Improve the proposal, together.

This regulation is made by the board of directors under section 30 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act and submitted for examination by the Office and government approval under section 95 of the Professional Code.

This regulation establishes the criteria for distinguishing:

1° a reporting-exempt non-compliance;

2° a non-compliance requiring action;

3° a non-compliance under documented action.

Non-compliances requiring action and non-compliances under documented action are subject to mandatory filing in the registry.

It also establishes the rules governing the recording of apparent anomalies referred to in section 27 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act.

The registry declaration requirement in this regulation takes effect only in legally activated regions. It never suspends hazard notices or other reporting obligations already imposed by another law.

A substantiated report requiring verification is a preventive mechanism separate from the three categories in this section. It changes neither the technical serious-risk threshold nor non-compliance classification criteria. An authorized person may issue a formal notice only after sufficiently establishing the necessary elements within their competence and legal authority; an outside-mandate report lacking them remains a report requiring verification. All disclosures are free.

For the purposes of the functions under section 30 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act establishing the Order, the following requirements supplement this Regulation:

The classifications “non-compliance under documented action” and “non-compliance requiring action” do not represent two intrinsic degrees of severity. They apply to non-compliances reaching the same serious-risk threshold and primarily distinguish the state of their handling. Both categories are subject to mandatory filing in the registry in accordance with sections 28 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) and 29 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS).

Every formal notice of reportable non-compliance, whether classified as 'under documented action' or 'requiring action', includes a separate metadata field stating whether the condition may materially affect firefighter operations, including firefighter safety, access to the premises or the availability of firefighting resources. This assessment is independent of classification by handling status; it changes neither the serious-risk threshold nor any other emergency duty.

Every disclosure resulting in a formal notice of reportable non-compliance, whether 'under documented action' or 'requiring action', and every substantiated report 'requiring verification' includes a mandatory 'Origin of finding' metadata field, with either 'within the scope of the mandate or legally assigned activity' or 'incidental discovery'. The latter applies to a finding outside the assigned verification scope, including one made during a different mandate or without any mandate. This field establishes neither severity nor adequate handling and creates no new duty to inspect or to contact the owner.

An express commitment by the owner or responsible person to carry out the correction may be considered in assigning or maintaining status “non-compliance under documented action” where the authorized person considers the commitment serious, credible, sufficiently specific and compatible with the applicable period. Where the nature of the risk requires immediate control or compensatory measures, a future commitment alone is insufficient in the absence of such measures.

Ordinary reporting of an apparent anomaly remains discretionary where there are no serious and objectively grounded reasons to suspect a reportable danger. It creates no general duty to actively search for conditions beyond a mandate's scope and is not, by itself, a definitive determination of non-compliance.

However, a member of the Order who, within the reasonable limits of their competence, incidentally observes a danger meeting the reporting criteria or has serious, objectively grounded reasons to believe it exists must make the appropriate disclosure, even without a mandate, current employment duties, a report or a contractual relationship with the owner. Where a non-compliance and its classification can be sufficiently established by an authorized person, the corresponding formal notice is filed. Otherwise, the member files a separate substantiated report marked 'requiring verification', without presenting unverified non-compliance as confirmed. This rule requires no inspection, procurement of a mandate, unauthorized entry, or diagnosis beyond professional competence or legal authority. A rumour, unsupported hypothesis or unverifiable information alone does not trigger the duty. In an immediate emergency, emergency services or the competent authority are contacted first as applicable, without waiting for the registry.

Compliance with a requirement and the level of risk associated with non-compliance are two distinct questions.

A non-compliance is not a non-compliance under documented action or a non-compliance requiring action solely because the code, standard or regulation makes the requirement mandatory.

The classifications “non-compliance under documented action” and “non-compliance requiring action” correspond to the same serious-risk threshold. They are distinguished mainly according to whether immediate, serious, credible and documented handling exists.

For the purposes of the functions under section 30 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act establishing the Order, the following requirements supplement this Regulation:

The mere failure to comply with a provision of an Act, regulation, code, technical standard or other technical document is not, by itself, sufficient to classify a non-compliance as a non-compliance under documented action or a non-compliance requiring action.

Refusal to award corrective work to the person who identified or classified the non-compliance, selection of another provider, negotiation of the price or scope of a mandate, or any other commercial interest may not, alone, justify classification as a non-compliance under documented action or a non-compliance requiring action, maintenance of such status or a correction period shorter than the actual risk requires.

Classification results from applying regulatory criteria to the concrete circumstances.

