James Eduful

The applicant homeowner applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an as-constructed secondary stair in a residential dwelling.

The stair featured winders that turned 180 degrees without separation, contrary to the prescriptive requirements limiting winders to 90 degrees and requiring a 1.2 m separation between sets.

The Commission ruled that the stair did not provide sufficiency of compliance, finding that it far exceeded the prescriptive requirements and created a hazardous condition.

The applicant sought a ruling from the Building Code Commission on whether egress doors from rental spaces in a self-storage building could swing against the direction of exit travel.

The applicant argued that the Building Code provisions allowed doors serving 60 or fewer persons to swing in either direction.

The respondent maintained that the specific provisions for self-storage buildings required doors serving rooms greater than 50 square metres or with a travel distance over 10 metres to swing in the direction of exit travel.

The Commission ruled that the applicant's proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance, finding insufficient evidence to waive the specific conditional limitations in the Building Code.

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 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 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.