Who is Matthew Graham?

Matthew Graham is a panel member at the Building Code Commission with 23 decisions on record from 2019 to 2024. Key areas include administrative law, construction law, other tribunals.

What tribunal does Matthew Graham sit on?

Matthew Graham sits on the Building Code Commission.

What areas of law does Matthew Graham decide?

Matthew Graham's most common areas include Administrative Law (23 decisions), Construction Law (23 decisions), Other Tribunals (14 decisions). Matthew Graham has handled 23 decisions across 4 areas.

How many decisions has Matthew Graham made?

Matthew Graham has 23 decisions on record from 2019 to 2024.

Who frequently appears before Matthew Graham?

Representatives who frequently appear before Matthew Graham include Selva Panchanatham, Alex Wimbush, Selva Panchanatham.

/Adjudicator

minicounsel

Matthew Graham — Panel Member

Matthew Graham

Panel Member·Building Code Commission·Since 2019

cases · 6 yrs · OBCC

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Chair Designate· 11Panel· 6Member· 2Panel Member· 2Vice Chair· 1

Air admittance valve and insulation matching existing framing achieved sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

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.

Akintunde v. Conard, 2019 ONBCC 29

Matthew Graham

OBCC0 cases2019–2024

Katherine Rentsch

OBCC0 cases2019–2024

Judy Beauchamp

OBCC0 cases2019–2024

OBCCBuilding Code CommissionDec 5, 2019

Building Code Commission rules restaurant sewage design flow is 125L/day per seat, not 400L/day.

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.

Seifried v. Carefoot, 2019 ONBCC 28

Scott Seabrooke

4 cases2016–2022

Christine Kellowan

Practising Law - Employed8 cases2015–2021

Stephen Wong

OBCC0 cases2019–2024

Matthew Graham

OBCC0 cases2019–2024

Alison Orr

OBCC0 cases2019–2024

OBCCBuilding Code CommissionJul 17, 2019

Commission lacks jurisdiction where parties agree on technical Building Code requirements and dispute concerns permit issuance.

The applicant sought a hearing before the Building Code Commission regarding a dispute with the Chief Building Official over a partially constructed residential building.

The applicant had begun construction without a permit, leading to a stop work order and a Superior Court order requiring him to obtain a permit or demolish the building.

The Commission found that the applicant qualified as an 'applicant for a permit' under s. 24(1) of the Building Code Act.

However, because both parties agreed that the technical provisions of the Building Code applied and the applicant was willing to comply, there was no actual dispute concerning the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements.

Consequently, the Commission ruled it lacked jurisdiction to make a determination and noted that disputes regarding the issuance of a permit must be appealed to the Superior Court.

Savary v. Fawcett, 2019 ONBCC 14

Page 2 of 2 (23 cases)

Agent for the Applicant

Richard Lai, P.EngAgent
1 appearance
Sarah AndersonAgent
1 appearance
Troy DrummondAgent
1 appearance
Denis BujAgent
1 appearance
Erin McClintockAgent
1 appearance
Heather CampbellAgent
1 appearance
Hillary MurphyAgent
1 appearance
Ian HillAgent
1 appearance
Bill WangAgent
1 appearance

Applicant

Travis EngeSelf-represented
1 appearance
Cole IngoldsbySelf-represented
1 appearance
Daniel GrenierSelf-represented
1 appearance
Mengchen XuSelf-represented
1 appearance

Designate for the Respondent

Selva PanchanathamAgent
2 appearances
Laura DuncanAgent
1 appearance
Marwan Al-EzziAgent
1 appearance
Mirella AlisonAgent
1 appearance
Paul ManzonAgent
1 appearance
Rob VaniAgent
1 appearance
Victor FanAgent
1 appearance
William SikkemaAgent
1 appearance
Bruce WestAgent
1 appearance
David L. DeanAgent
1 appearance
Disha PatelAgent
1 appearance
Jason HuttonAgent
1 appearance
Jason YoungAgent
1 appearance
David JohnsonAgent
1 appearance
Brandon CallejaAgent
1 appearance

for the Applicant

Alex WimbushAgent
2 appearances
Mike McDonaldAgent
1 appearance
Rob ClementsAgent
1 appearance
Robert OnoratiAgent
1 appearance
Ross SavattiAgent
1 appearance
Sandro CampoliAgent
1 appearance
Tyler PetersAgent
1 appearance
Allen SadlerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Andrew ColesAgent
1 appearance
Andrew ParleyCounsel
1 appearance
Angus HarteryAgent
1 appearance
Arian KrazniqiAgent
1 appearance
Billy LaiAgent
1 appearance
Charles MacPhailSelf-represented
1 appearance
Chris McCarthyAgent
1 appearance
Christine KellowanCounsel
1 appearance
Dave AndersonAgent
1 appearance
David HineAgent
1 appearance
David WinerCounsel
1 appearance
Debbie SadlerSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Applicants

Suzanne DavidSelf-represented
1 appearance
Rudy WallmanSelf-represented
1 appearance
Gordana TijanicAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent

Selva PanchanathamAgent
2 appearances
Arturo SimonAgent
1 appearance
Bill StamatopoulosAgent
1 appearance
Chris BurnsAgent
1 appearance
David StewartAgent
1 appearance
Diana SobaszekAgent
1 appearance
Frank PanacciAgent
1 appearance
Imran EsmailAgent
1 appearance
Jorge CaetanoAgent
1 appearance
Karthic BremachandranAgent
1 appearance
Karthie BremachandranAgent
1 appearance
Leslie CollinsAgent
1 appearance
Lily LukicAgent
1 appearance
Liz BucktonAgent
1 appearance
Martin CoxSelf-represented
1 appearance
Mike ZimmerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Natasha ZapullaAgent
1 appearance
Paul DhirAgent
1 appearance
Randy LovieSelf-represented
1 appearance
Rob PattonAgent
1 appearance

Respondent

Graham WarburtonSelf-represented
1 appearance

The Applicant

Akinbola AkintundeSelf-represented
1 appearance
Brian C. SzuberwoodSelf-represented
1 appearance
Dany DuvalSelf-represented
1 appearance
David KaySelf-represented
1 appearance

The Designate for the Respondent

Adam ClarkeAgent
1 appearance

The Respondent

Lisa Capener-HuntSelf-represented
1 appearance
Rick ConardSelf-represented
1 appearance
Terry DavidsonAgent
1 appearance

Decisions

Years active

Tribunals

0.4

cases/mo

OBCC23(100%)

Decision types

appeal

trial

motion

Page 2 of 2 (23 cases)

Matthew Graham

Leszek Muniak

Alexandra Chow

Akintunde v. Conard, 2019 ONBCC 29

Matthew Graham

Katherine Rentsch

Judy Beauchamp

Seifried v. Carefoot, 2019 ONBCC 28

Scott Seabrooke

Christine Kellowan

Stephen Wong

Matthew Graham

Alison Orr

Savary v. Fawcett, 2019 ONBCC 14

Agent for the Applicant

Applicant

Designate for the Respondent

for the Applicant

for the Applicants

for the Respondent

Respondent

The Applicant

The Designate for the Respondent

The Respondent

Decision types