Judy Beauchamp

The applicants applied for a building permit for a Class 4 sewage system, which was refused by the Chief Building Official.

They applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve the dispute.

However, a subsequent permit for a different design had already been approved and constructed on the property.

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

The applicants sought to install a Class 4 sewage system on an island property with limited in-situ soil.

The Chief Building Official refused the permit, arguing the proposed use of leaching bed fill over blasted rock did not meet Building Code requirements for soil cover and clearances.

The Building Code Commission found that the Code's definition of soil does not mandate a minimum areal extent and that the proposed methodology of blasting rock to lower the grade to achieve required setbacks is not prohibited by the Code.

The Commission ruled that the proposed system provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicants sought resolution of a dispute regarding an Order to Comply issued by the Chief Building Official, which required the replacement of an existing on-site sewage system at their cottage property.

The applicants argued the pre-1975 metal septic tank was functioning adequately despite never having been pumped or inspected.

The Building Code Commission found insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the system components were functioning in their intended manner, as the tank had not been uncovered or tested.

The Commission ruled that the existing sewage system did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought a building permit to upgrade an existing deck, which was refused because the deck was partially built over an existing septic tank, violating the clearance distances in the Building Code.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve the dispute.

The Commission ruled that the as-constructed deck provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, subject to conditions requiring an access hatch, maintained airflow, and a minimum soil cover over the tank.

The applicant applied to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the jurisdiction over a proposed sewage system for a property with multiple buildings.

The applicant argued that by using balancing tanks, the daily design flow would be reduced below 10,000 L/day, bringing it under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission ruled it lacked jurisdiction, finding that while balancing tanks can reduce component sizes, they cannot be used to determine design flow under the Building Code, meaning the combined flow exceeded the 10,000 L/day threshold.

The applicants sought to install a composting toilet and a Class 2 sewage system (leaching pit) on a vacant island property to serve a future seasonal dwelling.

The Chief Building Official refused the application because the island lacked sufficient in-situ soil as required by the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that there was no contiguous area of natural in-situ soil on the property and that the proposed design lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance.

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

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's refusal to issue a building permit for a new Class 4 sewage system to replace an existing holding tank.

The refusal was based on the inability to meet the minimum clearance distances to two nearby shallow wells.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed advanced treatment system must meet the 30-metre clearance requirement for distribution piping to a shallow well.

The Commission also held that compliance alternatives under Part 11 did not apply because the replacement system was of a different class than the existing system.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought to revise a building permit to construct a sewage system for 12 seasonal accommodation units (glamping tents), proposing a daily design sewage flow of 250 L/day per unit, similar to a motel room.

The Chief Building Official denied the revision, requiring 425 L/day per unit as per the campground park classification.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposed 250 L/day flow did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, noting the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence, alternative solutions, or comparative metered flow data to substantiate the reduced flow.

The applicants appealed the Chief Building Official's refusal to issue a building permit for a Class 5 sewage system (holding tank) to serve a newly constructed seasonal cottage.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed installation did not meet the acceptable circumstances for a Class 5 system under Article 8.8.1.2 of the Building Code, as the building was not for temporary operation, did not remedy an unsafe system, and was not an interim measure pending municipal sewers.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the rejection of a proposed Class 4 sewage system design for a new residential dwelling.

The proposed design utilized a modified shallow buried trench system with reduced spacing between chambers, compensated by a basal sand layer.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed layout did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as the adjacent layout could impede air flow and the lack of required separation distance could impact effectiveness.

The applicant sought an alternative solution building permit to install a Class 5 sewage system and a composting toilet on a vacant island property for a proposed seasonal dwelling.

The Chief Building Official refused the application.

The Building Code Commission held that the proposal did not meet the permissible conditions for a Class 5 sewage system under Article 8.8.1.2 of the Building Code and failed to demonstrate that the alternative solution achieved the required level of performance.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the capacity of an existing sewage system to service a proposed secondary dwelling unit.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant had submitted a revised permit application to upgrade the septic tank, which was approved, and proceeded with construction.

The Building Code Commission ruled it lacked jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Building Code Act because there was no longer an outstanding technical dispute between the parties.

The applicants sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the denial of a building permit for a Class 5 sewage system (holding tank) serving an existing church.

The municipality denied the permit on the basis that insufficient information was provided to show a Class 4 system could not be constructed.

The Building Code Commission found that due to site constraints, including an existing well, structures, property lines, and the need to maintain parking, the installation of a Class 4 system was impracticable.

The Commission ruled that the Class 5 system provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought to construct a new on-site sewage system for a gas station and convenience store using a reduced daily design flow of 3,500 litres per day, rather than the 6,940 litres per day calculated under the Building Code.

The applicant proposed a phased installation with a water meter to monitor flows.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as there was insufficient information to justify a lower design flow and the proposed flow was not supported by adequate metered flow data from similar establishments.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the installation of a sewage pump chamber.

The issue was whether the horizontal setback distances for treatment units under Part 8 of the Building Code applied to the pump chamber, which was located within 15 metres of a neighbouring well.

The Commission ruled that a pump chamber is not a 'treatment unit' as defined in the Building Code, and therefore the clearance distances in Part 8 do not apply.

The proposed pump chamber was found to provide sufficiency of compliance.

The applicant sought a building permit for a new sewage treatment system to service a proposed automotive development, including a dealership and car wash.

A dispute arose with the Chief Building Official regarding the methodology for calculating the total daily design sanitary sewage flow.

The applicant argued that the proposed occupancies were not listed in the Building Code and relied on metered data from similar establishments.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the applicant's calculation methods did not provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 8.2.1.3 of the Building Code, as calculations could be established using multiple listed occupancies and the provided metered data was insufficient and lacked appropriate peaking factors.

The applicants applied for a building permit to replace a failing sewage system at their restaurant.

The municipality denied the permit, arguing that because the restaurant was located on a highway designated as 'controlled access' by the Ministry of Transportation, the Building Code required a design flow of 400 litres per day per seat.

The applicants argued the restaurant was not a 24-hour rest stop and should be assessed at 125 litres per day per seat.

The Building Code Commission agreed with the applicants, finding that the restaurant was not consistent with a typical rest stop on a 400-series highway and lacked public showers.

The Commission ruled that a design flow of 125 litres per day per seat provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's denial of a building permit to replace a deck.

The permit was denied because the proposed deck would be located over an existing septic tank, failing to meet the minimum 1.5m clearance distance required by the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the existing septic system had not been compromised by the deck and that the vertical clearance did not hinder maintenance access.

The Commission ruled that the proposed clearance distance provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, on the condition that the area below the deck is not enclosed in the future.

The applicant demolished an existing seasonal cottage and its Class 5 sewage system (holding tank) to build a new cottage.

The municipality deemed the lot vacant and denied a building permit for a new holding tank, arguing the Building Code prohibits Class 5 systems on vacant lots.

The Building Code Commission found that because the previous dwelling was serviced by a Class 5 system, a Class 4 system could not be accommodated, and there would be no significant environmental impacts, the proposed Class 5 system provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.