Stephen Wong

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 applicant homeowner applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an as-constructed secondary stair in a residential dwelling.

The stair featured winders that turned 180 degrees without separation, contrary to the prescriptive requirements limiting winders to 90 degrees and requiring a 1.2 m separation between sets.

The Commission ruled that the stair did not provide sufficiency of compliance, finding that it far exceeded the prescriptive requirements and created a hazardous condition.

The applicant sought a ruling from the Building Code Commission on whether egress doors from rental spaces in a self-storage building could swing against the direction of exit travel.

The applicant argued that the Building Code provisions allowed doors serving 60 or fewer persons to swing in either direction.

The respondent maintained that the specific provisions for self-storage buildings required doors serving rooms greater than 50 square metres or with a travel distance over 10 metres to swing in the direction of exit travel.

The Commission ruled that the applicant's proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance, finding insufficient evidence to waive the specific conditional limitations in the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute regarding an Order to Comply issued by the Chief Building Official, which required a change of use permit for four suites operated as a care facility.

The applicant argued no change of use had occurred.

The Building Code Commission ruled it lacked jurisdiction under subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, as the dispute concerned administrative requirements and provisions of the Act rather than the sufficiency of compliance with technical requirements of 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 a resolution from the Building Code Commission regarding the sufficiency of compliance for a proposed place of worship using privies and hand sanitizing stations instead of standard plumbing.

The application was based on a preliminary design review rather than a complete building permit application.

The Commission determined that under section 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter because the application was not made by an applicant for a permit, and it is not the Commission's mandate to provide advice or technical interpretations for preliminary designs.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the proposed sanitary and storm services for a new 12-storey residential building.

The proposed design connected the building's services to municipal mains through existing private sewers located on separate properties.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposed design does not comply with Article 7.1.5.4. of the Building Code, which requires piping in any building to be connected to public services separately from piping of any other building, as the exceptions for buildings on the same property did not apply.

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 homeowner applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a requirement to provide 6 mm of mortar parging on a new below-grade unit masonry foundation wall.

The applicant had applied a self-adhering waterproofing membrane directly to the block wall without parging, relying on manufacturer instructions.

The Commission found that the installation did not comply with the Building Code, as the product's CCMC evaluation report explicitly required surface preparation in accordance with the Code, which mandates parging for unit masonry walls.

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 appealed the Chief Building Official's refusal of a building permit for a pizza restaurant renovation.

The refusal was based on the proposed rooftop exhaust termination not meeting the 3-metre clearance from property lines required by NFPA 96.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposed design, which included compensating measures such as a listed fire damper, fire barrier duct wrap, and an elevated termination height, provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the design of a new gender-neutral washroom at a high school.

The proposed design featured fully enclosed water closets but maintained open sightlines from the corridor to the common lavatory area.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the design provides sufficiency of compliance with the privacy requirements of the Building Code, on the condition that a partial height wall is constructed to conceal the gang lavatory from the corridor and that mirror placement does not create additional sightlines.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the major occupancy classification of a car dealership with a new addition.

The applicant proposed a classification of Group D and Group F, Division 2, while the respondent argued the entire building should be classified as Group E. The Building Code Commission ruled in favour of the applicant, finding that the principal use of the building is Group F, Division 2 for the repair garage and Group D for the showroom, and that sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code was achieved.

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 sought a ruling from the Building Code Commission on whether a proposal to construct one universal washroom and one unisex washroom for a new ground floor office complied with the Building Code.

The applicant argued that the occupant load should be calculated using a design method based on the expected number of staff.

The respondent Chief Building Official maintained that the Code explicitly requires Group D occupancies to calculate occupant load based on 14 square metres per person for plumbing fixture purposes.

The Commission agreed with the respondent, finding that the Code clearly defines the method for determining occupant load for Group D occupancies, and ruled that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance.

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 resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether condo pack units on the north exterior wall of a new residential building could be considered protected openings without installing fire shutters.

The Building Code Commission found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the condo pack units achieved the required 1-hour fire-resistance rating or that the surrounding combustible enclosures complied with the Building Code.

The Commission ruled that the proposal not to install fire shutters did not provide sufficiency of compliance with 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.