Christina Kalt

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 homeowner applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a requirement to provide 6 mm of mortar parging on a new below-grade unit masonry foundation wall.

The applicant had applied a self-adhering waterproofing membrane directly to the block wall without parging, relying on manufacturer instructions.

The Commission found that the installation did not comply with the Building Code, as the product's CCMC evaluation report explicitly required surface preparation in accordance with the Code, which mandates parging for unit masonry walls.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the design of a new gender-neutral washroom at a high school.

The proposed design featured fully enclosed water closets but maintained open sightlines from the corridor to the common lavatory area.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the design provides sufficiency of compliance with the privacy requirements of the Building Code, on the condition that a partial height wall is constructed to conceal the gang lavatory from the corridor and that mirror placement does not create additional sightlines.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the major occupancy classification of a car dealership with a new addition.

The applicant proposed a classification of Group D and Group F, Division 2, while the respondent argued the entire building should be classified as Group E. The Building Code Commission ruled in favour of the applicant, finding that the principal use of the building is Group F, Division 2 for the repair garage and Group D for the showroom, and that sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code was achieved.

The applicant sought to legalize an as-built rooftop deck accessed through an openable skylight at the top of a stairway.

The City of Toronto had issued an Order to Comply, arguing the construction did not meet Building Code requirements for means of egress, headroom clearance, and door opening mechanisms.

The Building Code Commission found that the openable skylight did not provide the same clear opening as a swinging door, lacked sufficient headroom clearance when partially open or closed, and did not comply with emergency opening mechanism requirements.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether condo pack units on the north exterior wall of a new residential building could be considered protected openings without installing fire shutters.

The Building Code Commission found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the condo pack units achieved the required 1-hour fire-resistance rating or that the surrounding combustible enclosures complied with the Building Code.

The Commission ruled that the proposal not to install fire shutters did not provide sufficiency of compliance 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 resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether the ceiling heights of three unfinished below-grade units in a residential building complied with the Building Code.

The units had clear heights between 1830 mm and 1930 mm, exceeding the maximum for a crawl space but falling short of the minimum for a basement.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the as-built clear heights provided sufficiency of compliance, as the spaces were not intended for human occupancy and the floor assemblies met fire-resistance requirements.

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 resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether a proposed floor opening in a new 9-storey student residence complied with the Building Code.

The applicant argued that the interconnected floor space between the first and second storeys met the exceptions to special protection under Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6).

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed design required occupants of the residential suites to traverse the interconnected floor space to access a required second exit, violating the Code.

The Commission ruled that the proposed design did not provide sufficiency of compliance.

The applicant applied for a building permit to construct a self-storage building without plumbing facilities.

The Chief Building Official refused, arguing that the Building Code requires washrooms and a sanitary drainage system.

The Building Code Commission found that because there is no water supply for the first phase of the project, the applicant's proposal to provide sanitary privies or chemical closets provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicants sought to legalize an existing secondary suite constructed by a previous owner without a permit.

The chief building official issued a permit conditional on providing sound attenuation between the units.

The applicants disputed this requirement, arguing that Part 11 of the Building Code applied.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction.

The Building Code Commission held that it lacked jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, because determining when the illegal unit was constructed is a mixed question of fact and law, not a dispute concerning the sufficiency of compliance with technical requirements.

The applicant sought a building permit to repair a fire-damaged basement unit in a six-unit residential building.

The proposal included a single means of egress for the two basement units.

The Chief Building Official refused the permit, requiring a second means of egress under Clause 9.9.9.3(1)(b) of the Building Code.

The applicant argued the single egress was a legal non-conforming use established by a 1998 permit, but could not produce the permit.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as a second and separate means of egress is required.

The applicant sought to install a new Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) containing combustible components on an existing seven-storey, unsprinklered residential building.

The Chief Building Official refused the permit, arguing the Building Code limits such systems to noncombustible buildings that are sprinklered and do not exceed six storeys.

The Building Code Commission agreed with the Chief Building Official, finding that the proposed EIFS does not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code because the building is unsprinklered and exceeds three storeys in height.

The applicant sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a building permit for a two-storey rear addition to an existing residential building.

The applicant proposed to relocate existing windows to the new extended wall face, arguing this complied with the compliance alternatives in Part 11 of the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission held that while Part 11 permits relocating existing windows on the existing wall, it does not permit relocating them to a new wall that is part of an addition, especially where the limiting distance is less than 1.2 metres.

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

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 resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the requirement to install a vapour barrier in a seasonal, unheated building.

The applicant proposed installing Rockwool insulation without a vapour barrier to prevent moisture accumulation and mould.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposed wall assembly without a vapour barrier provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, provided the insulation is installed according to Code requirements and a Borax solution is applied to the assemblies.