E-Bikes & E-Scooters: Why bans and charging rooms should follow, not replace, a building-specific risk review.
Toronto recorded 91 lithium-ion-battery fires in 2025, compared with 29 in 2022. By early August 2026, the city had already recorded more than 80.
The risk is no longer emerging; it is present in the buildings we operate today.
Across the condominium and property-management sector, the response to lithium-ion battery risk is accelerating. Social media posts call for e-bikes and e-scooters to be banned. Purpose-built charging rooms are increasingly being presented as one potential solution. Boards and property managers are under increasing pressure to select a solution quickly, sometimes before the building’s specific conditions and operational needs have been fully considered.
The urgency is justified. The leap from urgency to a predetermined answer is not. A ban may be appropriate in one property and unworkable in another. A dedicated charging and storage room may be a sound engineered control in one facility and an expensive concentration of risk in another. Neither option, by itself, is a risk assessment.
The responsible starting point is a building-specific review that considers the hazard, the property’s construction and life-safety systems, the proposed storage and charging locations, the people who use the building, and the organization’s ability to administer the controls after they are introduced. That review is what turns a reaction into a well-supported fire and life safety program.
The Toronto data establishes the context
The Toronto Fire Services 2025 Annual Report records 91 lithium-ion-battery-related fires in 2025, compared with 29 in 2022; a 214 per cent increase in three years. A 2025 City Council motion reported a 591 per cent increase from 2020 through 2024. These figures cover lithium-ion-battery fires broadly; they should not be presented as e-bike-only statistics. E-bikes and e-scooters remain a serious part of the problem because their larger, higher-energy battery systems can produce more severe incidents.
The trajectory continued through the summer. Reporting based on Toronto Fire Services data indicated that, by early August 2026, Toronto had recorded more than 80 lithium-ion-battery fires and was on pace for at least 100 by year-end. In a separate 24-hour period just this month, Toronto crews responded to four fires involving lithium-ion batteries, including incidents in residential settings. The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs’ account also reported the Fire Chief’s warning that damaged batteries can retain enough energy to reignite long after the initial event.
Health Canada advises that incidents involving larger battery systems, including e-bikes and e-scooters, can be more severe and harder to extinguish. Its current lithium-ion battery guidance stresses original batteries and chargers, recognized Canadian certification marks, charging away from exits, and removing damaged or modified batteries from use. These are practical controls, but a condominium corporation still has to decide how they will be applied, communicated and enforced at a particular property.
These numbers justify prompt attention, but they do not determine what any building should do. The appropriate response still depends on understanding the property before adopting an approach developed for another property or authorizing a retrofit without first confirming that it is suitable for the building.
A charging room is not automatically a safe room
A purpose-built charging room can be part of a sound risk-control strategy, but only when it is designed around the actual hazard and integrated with the building. Calling a room fire-rated does not establish that the proposed use is appropriate, that the building’s existing systems can support it, or that the location will protect occupants if a battery fails.
The same concern applies when an ordinary bicycle or locker room is converted because power happens to be nearby. The presence of building services does not establish that those systems are suitable for concentrated e-bike or e-scooter charging. That determination requires professional review, not assumption.
There is also an operational question. Who will inspect devices and chargers? How will damaged or modified batteries be identified? What happens when a resident leaves a device charging beyond permitted hours, stores combustible materials beside it, or bypasses a control? Infrastructure without governance can create confidence without creating equivalent protection.
What one condominium assessment revealed
In a recent condominium engagement, the client was considering converting existing P1 bicycle-storage space to support shared e-bike charging. At first glance, the proposal appeared practical and responsive to a growing resident need. Once the concept was reviewed against the actual building and its operations, however, the recommended path changed.
The conclusion was not that shared charging is inherently unsafe, nor that e-bikes should simply be banned. It was that the proposed retrofit was not the most appropriate solution for that particular property. Moving ahead without review could have committed the corporation to a significant project without resolving the underlying life-safety and operational concerns.
Another building may reach a different conclusion. A workplace with employer-owned equipment, a residential property with different infrastructure, or a facility with stronger operational oversight may require and support another approach. The right answer changes with the building and its use; the importance of making an evidence-informed decision does not.
A building-specific review must look beyond the room
A meaningful review considers the building as an operating system rather than treating the issue as a single battery, room or policy question. It must account for how the property is constructed, how it is used, who relies on these devices, how the risk is currently managed and whether the organization can maintain any new controls after they are introduced. The details are property-specific; they should not be replaced by a generic checklist or copied from another building’s decision.
