Michael Gooch

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 to construct a second-floor office space within an existing industrial condominium unit without installing a platform lift for barrier-free access.

The applicant argued that the space qualified for exemptions under the Building Code based on building area and raised floor provisions.

The Building Code Commission found that the building area exceeded the 600 square metre threshold for the exemption and that the second floor constituted a separate storey rather than a raised floor area.

The Commission ruled that the proposal to omit barrier-free access did not provide sufficiency of compliance with 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 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 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 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.