The requirement that is not complied with must be identifiable.

Where that requirement results from a chain of references, the provision and chain of references must be identifiable.

Several non-compliances may be considered together where their combination increases the risk.

The preparation, signature or authentication of a professional reportable non-compliance notice and the other professional conclusions covered by section 27 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act are activities reserved directly by that Act, subject to the authorizations and exceptions in its section 9 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS). This regulation specifies their exercise without itself creating the reservation.

For the purposes of the corresponding chapter of the Act establishing the Order, any person authorized to identify a non-compliance is also authorized, within the limits of that authorization and competence, to classify it, change its classification, reclassify it and verify its correction.

The Act’s incidental disclosure duties outside a mandate apply to PSI members, engineers and professional technologists authorized by its section 9 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS), under the same conditions and competence limits. Other persons remain subject to their legally applicable duties. Each professional remains under their own order for ethics and discipline. The serious-risk threshold and the two classifications remain identical; a report requiring verification creates neither a third non-compliance category nor a presumption of severity or territorial jurisdiction.

Classification involves two distinct and documented assessments:

1° determine whether the actual risk, in the concrete circumstances, reaches the serious-risk threshold justifying the regime for non-compliances under documented action or requiring action;

2° where that threshold is reached, determine whether immediate, serious, credible and documented handling justifies classification as a non-compliance under documented action or whether the absence, cessation or insufficiency of such handling justifies classification as a non-compliance requiring action.

For every reportable non-compliance, a separate assessment identifies the potential impact on firefighter operations using one of the values 'yes', 'no' or 'undetermined'. 'Yes' means that a material impact is reasonably plausible on the known facts; 'no' means that no such impact emerges from reasonably available facts; 'undetermined' applies where the available information does not support a conclusion. Silence or lack of verification must never be treated as 'no'.

Where the value is 'yes' or 'undetermined', the notice briefly identifies the function potentially affected and the limits of the assessment, to the extent supported by known facts. Examples include water supply, emergency access, equipment used for firefighting, and communication or control devices. This assessment creates no duty to perform an additional inspection beyond the mandate. Any later amendment of the metadata is dated, justified and retained with its history.

For the 'Origin of finding' field under section 29 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act, the filer distinguishes a finding made within the assigned verification scope from an incidental discovery outside that scope. An incidental discovery requires neither prior communication with the owner or responsible person nor proof of an attempt to contact them. It does not, by itself, establish that non-compliance has been corrected or that serious handling exists.

Professional judgment remains based on protection of the public and may not be influenced by the commercial interest of the person carrying out the classification.

For the purposes of the functions under section 30 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act establishing the Order, the following requirements supplement this Regulation:

The regulation made under section 30 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) may also determine:

1° the content of notices;

2° filing and transmission procedures;

3° elements required as proof of correction;

4° documentation of a verification;

5° conditions and grounds for a change of classification or reclassification;

6° follow-up reports;

7° procedures applicable where verification is impossible.

It may not determine the measures a competent authority must take after a notice becomes available in its dashboard.

Section 30 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS), section 31 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) and this section apply to central-registry operations in the region concerned only from its legal activation; it neither suspends nor replaces hazardous-situation reporting duties or public-authority powers arising under other laws.

Without raising or lowering the technical serious-risk threshold, the regulation specifies the contents and routing of substantiated reports marked 'requiring verification', their separation from formal notices, later verification solely by legally authorized persons, correction and administrative closure, and safeguards preventing unverified facts from being represented as confirmed. These procedures create no general outside-mandate inspection duty and grant no new right of entry to buildings.

In assessing the serious-risk threshold, the following are considered in particular:

1° the safety function affected;

2° the importance and extent of the loss of function;

3° whether the loss is total or partial;

4° redundant systems;

5° compensatory measures;

6° the type of occupancy;

7° the number of occupants;

8° their ability to evacuate;

9° their vulnerability;

10° available means of egress;

11° the reasonable probability of fire or aggravation;

12° reasonably foreseeable consequences;

13° the duration of the situation;

14° the accumulation of several non-compliances;

15° the age of a document, inspection, review or situation where that age has a real effect on safety;

16° changes to the building, occupancy, systems or occupant characteristics since the last relevant verification.

None of these factors, including the mere passage of time, creates an automatic classification by itself.

A non-compliance is reporting-exempt where it does not meet the criteria of Chapters IV or V.

It is recorded in the professional report where it falls within the mandate.

It is not filed in the registry or transmitted to the competent authority solely because it exists.