What matters is the relationship between the physical property, the people using it and the condominium corporation’s governance capacity. A technically attractive solution can fail if it does not reflect how residents actually use and store these devices, along with the building’s staffing, authority and enforcement capabilities. Conversely, a policy can look strong on paper while leaving the building with no practical means of implementing it.
The result should not be a technical report that sits on a shelf. It should give the condominium corporation and Condominium manager an implementable program, including:
a board-approved policy or condominium rule that reflects the property’s actual risk and governance authority;
procedures for management, security, maintenance and other staff who may encounter a damaged device or unsafe charging condition;
evidence-based storage and charging practices tied to specific locations in the building;
resident and occupant communications that explain both the rules and the reasons behind them;
inspection, documentation, reporting and enforcement processes; and
recommendations for physical or engineering controls where the review shows they are necessary and supportable.
This is the implementation gap that many social media discussions miss. A board resolution or a sign in the bicycle room may be an important starting point, but neither constitutes a complete safety program on its own. A construction project is not a safety program unless it is supported by procedures, training, communications, inspections and a realistic plan for ongoing oversight.
A program requires review, not just approval
A decision that is appropriate when first adopted should not be treated as permanent. Boards and property managers should establish review triggers, including an incident, a near miss, a material increase in device use, a renovation, an operational change, new manufacturer safety information, and updated guidance from public authorities. Periodic review keeps the program aligned with the building’s conditions, its users and the controls that can realistically be maintained.
Resident and occupant awareness is a primary control
Most lithium-ion batteries are used without incident. The risk rises when batteries are damaged, altered, paired with incompatible chargers, exposed to unsuitable temperatures, charged near exits or combustible materials, or kept in service after warning signs appear. The person using the device is usually the first person able to see swelling, unusual heat, leaking, discolouration, odour or abnormal sounds. That makes resident, tenant and employee awareness a primary control, not a communications task to be added after the policy is finished.
People need practical direction they can follow. They also need to understand what the building expects. Where may a device be brought? Where may the battery be stored? Is charging permitted, and under what conditions? Who should be contacted when a battery appears damaged? What support is available to a person who relies on a powered mobility device? Clear, respectful communication improves compliance because it connects the rule to a visible life-safety purpose. It also gives management a fair foundation for consistent enforcement.
Public education and product safety are part of the prevention system
Building level controls should complement the public safety work being advanced by authorities having jurisdiction, local fire prevention teams, the Office of the Fire Marshal, Toronto Fire Services, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and other partners. Their ongoing education on safe purchasing, use, charging, storage and disposal provides an essential first line of prevention. Condominium corporations should reinforce that guidance through property specific rules and communications, while recognizing that product safety and certification remain consumer protection matters beyond the authority of an individual condominium corporation or property manager.
The defensible decision is the informed decision
Three approaches deserve caution. The first is postponing a decision solely because regulations are still evolving. The second is adopting a broad ban that cannot be monitored and may move charging into suites, closets or other less visible locations. The third is investing in a charging room without confirming that the room, building systems and operating model are suited to the proposed use.
A building-specific review provides a better path. It allows the condominium corporation to demonstrate what was considered, why certain controls were selected, how residents and staff were informed, and how the program will be maintained. It helps to distinguish between what is urgent and what is suitable. Most importantly, it connects the physical conditions of the property with the human behaviour and governance systems that determine whether safety measures will work in practice.
E-bikes and e-scooters are not disappearing from Canadian buildings. The choice facing condominium corporations is not simply whether to ban them or build for them. The real question is whether the property is prepared to manage the risk in a manner that is technically sound, operationally realistic and supportable to residents, employees, insurers and authorities having jurisdiction.
The practical starting point is a holistic, building-specific review. Before a ban is imposed, a charging room is designed or a policy is issued, boards and property managers should understand whether the proposed direction fits the property’s physical systems, operating realities and governance capacity. This supports an informed and defensible life-safety decision without assuming that the same answer will suit every building.
www.nationallifesafetygroup.ca
Jason D. Reid is President and Senior Advisor with National Life Safety Group. With more than 25 years of experience in fire safety and emergency management, he works with building owners, condominium boards and property-management teams to strengthen life-safety governance, regulatory compliance and emergency preparedness.