Stephen Wong

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an alternative solution to use LAMCO-LFL laminated finger jointed lumber beams instead of laminated veneer lumber beams for a new two-storey house.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed alternative solution did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the product was tested to Canadian standards or met the specific requirements for wood design, grade marking, and moisture content.

The applicant sought to use LAMCO-LFL Laminated Finger Jointed Lumber beams as an alternative solution to Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) beams for garage door headers and a breezeway roof support in a new addition.

The Chief Building Official refused to process the alternative solution application because the product was not recognized under the Building Code or CSA O86.

The Building Code Commission found that, based on engineering reports and the limited structural application, the proposed alternative solution provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether a guard was required in front of window screen openings in a new residential addition.

The applicant argued that the 'Weatherwall' system was exempt from guard requirements under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the system functioned as a window but did not meet the structural sufficiency requirements for glass.

Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposal to omit a guard did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a new 5-storey mixed-use building.

The issues were whether a barrier-free washroom in a ground-floor retail unit sufficed in lieu of a universal washroom, and whether vision panels in certain doors complied with height requirements.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the barrier-free washroom provided sufficient compliance because a universal washroom was located elsewhere on the same floor.

However, the Commission found that the vision panels in doors in the barrier-free path of travel did not comply with the maximum height requirements, except for exit doors leading directly into exit stairs.

The applicant sought to use Passenger Visual Information Displays (PVIS) instead of standard ULC-listed strobe lights as visual signal devices for the fire alarm systems in 15 new Eglinton Crosstown LRT stations.

The City of Toronto denied the alternative solution because PVIS is not a ULC-listed device.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposed alternative solution, which integrates PVIS with established standard operating procedures and constant system monitoring, provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code's requirements for visual signal devices in rapid transit stations.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether the ceiling heights of three unfinished below-grade units in a residential building complied with the Building Code.

The units had clear heights between 1830 mm and 1930 mm, exceeding the maximum for a crawl space but falling short of the minimum for a basement.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the as-built clear heights provided sufficiency of compliance, as the spaces were not intended for human occupancy and the floor assemblies met fire-resistance requirements.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether a new 3-storey mixed-use building was exempt from providing a barrier-free path of travel for 15% of its residential suites.

The applicant argued that exemptions in the Building Code applied because the suites were on the second and third floors, which were only accessible by stairs.

The Building Code Commission held that there are no exemptions to Sentence 3.8.2.1.(5) and that the proposed design did not provide sufficiency of compliance, noting that barrier-free requirements also accommodate persons with limited mobility or sensory disabilities who may still use stairs.

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 to install electromagnetic locking devices on cross-corridor doors serving second-floor assisted living suites in a retirement home.

The respondent Chief Building Official argued this would create an impeded egress zone contrary to the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposal provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as the locks are designed to release upon fire alarm activation, thereby facilitating emergency egress without requiring keys or special knowledge.

The applicant sought a building permit for a detached laneway house.

A dispute arose with the Chief Building Official regarding whether the proposed fire department access complied with Article 9.10.20.3. of the Building Code.

The applicant proposed an alternative solution involving an automatic sprinkler system and exterior strobe light to compensate for an extended fire access route.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed access did not provide sufficiency of compliance, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the performance of the proposal would meet the minimum requirements of the Building Code or that water pressure could be maintained over the extended distances.

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 sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether a proposed floor opening in a new 9-storey student residence complied with the Building Code.

The applicant argued that the interconnected floor space between the first and second storeys met the exceptions to special protection under Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6).

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed design required occupants of the residential suites to traverse the interconnected floor space to access a required second exit, violating the Code.

The Commission ruled that the proposed design did not provide sufficiency of compliance.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an alternative solution for a new 13-storey building.

The applicant proposed installing close-spaced sprinklers on the interior side of unprotected openings that exceeded the maximum permitted percentage based on limiting distance under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the applicant's theoretical analysis and dated testing information did not adequately simulate anticipated service conditions.

The Commission ruled that the proposed alternative solution did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant applied for a building permit to construct a self-storage building without plumbing facilities.

The Chief Building Official refused, arguing that the Building Code requires washrooms and a sanitary drainage system.

The Building Code Commission found that because there is no water supply for the first phase of the project, the applicant's proposal to provide sanitary privies or chemical closets provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

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 to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the requirement for smoke dampers in air ducts opening into a public corridor in a new 25-storey residential building.

The applicant argued that the make-up air system functioned as a smoke control system, thereby exempting the supply air ducts from requiring smoke dampers under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the make-up air supply system on its own constituted a complete smoke control system as required for a high building.

The Commission ruled that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicants sought to legalize an existing secondary suite constructed by a previous owner without a permit.

The chief building official issued a permit conditional on providing sound attenuation between the units.

The applicants disputed this requirement, arguing that Part 11 of the Building Code applied.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction.

The Building Code Commission held that it lacked jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, because determining when the illegal unit was constructed is a mixed question of fact and law, not a dispute concerning the sufficiency of compliance with technical requirements.

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 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.