An apparent anomaly within the meaning of section 27 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act is not a reporting-exempt non-compliance.

Where a professional report is produced following a verification, inspection or test referred to in section 8 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act, it distinguishes non-compliances from apparent anomalies under separate headings.

The non-compliance heading contains results arising directly from the elements the applicable requirement required to be verified. Any element that was required to be verified and does not meet the applicable requirement is treated as a non-compliance, not as an apparent anomaly.

The apparent-anomalies heading may contain conditions incidentally observed outside that scope. Ordinarily, recording them is discretionary and does not, merely because they appear in the report, give rise to a notice of non-compliance under documented action or requiring action or to a separate registry entry.

This discretion does not limit a member of the Order's duty to report, including outside a mandate, sufficiently reliable facts giving serious and objectively grounded reasons to believe that a reportable danger exists under the reporting duties in Chapter IV of the Act. Facts and steps taken are documented without presenting an outside-mandate anomaly as definitively established non-compliance. Without sufficient elements for a formal notice, the filing is a separate and free substantiated report 'requiring verification'; an isolated or unverifiable rumour is not enough to trigger the duty.

An apparent anomaly may not be presented as a definitive determination of non-compliance with a design, construction, installation or modification requirement unless the person has sufficient information to reach that conclusion, has the necessary knowledge and competence, and is legally authorized to perform the analysis or give the opinion concerned.

Where the person validly reaches that conclusion, the finding is treated as a non-compliance and classified in accordance with this Regulation.

The person may recommend that further verification be carried out by a legally authorized person.

A non-compliance that reaches the serious-risk threshold is a non-compliance under documented action where all the circumstances demonstrate immediate, serious, credible and documented handling by the owner or responsible person.

This classification records the existence of credible and documented handling; it does not mean that the non-compliance has been corrected. The handling must reasonably support the belief that correction will occur within the granted period and that, during that period, the risk is managed in a manner compatible with protection of the public.

An express commitment by the responsible person may be sufficient to establish handling where the authorized person considers it credible, sufficiently specific and proportionate to the situation. Material corrective work need not already have begun in every case.

Where the nature of the risk requires immediate control, classification as a non-compliance under documented action nevertheless requires that necessary temporary or compensatory measures actually be in place.

In assessing whether handling is immediate, serious and credible, the authorized person may consider in particular:

1° a clear and documented commitment by the responsible person;

2° the existence of a reasonable timetable;

3° steps already undertaken, including scheduling, ordering equipment, seeking or awarding a mandate, or planning work, where relevant;

4° work already undertaken and its progress, where applicable;

5° temporary or compensatory measures in place;

6° compliance with commitments already made in the file.

The authorized person retains professional judgment. The person may not require that the corrective mandate be awarded to them, their employer or a related person as a condition of status “non-compliance under documented action”.

A non-compliance that reaches the serious-risk threshold is a non-compliance requiring action where:

1° no immediate, serious and credible handling is established;

2° prior handling has ceased or become manifestly insufficient in light of the risk;

3° a material commitment on which status “non-compliance under documented action” depended is not honoured and the situation is no longer adequately handled;

4° necessary temporary or compensatory measures are not implemented or are no longer maintained;

5° the period applicable to status “non-compliance under documented action” expires without correction having been verified in accordance with section 29 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act.

The following are, in particular, strongly indicative factors that the serious-risk threshold is reached:

1° complete loss of an essential safety function in an occupied building;

2° inability to use an essential means of egress without an equivalent solution;

3° a situation capable of preventing fire detection or alarm in a significant part of the building;

4° significant impairment of a suppression system without adequate compensatory measures;

5° a situation presenting particularly high danger to occupants unable to evacuate without assistance;

6° a combination of several non-compliances producing an equivalent level of risk.

None of the factors in this section creates an automatic classification by itself where professional assessment of the circumstances demonstrates otherwise.

A non-compliance under documented action notice states:

1° the requirement not complied with;

2° the factual description;

3° the reasons demonstrating that the serious-risk threshold is reached;

4° the elements supporting the assessment of immediate, serious and credible handling;

5° compensatory measures observed, where applicable;

6° the correction period;

7° the date on which automatic conversion to status “non-compliance requiring action” will occur if no authorized person has filed a correction notice;

8° the conditions for demonstrating and verifying correction.

9° the separate indication of potential impact on firefighter operations and, where applicable, the particulars required by section 3 (REGULATION RESPECTING THE CLASSIFICATION, REPORTING AND DECLARATION OF FIRE SAFETY NON-COMPLIANCE).

