Alexander Campbell

The applicants applied for a building permit for a Class 4 sewage system, which was refused by the Chief Building Official.

They applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve the dispute.

However, a subsequent permit for a different design had already been approved and constructed on the property.

The Commission ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute because there was no longer an outstanding technical dispute under subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992.

The applicants sought to install a Class 4 sewage system on an island property with limited in-situ soil.

The Chief Building Official refused the permit, arguing the proposed use of leaching bed fill over blasted rock did not meet Building Code requirements for soil cover and clearances.

The Building Code Commission found that the Code's definition of soil does not mandate a minimum areal extent and that the proposed methodology of blasting rock to lower the grade to achieve required setbacks is not prohibited by the Code.

The Commission ruled that the proposed system provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicants sought resolution of a dispute regarding an Order to Comply issued by the Chief Building Official, which required the replacement of an existing on-site sewage system at their cottage property.

The applicants argued the pre-1975 metal septic tank was functioning adequately despite never having been pumped or inspected.

The Building Code Commission found insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the system components were functioning in their intended manner, as the tank had not been uncovered or tested.

The Commission ruled that the existing sewage system did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicants sought to install a composting toilet and a Class 2 sewage system (leaching pit) on a vacant island property to serve a future seasonal dwelling.

The Chief Building Official refused the application because the island lacked sufficient in-situ soil as required by the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that there was no contiguous area of natural in-situ soil on the property and that the proposed design lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance.

The Commission ruled that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's refusal to issue a building permit for a new Class 4 sewage system to replace an existing holding tank.

The refusal was based on the inability to meet the minimum clearance distances to two nearby shallow wells.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed advanced treatment system must meet the 30-metre clearance requirement for distribution piping to a shallow well.

The Commission also held that compliance alternatives under Part 11 did not apply because the replacement system was of a different class than the existing system.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants appealed the Chief Building Official's refusal to issue a building permit for a Class 5 sewage system (holding tank) to serve a newly constructed seasonal cottage.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed installation did not meet the acceptable circumstances for a Class 5 system under Article 8.8.1.2 of the Building Code, as the building was not for temporary operation, did not remedy an unsafe system, and was not an interim measure pending municipal sewers.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought an alternative solution building permit to install a Class 5 sewage system and a composting toilet on a vacant island property for a proposed seasonal dwelling.

The Chief Building Official refused the application.

The Building Code Commission held that the proposal did not meet the permissible conditions for a Class 5 sewage system under Article 8.8.1.2 of the Building Code and failed to demonstrate that the alternative solution achieved the required level of performance.

The application was dismissed.