Alexandra Chow

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute regarding an Order to Comply issued by the Chief Building Official, which required a change of use permit for four suites operated as a care facility.

The applicant argued no change of use had occurred.

The Building Code Commission ruled it lacked jurisdiction under subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, as the dispute concerned administrative requirements and provisions of the Act rather than the sufficiency of compliance with technical requirements of the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the refusal of a building permit for an aerial high ropes course on the rooftop of a restaurant.

The dispute centered on whether barrier-free access was required to the rooftop under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposal not to provide barrier-free access provided sufficiency of compliance, as the high ropes course is considered a hazardous location for those with mobility impairments and access is limited, supervised, and controlled.

The applicant school board sought a ruling from the Building Code Commission on whether its as-constructed gender-neutral washrooms and kindergarten washrooms complied with the privacy requirements of Sentence 3.7.4.16.(2) of the Building Code.

The secondary school washrooms featured lavatories behind a partial height wall visible from the corridor, and the kindergarten washrooms featured lavatories visible from the classroom entrance.

The Commission ruled that the configurations did not provide the required level of privacy and therefore did not comply with the Building Code.

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's refusal of a building permit for a pizza restaurant renovation.

The refusal was based on the proposed rooftop exhaust termination not meeting the 3-metre clearance from property lines required by NFPA 96.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposed design, which included compensating measures such as a listed fire damper, fire barrier duct wrap, and an elevated termination height, provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether the proposed standpipe system design and water supply for a six-storey residential building complied with the Building Code.

The applicant argued that the system could meet requirements with the support of a fire department pump, though they had not confirmed availability with the local fire department.

The respondent provided evidence that the fire department could not provide the necessary equipment and that field tests failed to meet the required flow rates.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed design did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought a ruling from the Building Code Commission on whether a proposal to construct one universal washroom and one unisex washroom for a new ground floor office complied with the Building Code.

The applicant argued that the occupant load should be calculated using a design method based on the expected number of staff.

The respondent Chief Building Official maintained that the Code explicitly requires Group D occupancies to calculate occupant load based on 14 square metres per person for plumbing fixture purposes.

The Commission agreed with the respondent, finding that the Code clearly defines the method for determining occupant load for Group D occupancies, and ruled that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether a guard was required in front of window screen openings in a new residential addition.

The applicant argued that the 'Weatherwall' system was exempt from guard requirements under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the system functioned as a window but did not meet the structural sufficiency requirements for glass.

Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposal to omit a guard did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a 9-storey student residence.

The applicant proposed an alternative solution to waive the requirement for combination smoke and fire dampers at the branch ductwork supplying ventilation air to individual rooms.

The Commission ruled that the proposed alternative solution provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as engineering data demonstrated it would provide better smoke migration resistance than a standard fan coil unit.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an alternative solution for a new 13-storey building.

The applicant proposed installing close-spaced sprinklers on the interior side of unprotected openings that exceeded the maximum permitted percentage based on limiting distance under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the applicant's theoretical analysis and dated testing information did not adequately simulate anticipated service conditions.

The Commission ruled that the proposed alternative solution did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant, a building owner, applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a barrier-free ramp at a tenant's cannabis shop.

The Commission determined it lacked jurisdiction under section 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, because the applicant was not the building permit applicant or holder, nor had an Order to Comply been issued to him.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the requirement for smoke dampers in air ducts opening into a public corridor in a new 25-storey residential building.

The applicant argued that the make-up air system functioned as a smoke control system, thereby exempting the supply air ducts from requiring smoke dampers under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the make-up air supply system on its own constituted a complete smoke control system as required for a high building.

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

The applicant sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the replacement of a gas furnace in an existing 3-storey mixed-use building.

The City argued the new furnace constituted a new building system requiring compliance with current Building Code provisions prohibiting air circulation between residential suites and other occupancies.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the replacement was a minor material alteration, not an extension of an existing system, and therefore the strict provisions did not apply, provided existing fire separations were maintained and fire dampers installed.

The applicant homeowner sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a basement apartment renovation.

The issues included the use of an air admittance valve, the amount of insulation in the laundry room ceiling, and the requirement to excavate the basement floor for a plumbing inspection.

The Building Code Commission determined it lacked jurisdiction over the administrative requirement for a plumbing inspection.

However, the Commission ruled that the as-installed air admittance valve and the upgraded insulation matching the existing framing achieved sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code.

The applicant sought a building permit to construct a detached, two-storey laneway house.

The Chief Building Official refused the permit, arguing the proposed design did not meet the Building Code requirements for fire department access.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposed firefighting access provided sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.10.20.3. of the Building Code, provided the laneway house is sprinklered, has exterior walls with a 45-minute fire-resistance rating, and uses non-combustible cladding.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a technical dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding spatial separation requirements and the relocation of existing windows in a residential addition.

At the outset of the hearing, the municipality raised a jurisdictional objection, noting that the applicant had already submitted revised drawings complying with the municipality's interpretation and had been issued a building permit.

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

The applicant sought to construct a two-storey laneway house and proposed to sprinkler the building as a compensating measure for a reduced clear access width for fire department personnel.

The Chief Building Official refused the permit, requiring a minimum 1.0 m clear access width.

The Building Code Commission held that while sprinklering addresses fire suppression, it does not sufficiently compensate for a reduction in the clear access width required by firefighters to access a building for emergency response.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a building permit for renovations.

The dispute centered on whether the existing sprinkler system in an interconnected floor space required closely spaced sprinklers and draft stops under the Building Code and NFPA 13.

The Commission found that the interconnected floor space met the exceptions in Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) of the Building Code, and because the sprinkler protection was not serving as an alternative to enclosing the vertical opening, closely spaced sprinklers and draft stops were not required.

The Commission ruled that the existing sprinkler protection provided sufficient compliance.