Elektra Vrachas

The applicant sought to reconstruct a fire-damaged rear extension of a mixed-use building without incorporating barrier-free design elements, arguing it was not an addition and compliance would require prohibitive modifications to the existing structure.

The Chief Building Official maintained that the extension must comply with all other parts of the Building Code, including barrier-free requirements.

The Building Code Commission determined that the proposed construction constituted an extensive renovation, not a basic renovation, and therefore the extension must comply with Section 3.8 of the Building Code.

The Commission found the proposal did not offer sufficient compliance.

The applicant sought to reconstruct a rear extension of a mixed-use building destroyed by fire without complying with the barrier-free design requirements of Section 3.8 of the Building Code.

The applicant argued the repair was not a new addition and compliance would require prohibitive modifications to the existing building.

The Building Code Commission found the proposed construction constituted an 'extensive renovation' and an extension of an existing building system, thereby requiring compliance with all other Parts of the Building Code, including Section 3.8.

The Commission ruled the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether a proposed shared egress for a new two-storey residential addition complied with the Building Code.

The municipality argued the egress was an exit stairway requiring a second means of egress, while the applicant argued it was an exterior passageway under 1.5 metres above ground level.

The Building Code Commission ruled in favour of the applicant, finding the shared egress constituted an exterior passageway under Clause 9.9.9.3.(1)(c), meaning a second and separate means of egress was not required.

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 sought a resolution from the Building Code Commission regarding the sufficiency of compliance for a proposed place of worship using privies and hand sanitizing stations instead of standard plumbing.

The application was based on a preliminary design review rather than a complete building permit application.

The Commission determined that under section 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter because the application was not made by an applicant for a permit, and it is not the Commission's mandate to provide advice or technical interpretations for preliminary designs.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the proposed sanitary and storm services for a new 12-storey residential building.

The proposed design connected the building's services to municipal mains through existing private sewers located on separate properties.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposed design does not comply with Article 7.1.5.4. of the Building Code, which requires piping in any building to be connected to public services separately from piping of any other building, as the exceptions for buildings on the same property did not apply.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a deficiency notice for a custom-built interior staircase in a new residential dwelling.

The Building Code Commission found that the as-built staircase, which consisted of curved steps with varying angles and varied run dimensions, did not meet the Building Code requirements for straight or curved flights, nor did it qualify as having tapered treads.

Furthermore, the nosing exceeded the maximum permitted horizontal distance.

The Commission ruled that the staircase did not comply 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 applied for a building permit to renovate a single-family dwelling.

The Chief Building Official failed to issue the permit, refuse it with reasons, or notify the applicant that the application was incomplete within the prescribed 10-day statutory time period.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the Chief Building Official did not comply with the timelines set out in the Building Code Act and the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a new 5-storey mixed-use building.

The issues were whether a barrier-free washroom in a ground-floor retail unit sufficed in lieu of a universal washroom, and whether vision panels in certain doors complied with height requirements.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the barrier-free washroom provided sufficient compliance because a universal washroom was located elsewhere on the same floor.

However, the Commission found that the vision panels in doors in the barrier-free path of travel did not comply with the maximum height requirements, except for exit doors leading directly into exit stairs.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether a new 3-storey mixed-use building was exempt from providing a barrier-free path of travel for 15% of its residential suites.

The applicant argued that exemptions in the Building Code applied because the suites were on the second and third floors, which were only accessible by stairs.

The Building Code Commission held that there are no exemptions to Sentence 3.8.2.1.(5) and that the proposed design did not provide sufficiency of compliance, noting that barrier-free requirements also accommodate persons with limited mobility or sensory disabilities who may still use stairs.

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 sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an Order to Comply that required the installation of a duct-type smoke detector on the below-grade exit stair pressurization fans of a 19-storey building.

The applicant argued that the below-grade exit stair does not serve more than one storey and that installing a detector could cause unsafe inadvertent shutdowns.

The Building Code Commission agreed with the applicant, ruling that the proposal not to install the detector provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the proposed egress design for two new dwelling units on the second and third floors of a residential building.

The applicant proposed using the existing interior shared staircase as a dead-end public corridor.

The Building Code Commission found that the existing staircase is an exit stair, not a public corridor, and the proposed location of two exit doors in close proximity at the main floor level did not comply with the Building Code requirements for separate and remote exits.

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

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.