Ruling No.: 21-18-1592
Application No.: B-2021-11
BUILDING CODE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended.
AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentences 9.5.2.1.(1), 3.8.1.2.(3), 3.8.3.4.(1) and Article 11.3.3.1. and Sentence 11.3.3.2.(2) of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Patrick Briere, for the resolution of a dispute with Chantal Bégin, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the barrier-free ramp, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 9.5.2.1.(1), 3.8.1.2.(3), 3.8.3.4.(1) and Article 11.3.3.1. and Sentence 11.3.3.2.(2) of Division B of the Building Code at 2868 Chamberland Street, Rockland, Ontario.
APPLICANT Patrick Briere
2178503 Ontario Inc.
Plantagenet, Ontario
RESPONDENT Chantal Bégin,
Chief Building Official, City of Clarence-Rockland
Rockland, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair
Alexandra Chow
Michael Egberts
PLACE via video conference
DATE OF HEARING November 09, 2021
DATE OF RULING November 09, 2021
APPEARANCES Patrick Briere
2178503 Ontario Inc.
Plantagenet, Ontario
The Applicant
Chantal Bégin
Chief Building Official, City of Clarence-Rockland
Rockland, Ontario
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant’s tenant applied for and was issued a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, for an interior renovation at 2868 Chamberland Street, Rockland, Ontario.
The subject building is a Group E mercantile building and the interior renovation is for a cannabis shop.
The Applicant’s tenant constructed a barrier-free ramp leading to the entrance of the cannabis shop without a building permit. The ramp is not within the scope of the issued building permit for the interior renovation at the site. The tenant was not present for the Building Code Commission hearing.
The construction in dispute centers on whether the barrier-free entrance ramp installed at the entrance of a cannabis store of a mixed-use building provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 9.5.2.1.(1), 3.8.1.2.(3), 3.8.3.4.(1) and Article 11.3.3.1. and Sentence 11.3.3.2.(2) of Division B of the Building Code.
At the outset of the hearing, the Commission raised the issue of whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Commission heard from both parties regarding their disagreement and sought legal advice from the Ministry’s Legal Counsel on the matter. The Commission disclosed the nature of the legal advice it received and advised both parties it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the dispute related to Sentences 9.5.2.1.(1), 3.8.1.2.(3), 3.8.3.4.(1) and Article 11.3.3.1. and Sentence 11.3.3.2.(2) of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
9.5.2. Barrier-Free Design
9.5.2.1.(1) Except as provided in Sentence (2) and Article 3.8.1.1., every building shall be designed in conformance with Section 3.8.
3.8.1.2. Entrance
3.8.1.2.(3) In addition to the barrier-free entrances required by Sentence (1), a suite of assembly occupancy, business and personal services occupancy or mercantile occupancy that is located in the first storey of a building or in a storey to which a barrier-free path of travel is provided, and that is separated from the remainder of the building so that there is no access to the remainder of the building, shall have at least one barrier-free entrance.
3.8.3.4. Ramps
(1) Ramps located in a barrier-free path of travel shall,
(a) have a minimum width of 900 mm between handrails,
(b) have a maximum gradient of 1 in 12,
(c) have a level area of at least 1 670 mm by 1 670 mm at the top and bottom of a ramp and where a door is located in a ramp, so that the level area extends at least 600 mm beyond the latch side of the door opening, except that where the door opens away from the ramp, the area extending beyond the latch side of the door opening may be reduced to 300 mm,
(d) have a level area at least 1 670 mm long and at least the same width as the ramp,
(i) at intervals of not more than 9 m along its length, and
(ii) where there is a change of 90° or more in the direction of the ramp,
(e) except as provided in Sentence (2), be equipped with handrails on both sides that shall,
(i) be continuously graspable along their entire length and have circular cross-section with an outside diameter not less than 30 mm and not more than 40 mm, or any non-circular shape with a graspable portion that has a perimeter not less than 100 mm and not more than 155 mm and whose largest cross-sectional dimension is not more than 57 mm,
(ii) be not less than 865 mm and not more than 965 mm high, measured vertically from the surface of the ramp, except that handrails not meeting these requirements are permitted provided they are installed in addition to the required handrail,
(iii) be terminated in a manner that will not obstruct pedestrian travel or create a hazard,
(iv) extend horizontally not less than 300 mm beyond the top and bottom of the ramp,
(v) be provided with a clearance of not less than 50 mm between the handrail and any wall or guard to which it is attached, and
(vi) be designed and constructed such that handrails and their supports will withstand the loading values obtained from the nonconcurrent application of a concentrated load not less than 0.9 kN applied at any point and in any direction for all handrails and a uniform load not less than 0.7 kN/m applied in any direction to the handrail,
(f) except as provided in Sentence (2), have a wall or a guard on both sides and where a guard is provided the guard shall,
(i) be not less than 1 070 mm measured vertically to the top of the guard from the ramp surface, and
(ii) be designed so that no member, attachment or opening located between 140 mm and 900 mm above the ramp surface being protected by the guard will facilitate climbing,
(g) be provided,
(i) with a curb at least 50 mm high on any side of the ramp where no solid enclosure or solid guard is provided, and
(ii) with railings or other barriers that extend to within 50 mm of the finished ramp surface or have a curb not less than 50 mm high, and
(h) except as provided in Sentence (2), where the ramp is wider than 2 200 mm, have an intermediate handrail with a clear width of 900 mm between the intermediate handrail and one of the handrails described in Clause (e).
