Ruling No.: 22-21-1613
Application No.: B-2022-06
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 Article 9.8.8.1., Sentence 9.8.8.1.(5), and Clauses 9.8.8.1.(6)(c) and 9.7.1.1.(1)(a) of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by George Christodoulou for the resolution of a dispute with Stephen Watson, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposal not to provide a guard in front of window screen openings located in the new addition to the existing single-family dwelling, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.8.8.1., Sentence 9.8.8.1.(5), and Clauses 9.8.8.1.(6)(c) and 9.7.1.1.(1)(a) of Division B of the Building Code, at 1050 Wonderview Trail, Township of Lake of Bays, Ontario.
APPLICANT George Christodoulou
Owner
Huntsville, Ontario
RESPONDENT Stephen Watson
Chief Building Official
Township of Lake of Bays, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair
Alexandra Chow
Michael Gooch
PLACE via Teams Video Conference
DATE OF HEARING November 1, 2022
DATE OF RULING November 1, 2022
APPEARANCES George Christodoulou
Owner
Huntsville, Ontario
The Applicant
Duncan Ross
Architect
Huntsville, Ontario
The Agent of the Applicant
Stephen Watson
Chief Building Official
Township of Lake of Bays, Ontario
The Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to construct an addition to an existing single-family dwelling at 1050 Wonderview Trail, Township of Lake of Bays, Ontario.
The subject building is a 1-storey existing dwelling, comprised of combustible construction. The new addition includes a room that has screen openings with vertically sliding windows glazed with clear vinyl (“Weatherwall” system). The bottom of the window opening is approximately 690 mm above the floor of the room. The floor of the room is located up to 2.7 meters above the exterior grade, as the grade around the addition varies greatly.
The dispute between the parties centres on whether the proposal to not provide a guard in front of the window screen openings located in the new addition of the existing single-family dwelling, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.8.8.1., Sentence 9.8.8.1.(5) and Clauses 9.8.8.1.(6)(c) and 9.7.1.1.(1)(a) of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
9.7.1.1. Application
(1) This Section applies to,
(a) windows, doors and skylights separating conditioned space from unconditioned space or the exterior, and
9.8.8.1. Required Guards (See Appendix A.)
(1) Except as provided in Sentence (2), every surface to which access is provided, including but not limited to flights, ramps, exterior landings, porches, balconies, mezzanines, galleries and raised walkways, shall be protected by a guard on each side that is not protected by a wall for the length, where,
(a) there is a difference in elevation of more than 600 mm between the walking surface and the adjacent surface, or
(b) the adjacent surface within 1.2 m from the walking surface has a slope of more than 1 in 2.
(2) Guards are not required,
(a) at loading docks,
(b) at floor pits in repair garages, or
(c) where access is provided for maintenance purposes only.
(3) Reserved
(4) Doors in buildings of residential occupancy, where the finished floor on one side of the door is more than 600 mm above the floor or other surface or ground level on the other side of the door, shall be protected by,
(a) a guard in accordance with this Subsection, or
(b) a mechanism capable of controlling the free swinging or sliding of the door so as to limit any clear unobstructed opening to not more than 100 mm.
(5) Except as provided in Sentence (6), openable windows in buildings of residential occupancy shall be protected by,
(a) a guard in accordance with this Subsection, or
(b) a mechanism capable of controlling the free swinging or sliding of the openable part of the window so as to limit any clear unobstructed opening to a size that will prevent the passage of a sphere having a diameter more than 100 mm. (See Appendix A.)
(6) Windows need not be protected in accordance with Sentence (5), where,
(a) the window serves a dwelling unit that is not located above another suite,
(b) the only opening having greater dimensions than those allowed by Clause (5)(b) is a horizontal opening at the top of the window,
(c) the top surface of the window sill is located more than 480 mm above the finished floor on one side of the window, or
(d) the window is located in a room or space with the finished floor described in Clause (c) located less than 1 800 mm above the floor or ground on the other side of the window.
(7) Except as provided in Sentence (8), glazing installed over stairs, ramps and landings that extends to less than 1 070 mm above the surface of the treads, ramp or landing shall be,
(a) protected by guards in accordance with this Subsection, or
(b) non-openable and designed to withstand the specified lateral loads for guards as provided in Article 4.1.5.14.
(8) In dwelling units, glazing installed over stairs, ramps and landings that extends to less than 900 mm above the surface of the treads, ramp or landing shall be,
(a) protected by guards in accordance with this Subsection, or
(b) non-openable and designed to withstand the specified lateral loads for guards as provided in Article 4.1.5.14.
