/), software for organizing, tracking, and evidencing operational compliance.