Citation : Vuksic v. Zacharakis 2022 ONBCC 11

Ruling No.: 22-11-1603

Application No.: B-2021-24

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 3.3.1.12.(2), 3.3.1.12.(3) and 3.3.1.12.(10) of Division B Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Lianne Vuksic, for the resolution of a dispute with George Zacharakis, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposal to install electromagnetic locking devices on the cross-corridor doors serving the 2nd floor assisted living suites, of a 6-storey, Group C occupancy retirement home building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.3.1.12.(2), 3.3.1.12.(3) and 3.3.1.12.(10) of Division B of the Building Code when considering the definition of “residential occupancy” as defined by Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A of the Building Code, at 135 Mostar Street, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Ontario.

APPLICANT Lianne Vuksic

Construction Manager

Main Mostar Retirement Developments Limited

Toronto, Ontario

RESPONDENT George Zacharakis

Chief Building Official

Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville

Stouffville, Ontario

PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair

Alison Orr

Leszek Muniak

PLACE Video Conference

DATE OF HEARING May 18, 2022

DATE OF RULING May 18, 2022

APPEARANCES Debbie Pacchiarotti

Vice-President of Development

Fieldgate Commercial

Owner and operator of facility

Designate for the Applicant

Matteo Gilfillan

President

Matteo Gilfillan & Associates

Toronto, Ontario

Agent for the Applicant

Alyson Klein

Matteo Gilfillan & Associates

Agent for the Applicant

George Zacharias

Chief Building Official

Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Ontario

Respondent

Bujar Mulla

Deputy Chief Building Official

Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Ontario

Designate for the Respondent

Salvatore Barone

Deputy Chief Building Official

Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Ontario

Designate for the Respondent

RULING

1. Particulars of Dispute

The Applicant applied for a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a 6-storey, Group C major occupancy, residential building at 135 Mostar Street, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Ontario.

The building in question is a new 6-storey building with one basement level. It is a Group C residential major occupancy building proposed to be used as a retirement home. The building contains administrative spaces and amenity spaces (subsidiary) on Level P1, Ground, 2nd and 6th floor. The 2nd floor of the building consists of assisted living suites. The building is equipped with a fire alarm system and standpipe and hose system. The building is also equipped with an automatic sprinkler system.

The building is under construction. Following the issuance of partial permits, electromagnetic locking devices were proposed for several locations on the 2nd floor. Electromagnetic locking devices are proposed on the 2nd floor exit doors to Stair C and Stair D, which are not part of the dispute.

The dispute centers on the proposal to also install electromagnetic locking devices on the 2nd floor cross-corridors access to exits doors that separate the fire compartment zones in the building, serving the 2nd floor assisted living suites.

More specifically, the dispute before the Commission is whether the proposal to install electromagnetic locking devices on the cross-corridor doors serving the 2nd floor assisted living suites, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.3.1.12.(2), 3.3.1.12.(3) and 3.3.1.12.(10) of Division B of the Building Code.

Although Sentences 3.3.1.12.(4), 3.3.1.12.(6), and 3.4.6.16.(4) of Division B of the Building Code were initially raised as provisions in dispute, during the hearing the parties agreed that these matters were no longer in dispute.

2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute

Article 3.3.1.12. Doors and Door Hardware

(2) A door in an access to exit shall be readily openable in travelling to an exit without requiring keys, special devices or specialized knowledge of the door opening mechanism, except that this requirement does not apply to a door serving a contained use area, or an impeded egress zone, provided the locking devices conform to Sentence (6).

(3) Except as permitted by Sentence (4), door release hardware shall be operable by one hand and the door shall be openable with not more than one releasing operation….

(10) A door in an access to exit is permitted to be equipped with an electromagnetic locking device conforming to Sentence 3.4.6.16.(4), except that this permission does not apply to a door,

(a) in an elementary or secondary school,

(b) a door leading from a Group F, Division 1 occupancy, or

(c) except as provided in Sentence (11), requiring a latch release device

by Article 3.3.2.6.

3. Applicant’s Position

The Agent for the Applicant (“Agent”) submitted that the electromagnetic locks were desirable at cross-corridor access to exit doors serving the 2nd floor of the retirement home, which contains assisted living suites. The doors would separate an area used for memory care and assisted living, from an area of independent living. The Agent advised the entire facility is regulated under the Retirement Home Act, 2010 (RHA). Staffing and care are governed by the RHA.