(9) Glazing installed in public areas that extends to less than 1 000 mm from the floor and is located above the second storey in buildings of residential occupancy shall be,
(a) protected by guards in accordance with this Subsection, or
(b) non-openable and designed to withstand the specified lateral loads for guards as provided in Article 4.1.5.14.
Appendix Note A-9.8.8.1. Required Guards.
The requirements relating to guards stated in Part 9 are based on the premise that, wherever there is a difference in elevation of 600 mm or more between two floors, or between a floor or other surface to which access is provided for other than maintenance purposes and the next lower surface, the risk of injury in a fall from the higher surface is sufficient to warrant the installation of some kind of barrier to reduce the chances of such a fall. A wall along the edge of the higher surface will obviously prevent such a fall, provided the wall is sufficiently strong that a person cannot fall through it. Where there is no wall, a guard must be installed. Because guards clearly provide less protection than walls, additional requirements apply to guards to ensure that a minimum level of protection is provided. These relate to the characteristics described in Appendix Notes A-9.8.8.3., A-9.8.8.5.(1) and (2), A-9.8.8.5.(3) and A-9.8.8.6.(1).
Examples of such surfaces where the difference in elevation could exceed 600 mm and consequently where guards would be required include, but are not limited to, landings, porches, balconies, mezzanines, galleries, and raised walkways. Especially in exterior settings, surfaces adjacent to walking surfaces, stairs or ramps often are not parallel to the walking surface or the surface of the treads or ramps. Consequently, the walking surface, stair or ramp may need protection in some locations but not in others. (See Figure A 9.8.8.1.) In some instances, grades are artificially raised close to walking surfaces, stairs or ramps to avoid installing guards. This provides little or no protection for the users. That is why the requirements specify differences in elevation not only immediately adjacent to the construction but also for a distance of 1 200 mm from it by requiring that the slope of the ground be within certain limits. (See Figure A-9.8.8.1.)
Appendix Note A-9.8.8.1.(5) Height of Window Sills Above Floors or Ground.
The primary intent of the requirement is to minimize the likelihood of small children falling significant heights from open windows. Reflecting reported cases, the requirement applies only to dwelling units and generally those located on the second floor or higher of residential or mixed use buildings where the windows are essentially free-swinging or free-sliding.
Free-swinging or free-sliding means that a window that has been cracked open can be opened further by simply pushing on the openable part of the window. Care must be taken in selecting windows, as some with special operating hardware can still be opened further by simply pushing on the window.
Casement windows with crank operators could, in some cases, be considered to conform to Clause (5)(b). To provide additional safety, where slightly older children are involved, occupants can easily remove the crank handles from these windows. Awning windows with scissor hardware, however, may not keep the window from swinging open once it is unlatched. Hopper windows would be affected only if an opening is created at the bottom as well as at the top of the window. The requirement will impact primarily on the use of sliding windows which do not incorporate devices in their construction that can be used to limit the openable area of the window.
The 100 mm opening limit is consistent with widths of openings that small children cannot fall through. Again, care must be taken in selecting a window. At some position, scissor hardware on an awning window may break up the open area such that there is no unobstructed opening with dimensions greater than 100 mm. At another position, however, though the window is not open much more, the hardware may not adequately break up the opening. The 480 mm height off the floor recognizes that furniture is often placed under windows and small children are often good climbers.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Agent for the Applicant (the “Agent”) submitted that the Respondent is requiring a guard to be placed in front of the window screen openings in the upper floor of the addition. The Agent explained that the windows in question are located where the floor of the addition is higher than the surrounding grade by more than 600 mm. The sill of the windows is lower than 1070 mm above the finished floor.
The Agent explained that this is a 2 level building, with the basement level partially buried below the surrounding grade which varies. One corner of the basement is completely covered, and the opposite corner is fully exposed, resulting in the top surface of the window sills of the addition being located from a couple of inches above grade to a full storey above grade.
The Agent submitted that Clause 9.8.8.1.(6)(c) provides an exception to Sentence 9.8.8.1.(5) and therefore, guards for these window screen openings are not required. However, the Agent indicated that the Respondent’s position is that the window must meet the requirements of Section 9.7. “Windows, Doors and Skylights” of Division B of the Building Code first, in order for Clause 9.8.8.1.(6)(c) to be used as an exception.
