Ruling No.: 21-07-1181
Application No.: S-2020-17
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 8.2.1.3 (1) and 8.2.1.3 (3), and Clause 8.2.2.3 (1) (a) of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Danny Duval, for the resolution of a dispute with Terry Davidson, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the capacity of the existing on-site sewage system proposed to serve a renovated 4 bedroom single family dwelling, which will include a proposed secondary dwelling unit in the basement, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 8.2.1.3 (1) and 8.2.1.3 (3), and Clause 8.2.2.3 (1) (a) of Division B of the Building Code at 132 Lady Lochead Lane, Carp, Ontario.
APPLICANT Dany Duval
Homeowner
Carp, Ontario
AND
RESPONDENT Terry Davidson
Chief Building Official
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority
Manotik, Ontario
PANEL Judy Beauchamp, Chair Designate
Matthew Graham
Michael Gooch
PLACE Video conference
DATE OF HEARING March 19, 2021
DATE OF RULING March 19, 2021
APPEARANCES
Dany Duval
Homeowner
Carp, Ontario
The Applicant
Terry Davidson
Chief Building Official
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority
Manotik, Ontario
The Respondent
Jason Hutton
Engineering Inspector
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority
Manotik, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant applied for a Building Permit in May of 2020 to renovate the existing 4-bedroom home at 132 Lady Lochead Lane, Carp, Ontario. The renovation included a secondary dwelling unit in the basement, which was proposed to be serviced with the existing Class 4 sewage system currently servicing the house.
The existing home is 2 stories with 4 bedrooms. The existing sewage system consists of a 9000 litre septic tank and 105 m of distribution trench (8 runs of 13.2 m).
The application submitted to the Ottawa Septic System Office of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (having jurisdiction for Part 8) was denied a permit at that time on the basis that the secondary dwelling unit required either a new septic tank of at least 3,600 litres, or a new combined tank with a volume of at least 11,000 litres. The Applicant subsequently submitted an application to upgrade the existing sewage system by increasing the septic tank capacity and received approval for the renovation.
The dispute between the two parties centers on whether or not the capacity of the existing on-site sewage system proposed to serve a renovated 4 bedroom single family dwelling, which will include a proposed secondary dwelling unit in the basement, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 8.2.1.3 (1) and 8.2.1.3 (3), and Clause 8.2.2.3 (1) (a): of Division B of the Building Code at 132 Lady Lochead Lane, Carp, Ontario.
It is noted that the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority did not submit a Confirmation of Dispute, but rather provided an email to the Commission as an objection to the hearing based on the matter of jurisdiction, specifically relating to a lack of dispute. Prior to the commencement of the hearing and receiving any evidence relating to the technical requirements for the septic system, the Commission sought to determine jurisdiction relative to the Building Code Act. The Commission therefore heard both parties’ positions on the matter of jurisdiction.
2. Provisions of the Building Code and Building Code Act in Dispute
The Applicant identified Sentences 8.2.1.3 (1) and 8.2.1.3 (3), and Clause 8.2.2.3 (1) (a): of Division B of the Building Code, to be in dispute. However, given that the Respondent did not agree that there was a dispute, the following subsection of the Building Code Act, 1992 was examined to determine jurisdiction.
Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act partially states;
Dispute Resolution
24.(1) This section applies if there is a dispute,
(a) between an applicant for a permit, a holder of a permit or a person to whom an order is given and the chief building official, a registered code agency or an inspector concerning the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code;
It should be noted that there is no definition of “dispute” in the Building Code.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant indicated that he had purchased the property in 2015 and that the house was incomplete at that time. A new class 4 sewage system was constructed to service the house and a certificate of completion was issued in November 2019. In May of 2020 the applicant applied for a building permit to renovate the house and include a proposed separate dwelling unit in the basement. The proposed dwelling unit included the addition of a bedroom, kitchen sink, dishwasher, washroom group with toilet sink and shower and washing machine. The application indicated that the proposed dwelling unit was to be serviced with the existing class 4 sewage system.
The Applicant explained that this application was denied by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority on the basis that the secondary dwelling unit required either a new septic tank of at least 3,600 litres, or a new combined septic tank with a volume of at least 11,000 litres.
In order to continue with the renovations, the Applicant submitted a revised application to the Ottawa Septic System Office for the renovations, which included an upgrade to the existing sewage system septic tank. This was subsequently approved by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.
The Applicant indicated that an Occupancy Permit or final inspection has not yet been obtained for the renovations, due to inspection delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions. In the interim, the Applicant has applied to the Building Code Commission to request approval to use the existing class 4 system without any upgrades to service the combined uses in the home.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority did not provide the Commission with a Confirmation of Dispute, but submitted an email dated January 28, 2021. The email stated that the Applicant had submitted a permit that was rejected, and subsequently submitted a Part 8 application to increase the septic tank size to accommodate the increased daily design sanitary sewage design flow. A permit for this application was issued on May 27, 2020.
The Respondent (Rideau Valley Conservation Authority) indicated there was no dispute as the Applicant was issued a permit to upgrade the septic tank, nor was there any concern regarding timelines for obtaining a permit.
In response to questions, the Respondent indicated that the Applicant could have applied for a hearing prior to submitting an application to upgrade the sewage system.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the technical dispute relating to the capacity of the existing on-site sewage system proposed to serve a renovated 4 bedroom single family dwelling, which will include a proposed secondary dwelling unit in the basement, regarding sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 8.2.1.3 (1) and 8.2.1.3 (3), and Clause 8.2.2.3 (1) (a) of Division B of the Building Code at 132 Lady Lochead Lane, Carp, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) The Building Code Commission is a quasi-judicial tribunal whose mandate is set out in subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992.
Subsection 24 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, states:
This section applies if there is a dispute (emphasis added)
(a) between an applicant for a permit, a holder of a permit or a person to whom an order is given and the chief building official, a registered code agency or an inspector concerning the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the building code;
The Commission heard the following evidence:
An original application for the renovation of the house was applied for in May 2020 using the existing sewage system and this application was subsequently refused by the Chief Building Official, (Rideau Valley Conservation Authority).
A subsequent application was submitted by the applicant that was approved by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.
The Applicant proceeded with the construction of the renovations based on the approved application.
Based on the evidence provided, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no outstanding technical dispute, as the homeowner chose to revise their permit application, which was subsequently approved. Therefore, the Commission does not have jurisdiction.
It should be noted that this ruling is specific to the facts of this dispute and property and the above reasons should not be interpreted as precedent setting statements.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 19th day in the month of March in the year 2021 for application number S-2020-17.
Judy Beauchamp, Chair Designate
Matthew Graham
Michael Gooch