The Agent submitted that Sentence 3.3.1.12.(2) permits electromagnetic locks on doors other than those explicitly identified in subsequent Sentences of the Article, which are not applicable. It is the position of the Agent that the electromagnetic locks are permitted under Sentence 3.3.1.12.(10), which permits electromagnetic locks on access to exit doors that are installed in accordance with Sentence 3.4.6.16.(4). The doors are proposed to be installed in accordance with Sentence 3.4.6.16.(4).

The Agent explained that cross-corridor doors are not required by the Building Code to be equipped with panic hardware, as the occupant load of the spaces on Level 2 does not exceed 100 persons. The Agent submitted that the project does not include a contained use area or an impeded egress zone as defined by the Building Code and referenced in Sentence 3.3.1.12.(2). The Agent submitted that electromagnetic locks are used on a day-to-day basis, for general security in offices, for example, or in retail, for mitigating theft. Staff would operate such doors using a security pass.

The Agent advised that the electromagnetic locks would release in an emergency if the fire alarm system was activated either remotely or as a result of the adjacent pull stations being activated. The Agent confirmed that in an emergency, the doors would operate in accordance with Sentences 3.3.1.12.(2) and 3.3.1.12.(3) of Division B of the Building Code.

4. Respondent’s Position

The Respondent submitted that the electromagnetic locks in the locations proposed would involuntarily detain residents from accessing the remainder of the floor area. It is the position of the Respondent that the cross-corridor door is not an exit door, as it is in a corridor.

The Respondent submitted that electromagnetic locks are not intended to be used as an alternative locking device and when installed as proposed would undermine the intent of Article 3.3.1.12. In the opinion of the Respondent, the installation of an electromagnetic lock would create an impeded egress zone.

5. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal to install electromagnetic locking devices on the cross-corridor doors serving the 2nd floor assisted living suites, of a 6-storey, Group C occupancy retirement home building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.3.1.12.(2), 3.3.1.12.(3), and 3.3.1.12.(10) of Division B of the Building Code when considering the definition of “residential occupancy” as defined by Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A of the Building Code, at 135 Mostar Street, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Ontario.

6. Reasons

i) Sentences 3.3.1.12.(2) and 3.3.1.12.(3) apply to doors in an access to exit and require that doors be readily openable without requiring keys, special devices, or knowledge, and shall be operable by one hand, and with not more than one releasing operation.

The Commission heard evidence that the electromagnetic locks are released in an emergency situation. When alarms are activated, either remotely or by the pull stations adjacent to the doors, the electromagnetic locks will release, and the doors will operate in accordance with Sentences 3.3.1.12.(2) and 3.3.1.12.(3).

ii) The Commission heard evidence that if electromagnetic locks are installed, they will meet the requirements of Sentence 3.4.6.16.(4).

iii) Sentence 3.3.1.12.(10) does not prohibit the use of an electromagnetic locking device in this location, since the doors are not in an elementary or secondary school, or in a Group F, Division 1 occupancy, and are not required to have latch release device by Article 3.3.2.6.

iv) The Commission recognizes the Objective and Functional Statements associated with Sentences 3.3.1.12.(2) and 3.3.1.12.(3). Functional Statement F10 states, “To facilitate the timely movement of persons to a safe place in an emergency”. Objective Statement OS3.7 states, “An objective of this Code is to limit the probability that, as a result of the design or construction of a building, a person in or adjacent to the building will be exposed to an unacceptable risk of injury due to hazards caused by persons being delayed in or impeded from moving to a safe place during an emergency.”

The Commission acknowledges that objective and functional statement associated with the above Sentences relate to facilitating exiting of occupants in an emergency. The Commission notes that these 2 Sentences do not address day-to-day operations, with respect to the installation of electromagnetic locks, which are released when the fire alarm system is activated. The Commission is of the opinion that the proposal has met the associated objective and functional statement.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 18th day in the month of May in the year 2022 for application number B-2021-24.

Stephen Wong, Chair

Alison Orr

Leszek Muniak