Rick Mori

The applicant sought a building permit to repair a fire-damaged basement unit in a six-unit residential building.

The proposal included a single means of egress for the two basement units.

The Chief Building Official refused the permit, requiring a second means of egress under Clause 9.9.9.3(1)(b) of the Building Code.

The applicant argued the single egress was a legal non-conforming use established by a 1998 permit, but could not produce the permit.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as a second and separate means of egress is required.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an Order to Comply concerning free-standing glass guards installed without a top rail in a new four-storey building.

The applicant proposed an alternative solution using laminated glass with a stiff interlayer, arguing it met the performance level required by the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the alternative solution did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the structural and load requirements of the Building Code, noting that the calculations used reduced loading for a 'rare event' and failed to address specified vertical loads.

The Commission concluded that the required top rail provides a margin of safety for catastrophic failure that was not equivalently demonstrated by the alternative solution.

The applicant homeowner applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a secondary suite.

The issue was whether the existing 1/2 inch unrated gypsum board on the floor and wall assemblies achieved a 15-minute fire-resistance rating under compliance alternative C152 of the Building Code.

The Commission found that the component additive method and the HUD Guideline on Fire Ratings of Archaic Materials and Assemblies did not apply to unrated gypsum board or to a building constructed in 2002.

The Commission ruled that the assemblies did not provide 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 the use of SIN beams (hot rolled steel wide flanges welded to a sinusoidal cold formed steel web) in a 3-storey building addition.

The Chief Building Official had issued an Order to Comply, arguing the beams required third-party evaluation or a Minister's Ruling because they were designed to international standards not referenced in the Building Code.

The Commission found that the rational engineering analysis used to determine the shear resistance of the SIN beams satisfied the requirements of CSA S136, as permitted by the Building Code.

The Commission ruled that the design method provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, subject to the submission of an updated, site-specific engineer's letter.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the design of two as-built stairs in a residential dwelling.

The dispute centered on whether the elliptical stairs with tapered treads complied with the Building Code requirements for curved stairs and angled treads.

The Commission found that the stairs constituted curved runs and achieved sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, subject to the conditions that a handrail be installed on the wall side and the nosing overhang be reduced.