The Agent explained that Clause, 9.7.1.1.(1)(a) states that Section 9.7. only applies to windows that separate unconditioned space from conditioned space and submitted that the floor area containing the windows in question is not a conditioned space. The Agent further submitted that “conditioned space” is a defined term in the Building Code which “means space within a building in which the temperature is controlled to limit variation in response to the exterior ambient temperature or interior differential temperatures by the provision, either directly or indirectly, of heating or cooling over substantial portions of the year.” The Agent indicated that this can be seen on the building permit drawings and was pointed out to the Respondent. Therefore, the Agent contended that Section 9.7. cannot be used as a reason to disallow the use of the exception provided in Clause 9.8.8.1.(6)(c).
The Agent submitted that the Respondent’s position on the matter is that as per Section 9.7., windows must conform to a standard. As the “Weatherwall” windows do not meet a standard under Section 9.7., the window screen openings of the addition must be protected with guards in compliance with the requirements of Article 9.8.8.1.
The Agent further submitted that the Respondent took the position that all windows must meet Section 9.7., even though Clause 9.7.1.1.(1)(a) states that Section 9.7. is only applicable to windows separating “conditioned space” from unconditioned space or the exterior, and that he disagreed.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent indicated that the screen openings must be protected by a guard as per Article 9.8.8.1., as the distance between the grade and floor exceeds 600 mm.
The Respondent submitted that Clause 9.8.8.1.(6)(c) provides an exemption if the opening is a window that serves a dwelling unit. However, based on a review of the documents submitted by the Applicant, the Respondent determined that the “Weatherwall” system cannot be considered as windows as referenced in Section 9.7. The Respondent contended that if the window screen openings of the addition are not considered as windows per Section 9.7., the exception provided to windows in Clause 9.8.8.1.(6)(c) would not be applicable. Thus, the requirement for a guard as per Article 9.8.8.1. would still apply.
The Respondent further stated that all glass under Section 9.6. “Glass” of Division B of the Building Code must conform to a standard per Article 9.6.1.2. “Material Standards for Glass” and that Article 9.6.1.3. “Structural Sufficiency of Glass” requires glass to conform to Article 4.3.6.1. “Design Basis for Glass” or conform to the tables listed in Tables 9.6.1.3.A. to F of Division B of the Building Code. The Respondent maintained that he had not received any documents supporting that “Weatherwall” conforms to Section 9.6.
The Respondent submitted that the “Weatherwall” system cannot be considered the same as a glass window because a 3 mm sheet of plastic/vinyl fastened to an opening is not acceptable as equivalent to glass in a window since window glass has to meet minimum Building Code structural requirements for safety.
The Respondent indicated that the Applicant did not present any documentation to support the use of the “Weatherwall” system other than revised plans showing the use of “Weatherwall”. The Respondent maintained that in the absence of a glass window or guard system, the subject screen openings would remain unprotected and would not conform to Article 9.8.8.1. resulting in an unsafe condition for occupants, and therefore a guard must be provided.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal not to provide a guard in front of window screen openings located in the new addition to the existing single-family dwelling, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.8.8.1., Sentence 9.8.8.1.(5) and Clauses 9.8.8.1.(6)(c) and 9.7.1.1.(1)(a) of Division B of the Building Code, at 1050 Wonderview Trail, Township of Lake of Bays, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) The Commission heard evidence that the “Weatherwall” system operates and functions like a window in the new addition. It is the opinion of the Commission that the “Weatherwall” system is required to meet the requirements of Section 9.7. for windows per Clause 9.7.1.1.(1)(a).
ii) The Commission heard testimony that the plastic/vinyl used as screen material for the openings in the “Weatherall” system does not meet the requirements of Article 9.6.1.3. “Structural Sufficiency of Glass”. No documentation was submitted to demonstrate that the “Weatherwall” system meets the requirements of Sections 9.6. and 9.7. of Division B of the Building Code. Therefore, it is the Commission’s opinion that a guard in compliance with Sentence 9.8.8.1.(5) is required in front of the screen openings in areas where the distance between grade and floor surface is greater than 600 mm.
iii) Clause 9.8.8.1.(6)(c) provides an exception to the requirement for a guard in compliance with Sentence 9.8.8.1.(5) where “the top surface of the window sill is located more than 480 mm above the finished floor on one side of the window”. Since the “Weatherall” system does not meet the requirements of Section 9.6. for glass and Section 9.7. for window, it is the Commission’s opinion that this exception does not apply.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 9th day in the month of August in the year 2022 for application number B-2022-03.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Alexandra Chow
Michael Gooch