Matthew Graham

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 applicants sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an Order to Comply for an as-constructed handrail in a new two-storey home.

The applicants argued the handrail, which included a vertical section near the apex of winders, was common practice and compliant.

The respondent maintained the handrail height exceeded the allowable range and was not continually graspable when descending, posing a safety risk.

The Building Code Commission found the handrail height of 1,473 mm exceeded the allowable range and its design made it difficult to maintain a grasp while descending.

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

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 school board sought a ruling from the Building Code Commission on whether its as-constructed gender-neutral washrooms and kindergarten washrooms complied with the privacy requirements of Sentence 3.7.4.16.(2) of the Building Code.

The secondary school washrooms featured lavatories behind a partial height wall visible from the corridor, and the kindergarten washrooms featured lavatories visible from the classroom entrance.

The Commission ruled that the configurations did not provide the required level of privacy and therefore did not comply with the Building Code.

The applicant sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an Order to Comply that required a change of use permit for eight barrier-free suites.

The respondent challenged the Building Code Commission's jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The Commission ruled that it lacked jurisdiction under section 24(1) of the Building Code Act, as the dispute concerned a change of use permit under section 10(1) and Fire Code assessments, rather than the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code.

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 an alternative solution to use LAMCO-LFL laminated finger jointed lumber beams instead of laminated veneer lumber beams for a new two-storey house.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed alternative solution did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the product was tested to Canadian standards or met the specific requirements for wood design, grade marking, and moisture content.

The applicant sought to use LAMCO-LFL Laminated Finger Jointed Lumber beams as an alternative solution to Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) beams for garage door headers and a breezeway roof support in a new addition.

The Chief Building Official refused to process the alternative solution application because the product was not recognized under the Building Code or CSA O86.

The Building Code Commission found that, based on engineering reports and the limited structural application, the proposed alternative solution provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

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 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 applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an alternative solution for a new 13-storey building.

The applicant proposed installing close-spaced sprinklers on the interior side of unprotected openings that exceeded the maximum permitted percentage based on limiting distance under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the applicant's theoretical analysis and dated testing information did not adequately simulate anticipated service conditions.

The Commission ruled that the proposed alternative solution did not provide sufficiency of compliance 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 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 applicants applied for a building permit to construct a one-storey residential dwelling on a flood plain.

The Chief Building Official refused to issue the permit due to technical issues related to the foundation design, specifically the shallow foundation and soil bearing capacity.

The Building Code Commission determined that the proposed foundation design provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 4.2.6.1.(1) and Article 4.2.6.2. of Division B of the Building Code, on the condition that the foundation footings are designed by a Structural Engineer in accordance with Part 4 of the Building Code.

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 constructed an interior stair leading to a flat roof via an openable skylight to access mechanical equipment, contrary to their approved building permit.

The City of Toronto issued an Order to Comply, citing non-compliance with Building Code requirements for headroom clearance and handrails.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the as-constructed stair provides sufficient compliance with the Building Code, provided the applicants install a lockable gate at the bottom of the stair and a handrail extension above the roofline.

The applicant appealed a condition of a building permit requiring the installation of a universal washroom in each unit of a renovated two-unit industrial storage building.

The applicant argued that the building would only be used for storage, would not be open to the public, and would not be occupied on a daily or full-time basis.

The Building Code Commission agreed, finding that under Clause 3.8.1.1.(1)(c) of the Building Code, buildings not intended to be occupied on a daily or full-time basis are exempt from barrier-free design provisions.

The Commission ruled that the proposal not to provide universal washrooms provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

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 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 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.