Leszek Muniak

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 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 applied for a building permit to construct a new semi-detached house using a Polycore Foundation system.

A dispute arose with the Chief Building Official regarding the system's compliance with the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter under subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, because the applicant had not submitted all required technical information and calculations to the Chief Building Official, rendering the permit application review incomplete.

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 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 refusal of a building permit for an aerial high ropes course on the rooftop of a restaurant.

The dispute centered on whether barrier-free access was required to the rooftop under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposal not to provide barrier-free access provided sufficiency of compliance, as the high ropes course is considered a hazardous location for those with mobility impairments and access is limited, supervised, and controlled.

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's refusal of a building permit for a pizza restaurant renovation.

The refusal was based on the proposed rooftop exhaust termination not meeting the 3-metre clearance from property lines required by NFPA 96.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposed design, which included compensating measures such as a listed fire damper, fire barrier duct wrap, and an elevated termination height, provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

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 use Passenger Visual Information Displays (PVIS) instead of standard ULC-listed strobe lights as visual signal devices for the fire alarm systems in 15 new Eglinton Crosstown LRT stations.

The City of Toronto denied the alternative solution because PVIS is not a ULC-listed device.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposed alternative solution, which integrates PVIS with established standard operating procedures and constant system monitoring, provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code's requirements for visual signal devices in rapid transit stations.

The applicant sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the requirement to install standpipe systems in the upper units of a 4-storey stacked townhouse development.

The applicant argued that the units met the exemption criteria under Sentence 3.2.9.1.(7) of the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission agreed, finding that the absence of a standpipe system would not adversely affect fire spread, that standpipes are intended for trained firefighters who would likely not use them in this context, and that the proposal provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

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 issued for newly installed guards at Tim Hortons Field.

The issue was whether the 46 mm by 46 mm openings in the welded wire mesh panels facilitated climbing, contrary to Sentence 3.3.1.17.(5) of the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the size and design of the openings, which included horizontal members, did facilitate climbing and therefore did not comply with the Building Code.

The applicant constructed a six-storey residential building with a sloped floor in the entrance lobby vestibule, contrary to the original approved plans.

The Chief Building Official issued an Order to Comply, arguing the sloped floor lacked the required level area on each side of the vestibule doors.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the as-constructed lobby does not comply with Sentence 3.8.3.3.(13) of the Building Code, as the floor surface on each side of the door in a barrier-free path of travel must be level.

The applicant sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the requirement for smoke dampers in air ducts opening into a public corridor in a new 25-storey residential building.

The applicant argued that the make-up air system functioned as a smoke control system, thereby exempting the supply air ducts from requiring smoke dampers under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the make-up air supply system on its own constituted a complete smoke control system as required for a high building.

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

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 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 resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the location of a fire department connection for a new automatic sprinkler system in an existing 11-storey residential building.

The applicant proposed relocating the connection to a point 47 metres from the nearest fire hydrant, which exceeded the 45-metre maximum required by Sentence 3.2.5.16.(2) of the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposal provided sufficiency of compliance, noting that the relocation was voluntary, site restrictions prevented meeting the 45-metre requirement, and moving the connection from its existing 67-metre distance to 47 metres significantly improved the building's level of fire protection.

The applicant sought a building permit to construct a detached, two-storey laneway house.

The Chief Building Official refused the permit, arguing the proposed design did not meet the Building Code requirements for fire department access.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposed firefighting access provided sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.10.20.3. of the Building Code, provided the laneway house is sprinklered, has exterior walls with a 45-minute fire-resistance rating, and uses non-combustible cladding.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a technical dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding spatial separation requirements and the relocation of existing windows in a residential addition.

At the outset of the hearing, the municipality raised a jurisdictional objection, noting that the applicant had already submitted revised drawings complying with the municipality's interpretation and had been issued a building permit.

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

The applicant homeowner sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a basement apartment renovation.

The issues included the use of an air admittance valve, the amount of insulation in the laundry room ceiling, and the requirement to excavate the basement floor for a plumbing inspection.

The Building Code Commission determined it lacked jurisdiction over the administrative requirement for a plumbing inspection.

However, the Commission ruled that the as-installed air admittance valve and the upgraded insulation matching the existing framing achieved sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code.