11.3.3.1. Basic Renovation
11.3.3.1. (1) Except as provided in Sentence (2) and Article 11.3.3.2., construction may be carried out to maintain the existing performance level of all or part of an existing building, by the reuse, relocation or extension of the same or similar materials or components, to retain the existing character, structural uniqueness, heritage value, or aesthetic appearance of all or part of the building, if the construction will not adversely affect the early warning and evacuation systems, fire separations or the structural adequacy or will not create an unhealthy environment in the building.
11.3.3.1. (2) Construction in respect of a Group B, Division 3 occupancy, a hotel or a retirement home may be carried out in accordance with Sentence (1) only if the construction will be in conformance with the Fire Code made under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.
11.3.3.2. Extensive Renovation
11.3.3.2.(2) Except as provided in Section 11.5., the proposed construction within an existing suite shall comply with the requirements of Section 3.8. where,
(a) new interior walls or floor assemblies are installed,
(b) the suite has an area greater than 300 m2, and
(c) the suite is located in,
(i) a floor area where the existing difference in elevation between the adjacent ground level and the floor level is not more than 200 mm, or
(ii) a normally occupied floor area which is accessible by a passenger type elevator or other platform equipped passenger elevating device from an entrance storey where the existing difference in elevation between the adjacent ground level and the entrance storey level is not more than 200 mm.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant submitted that the dispute primarily involves the slope of the barrier-free ramp constructed at the entrance of a building he owns and leases to a tenant. The Applicant provided a report prepared by a professional engineer documenting the dimensions and shape of the ramp to indicate non-compliance with the requirements of the Building Code in dispute.
In response to questions, the Applicant confirmed he was not the applicant for the issued building permit involving the interior renovation of the cannabis store. The Applicant also confirmed that the barrier-free ramp did not form part of the scope of work involved in the issued building permit plans for the interior renovation. The Applicant further indicated that the dispute involves ramp requirements noted on inspection reports issued by the Chief Building Official.
In response to questions, the Applicant confirmed that the tenant who leases the space for the cannabis shop is the applicant for the issued building permit for the interior renovation. As the owner of the building, the Applicant expressed his concern over the potential risk and liability due to the deficiencies noted in the engineer’s report and indicated he would like to resolve this dispute as soon as possible.
4. Respondent’s Position
In response to questions, the Respondent submitted that the barrier-free entrance ramp was not included in the issued building permit plans for the interior renovation. The Respondent advised that the renovation work had been completed and that the building permit file had been closed.
In response to questions, the Respondent advised that no Order to Comply has been issued.
In addition, the Respondent confirmed that no building permit as been applied for involving the construction of a ramp.
The Respondent further noted that the Applicant for the interior renovation building permit is the tenant of the store, and not Patrick Briere, the owner of the building.
- Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that under clause 24(1)(a) of the Building Code Act, 1992, the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to make a determination on the issues raised in relation to the matter at 2868 Chamberland Street, Rockland, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, provides the Commission with the jurisdiction to resolve disputes between an applicant for a building permit, the holder of a building permit or a person to whom an order has been issued and the chief building official, a registered code agency or inspector concerning the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Code. The Commission heard that the dispute centers on the construction of a barrier-free ramp located at an entrance of the subject building.
The Commission also heard that the as-constructed barrier-free ramp is not part of the scope of work for any building permit application, or subject of an Order to Comply. In addition, the Commission confirmed with both parties that the Applicant for hearing, Patrick Briere, is not the applicant or holder of a building permit nor has an Order to Comply been issued to him. Further, the Respondent confirmed that the building permit for the interior renovations of the tenant’s cannabis shop is now closed.
Therefore, based on the evidence and testimony, it is the Commission’s opinion that it does not have the jurisdiction to make a determination in this matter, since the Applicant is not within the categories of persons who can apply to the Commission under section 24 of the Building Code Act.
ii) The Commission understood that the Applicant had concerns regarding the actions of the Chief Building Official in her role of enforcing the Building Code. The Commission acknowledges that there is a disagreement between the Chief Building Official and the Applicant to the Building Code Commission. However, the Commission, as indicated above, has a very narrow jurisdiction as outlined in subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act. The Commission’s jurisdiction typically does not extend to resolving disputes pertaining to administrative provisions of the Building Code, municipal by-laws, or the role and responsibilities of municipal building officials in implementing those legislative provisions.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 9^th^ day in the month of November in the year 2021 for application number B-2021-11.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Alexandra Chow
Michael Egberts