Alison Orr

The applicant homeowner applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether the as-constructed foundation of a new residential dwelling complied with the Building Code.

The dispute centered on whether the exterior foundation walls met the minimum 150 mm height requirement above finished ground level and whether structural wood elements were adequately protected from decay.

The Commission found that the installation of hardscape surfaces raised the finished ground level such that the foundation walls did not extend the required 150 mm above ground.

The Commission ruled that the construction did not comply with Sentences 9.3.2.9.(3) and 9.15.4.6.(1) of the Building Code.

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 sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the requirement for smoke dampers at air-transfer opening locations in residential public corridors of a high-rise development.

The applicant proposed waiving the requirement on the basis that the corridor make-up air system forms part of a smoke control system.

The Building Code Commission ruled in favour of the applicant, finding that the proposed air-handling system, which includes emergency power and firefighter override controls, sufficiently complies with the Building Code and permits the waiver of smoke dampers for noncombustible branch ducts.

The applicant sought to install electromagnetic locking devices on cross-corridor doors serving second-floor assisted living suites in a retirement home.

The respondent Chief Building Official argued this would create an impeded egress zone contrary to the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposal provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as the locks are designed to release upon fire alarm activation, thereby facilitating emergency egress without requiring keys or special knowledge.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an Order to Comply concerning newly constructed stairs in a residential dwelling.

The original straight-run stairs were replaced with stairs containing two sets of winders that were not separated by the minimum 1200 mm required by the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the as-constructed stairs deviated substantially from the Code requirements and did not provide sufficiency of compliance, as the separation distance was less than half of the required amount and no compensating measures were proposed.

The applicant sought a ruling from the Building Code Commission on whether a proposed design for a 20-storey residential building complied with the Building Code.

The design proposed that public corridors on the second and third floors would traverse through unenclosed amenity spaces, using demarcations on the floor to indicate the path of travel to exits.

The Commission ruled that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance, finding that the demarcations lacked permanency, would not be suitable for visually impaired occupants, and that the use of the assembly spaces could create obstructions hindering egress during an emergency.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether 10 residential units on the second floor of a proposed mixed-use building required barrier-free accessibility.

The applicant argued the units were stacked townhouses falling under the Building Code's definition of 'house', thus exempting them.

The respondent contended the exemption did not apply because the ground floor contained commercial units.

The Building Code Commission ruled in favour of the applicant, finding that the residential units were characteristically similar to a 'house' as they were private, independent from the commercial space, and had individual garages and exterior access.

The applicant sought to install electromagnetic locks on two sets of exterior exit doors at a mixed-use building.

The Chief Building Official refused, arguing that the doors were part of an exit system and could not have electromagnetic locks under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the single door without a latching mechanism was permitted to have an electromagnetic lock.

The double doors with a latching mechanism were not permitted to have electromagnetic locks unless the latching mechanism was removed.

The applicant sought to construct a self-service storage facility on the first storey of an existing 31-storey mixed-use building containing residential suites.

The Chief Building Official denied the alternative solution proposal.

The Building Code Commission held that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code's prohibition on occupancy combinations, as the proposed compensating measures were insufficient to offset the fire and life safety risks to the residential occupants.

The applicant sought a hearing before the Building Code Commission regarding a dispute with the Chief Building Official over a partially constructed residential building.

The applicant had begun construction without a permit, leading to a stop work order and a Superior Court order requiring him to obtain a permit or demolish the building.

The Commission found that the applicant qualified as an 'applicant for a permit' under s. 24(1) of the Building Code Act.

However, because both parties agreed that the technical provisions of the Building Code applied and the applicant was willing to comply, there was no actual dispute concerning the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements.

Consequently, the Commission ruled it lacked jurisdiction to make a determination and noted that disputes regarding the issuance of a permit must be appealed to the Superior Court.