Michael Egberts

The applicant sought to reconstruct a fire-damaged rear extension of a mixed-use building without incorporating barrier-free design elements, arguing it was not an addition and compliance would require prohibitive modifications to the existing structure.

The Chief Building Official maintained that the extension must comply with all other parts of the Building Code, including barrier-free requirements.

The Building Code Commission determined that the proposed construction constituted an extensive renovation, not a basic renovation, and therefore the extension must comply with Section 3.8 of the Building Code.

The Commission found the proposal did not offer sufficient compliance.

The applicant sought to reconstruct a rear extension of a mixed-use building destroyed by fire without complying with the barrier-free design requirements of Section 3.8 of the Building Code.

The applicant argued the repair was not a new addition and compliance would require prohibitive modifications to the existing building.

The Building Code Commission found the proposed construction constituted an 'extensive renovation' and an extension of an existing building system, thereby requiring compliance with all other Parts of the Building Code, including Section 3.8.

The Commission ruled the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance.

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 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 to legalize an existing secondary dwelling unit and disputed the Chief Building Official's requirement that smoke alarms be interconnected and located in the bedrooms of both units.

The Building Code Commission found that the applicant's proposal to provide an interconnected smoke alarm in each dwelling unit, but not within each bedroom, did not comply with the Building Code's compliance alternatives for a 15-minute fire separation.

The Commission ruled that sufficiency of compliance had not been achieved.

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 revise a building permit to increase the occupancy of a residential bunkhouse for seasonal agricultural workers from 4 to 7.

The Chief Building Official refused, arguing the building constituted a camp for housing of workers and required fire separations between sleeping rooms.

The Building Code Commission found that because each worker had an independent employment contract and there was no single tenancy agreement, the building was not a single dwelling unit or suite.

The Commission ruled that the building did not comply with the fire separation requirements of the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether the proposed standpipe system design and water supply for a six-storey residential building complied with the Building Code.

The applicant argued that the system could meet requirements with the support of a fire department pump, though they had not confirmed availability with the local fire department.

The respondent provided evidence that the fire department could not provide the necessary equipment and that field tests failed to meet the required flow rates.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed design did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant applied for a building permit to renovate a single-family dwelling.

The Chief Building Official failed to issue the permit, refuse it with reasons, or notify the applicant that the application was incomplete within the prescribed 10-day statutory time period.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the Chief Building Official did not comply with the timelines set out in the Building Code Act and the Building Code.

The applicant sought a building permit for a 6-storey residential building containing dwelling units with dens, some of which had built-in closets but no windows.

The Chief Building Official argued that dens are principal rooms requiring minimum window areas under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that dens, with or without closets, are not principal rooms used for primary living purposes and therefore do not require windows.

The Commission ruled that the proposed design provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a 9-storey student residence.

The applicant proposed an alternative solution to waive the requirement for combination smoke and fire dampers at the branch ductwork supplying ventilation air to individual rooms.

The Commission ruled that the proposed alternative solution provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as engineering data demonstrated it would provide better smoke migration resistance than a standard fan coil unit.

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 a ruling from the Building Code Commission on whether a proposed design for a 20-storey residential building complied with the Building Code.

The design proposed that public corridors on the second and third floors would traverse through unenclosed amenity spaces, using demarcations on the floor to indicate the path of travel to exits.

The Commission ruled that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance, finding that the demarcations lacked permanency, would not be suitable for visually impaired occupants, and that the use of the assembly spaces could create obstructions hindering egress during an emergency.

The applicant, a building owner, applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a barrier-free ramp at a tenant's cannabis shop.

The Commission determined it lacked jurisdiction under section 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, because the applicant was not the building permit applicant or holder, nor had an Order to Comply been issued to him.

The application was dismissed.

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 applicant sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the replacement of a gas furnace in an existing 3-storey mixed-use building.

The City argued the new furnace constituted a new building system requiring compliance with current Building Code provisions prohibiting air circulation between residential suites and other occupancies.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the replacement was a minor material alteration, not an extension of an existing system, and therefore the strict provisions did not apply, provided existing fire separations were maintained and fire dampers installed.

The applicant sought to construct a self-service storage facility on the first storey of an existing 31-storey mixed-use building containing residential suites.

The Chief Building Official denied the alternative solution proposal.

The Building Code Commission held that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code's prohibition on occupancy combinations, as the proposed compensating measures were insufficient to offset the fire and life safety risks to the residential occupants.

The applicant sought to construct a two-storey laneway house and proposed to sprinkler the building as a compensating measure for a reduced clear access width for fire department personnel.

The Chief Building Official refused the permit, requiring a minimum 1.0 m clear access width.

The Building Code Commission held that while sprinklering addresses fire suppression, it does not sufficiently compensate for a reduction in the clear access width required by firefighters to access a building for emergency response.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a building permit for renovations.

The dispute centered on whether the existing sprinkler system in an interconnected floor space required closely spaced sprinklers and draft stops under the Building Code and NFPA 13.

The Commission found that the interconnected floor space met the exceptions in Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) of the Building Code, and because the sprinkler protection was not serving as an alternative to enclosing the vertical opening, closely spaced sprinklers and draft stops were not required.

The Commission ruled that the existing sprinkler protection provided sufficient compliance.