10° the 'Origin of finding' metadata required by section 29 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act.

The period is established according to the risk, the seriousness of the handling and the reasonable complexity of the corrective measure.

It may not exceed the limits provided by the Act.

It may not be shortened for the purpose of obtaining a mandate, accelerating work that is not required with that urgency by the actual risk, or exerting commercial pressure.

A non-compliance requiring action notice must be filed in the registry as soon as possible and no later than 24 hours after it is identified and classified, in accordance with section 28 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act and section 9 (REGULATION RESPECTING THE CENTRAL REGISTRY OF OPSI) of the registry regulation. Filing does not await completion of the professional verification, inspection or testing report.

It states a correction period compatible with the urgency and severity of the situation, without limiting immediate measures required or the powers of the competent authority.

The “requiring action” classification expresses the absence, cessation or insufficiency of adequate handling of a non-compliance that has already reached the serious-risk threshold; it is not an intrinsically higher degree of severity than status “non-compliance under documented action”.

Where facts arise from an incidental discovery outside the assigned verification scope, including during another mandate, no prior communication with the owner or responsible person or attempt to contact them is required. If the non-compliance and serious-risk threshold are sufficiently established without evidence of serious handling, the authorized person may immediately file a notice 'requiring action', recording the incidental origin and the limits of their knowledge. If the facts do not support lawful classification, a member of the Order instead submits a separate report 'requiring verification' within 24 hours of sufficiently substantiated knowledge, without securing a mandate or producing an inspection report. Such a report sets no unverified correction deadline and is not a formal notice; later verification and any formal notice are recorded separately. These communications are free.

Filing is timestamped and constitutes receipt by the registry only. The notice is immediately available with a new-notice flag of each legally entitled recipient, including the Régie when the EDF_ identifier follows “EDF_ — RBQ” routing for the relevant area, without presuming that the flag was seen.

The registry issues supplementary electronic notifications, monitors delivery failures and reminds recipients of unconsulted notices under the registry regulation. For each recipient, including the Régie, it distinguishes availability, explicit “Flag seen” confirmation, “Notice consulted” opening and explicit “Acknowledged” confirmation. These events neither approve the finding nor create any new duty for an authority to read, acknowledge or intervene. When electronic channels fail, the fallback telephone reporting required of the filing professional under the Act and registry regulation remains applicable.

In existing notices and notifications, the registry separately displays the 'yes', 'no' or 'undetermined' indication concerning firefighter operations, together with particulars the recipient is entitled to access. This display adds no new non-compliance category, tracking flag, or duty to acknowledge or intervene.

A non-compliance requiring action notice contains:

1° the identity of the authorized person;

2° identification of the location;

3° the applicable requirement;

4° the facts observed;

5° the reasons demonstrating that the serious-risk threshold is reached;

6° facts demonstrating the absence, cessation or insufficiency of handling;

7° known compensatory measures;

8° immediate measures taken or recommended and, where communication is required or has occurred, information provided to the responsible person; for an incidental discovery, the indication 'prior communication not required', without any fictitious record of attempted contact;

9° the correction period.

10° the separate indication of potential impact on firefighter operations and, where applicable, the particulars required by section 3 (REGULATION RESPECTING THE CLASSIFICATION, REPORTING AND DECLARATION OF FIRE SAFETY NON-COMPLIANCE).

11° the 'Origin of finding' metadata required by section 29 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act.

Unlike a formal notice, a substantiated report requiring verification includes only actually observed facts, reliable third-party information clearly identified as such, the known or reasonably identifiable location, nature of the suspected danger, the reporter's relevant competence, limits of knowledge and steps already taken. It contains no certification of an inspection not performed and no classification or correction deadline presented as verified. The registry may seek reasonably available details without conditioning the report on an inspection, mandate or fee. The report also includes the origin metadata; an incidental discovery does not require contact with the owner.

At expiry of the period for a non-compliance under documented action entered in the registry, the absence of a correction notice filed by a person authorized to identify the non-compliance concerned automatically changes its classification to non-compliance requiring action.

The registry timestamps the reclassification, immediately displays the new status with a new-notice flag on each legally entitled recipient’s dashboard, including the Régie for a “EDF_ — RBQ” in the relevant area, and initiates the same prescribed technical notifications and reminders for each. Each recipient retains a separate record of availability, flag seen, consultation and acknowledgment, without presumed reading or any new intervention duty.

No declaration by the owner, manager or initial professional is required to produce that change.

Any person authorized to establish the non-compliance may, without the previous signatory’s agreement, reclassify it as being addressed after verifying a development establishing immediate, serious, credible and documented action reasonably allowing correction within the new deadline. This may rest on an explicit credible commitment, concrete steps or work in progress; temporary or compensatory measures necessary for immediate risk control must be in place. A challenge to reportability on unchanged facts remains distinct and follows section 31 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act.

Subject to the same procedure, any person authorized to identify the non-compliance concerned may, before the deadline, reclassify a non-compliance under documented action as a non-compliance requiring action where the person verifies that handling has ceased, become manifestly insufficient, a material commitment is not being honoured, or necessary temporary or compensatory measures are no longer maintained.

The change of classification states the verified facts, the reasons for the change and, where the change is to status “non-compliance under documented action”, the new correction period complying with the limits provided by the Act.

The change of classification is filed in the registry. If no correction notice is filed by the deadline for status “non-compliance under documented action”, the automatic conversion provided for in section 15 (REGULATION RESPECTING THE CLASSIFICATION, REPORTING AND DECLARATION OF FIRE SAFETY NON-COMPLIANCE) applies again.

A reclassification arising from a new assessment must complete the reason metadata required by section 31 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act and section 12 (REGULATION RESPECTING THE CENTRAL REGISTRY OF OPSI) of the registry regulation. An automatic conversion on expiry remains identified as such and is not presented as a disagreement or a new professional verification.

When an authorized person has verified that the condition giving rise to the non-compliance has been satisfactorily corrected with respect to the applicable requirement, within the scope of the verification performed, that person files a correction notice or follow-up report stating:

1° the non-compliance concerned;

2° the correction observed;

3° the verification method;

4° the date;

5° any limitation.

The person verifying correction may be different from the person who initially identified or classified the non-compliance. They may accept a separate mandate limited to that verification.

Reportable non-compliance remains open until a verified correction notice is filed, a reasoned withdrawal for insufficient grounds is made under section 31 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act, or closure for a requirement no longer applicable is recorded under section 11 (REGULATION RESPECTING THE CENTRAL REGISTRY OF OPSI) of the registry regulation. These grounds remain distinct and are retained in the history. A declaration by the owner, manager, contractor or repairer alone is insufficient to close the record.

Verification of a report requiring verification may lead, depending on the findings, to a formal notice of reportable non-compliance or a reasoned administrative closure without a non-compliance finding. The initial report retains its provisional status and history; administrative closure is neither a compliance certificate nor erasure of observations. Corrections, supplements and closures are free. An inspection or professional report genuinely required remains separate under its own rules.

A distinct closure with the reason “Closure — requirement no longer applicable” may be recorded where the legal requirement underlying the non-compliance ceases to apply to the situation, including through a regulatory change, legally recognized exemption, legally established change of applicability or a decision from an authorized source. Closure must rest on a verifiable legal or administrative basis from a legally empowered source and documented validation by a person legally authorized for that purpose. The registry retains the original finding and classification, effective date of the change, reason, supporting reference, validator’s identity and full history. This closure is not a physical correction, does not retroactively invalidate the original finding and does not allow the Order to create exemptions or change applicable requirements. Statistics distinguish these closures from verified corrections.

The initial finding date is retained permanently as the historical reference date for every non-compliance, subject to applicable personal-information rules. No change of classification or status, renewed undertaking or extension of a deadline changes that date or resets the true elapsed time. The registry shows the total elapsed time since that date and preserves a dated reclassification history accessible only to authorized persons.

The filing and communication duties in sections 28 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) and 29 (ACT RESPECTING FIRE SAFETY PRACTITIONERS) of the Act and this section apply to registry operations in a region from its legal activation. They neither suspend nor replace dangerous-situation reporting duties or authorities’ powers under other Acts.

The authorized person who initially identified or classified a non-compliance is not required to perform follow-up beyond what is required by the Act, this regulation, their mandate or a lawful request from a competent authority.

The end of that person’s mandate does not suspend the deadline entered in the registry, the automatic conversion, or the possibility that another person authorized to identify the non-compliance concerned may accept a verification, correction or reclassification mandate.

A directly concerned person may engage another authorized person for a new professional assessment of the situation. By accepting that engagement, the person personally assumes professional and ethical responsibility for the findings and the new classification they sign and file. The registry preserves the original finding and the complete chain of changes; it does not adjudicate the merits of the non-compliance.