OBCC 2023

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's refusal to issue a building permit for a new Class 4 sewage system to replace an existing holding tank.

The refusal was based on the inability to meet the minimum clearance distances to two nearby shallow wells.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed advanced treatment system must meet the 30-metre clearance requirement for distribution piping to a shallow well.

The Commission also held that compliance alternatives under Part 11 did not apply because the replacement system was of a different class than the existing system.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a deficiency notice for a custom-built interior staircase in a new residential dwelling.

The Building Code Commission found that the as-built staircase, which consisted of curved steps with varying angles and varied run dimensions, did not meet the Building Code requirements for straight or curved flights, nor did it qualify as having tapered treads.

Furthermore, the nosing exceeded the maximum permitted horizontal distance.

The Commission ruled that the staircase did not comply with the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the design of a new gender-neutral washroom at a high school.

The proposed design featured fully enclosed water closets but maintained open sightlines from the corridor to the common lavatory area.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the design provides sufficiency of compliance with the privacy requirements of the Building Code, on the condition that a partial height wall is constructed to conceal the gang lavatory from the corridor and that mirror placement does not create additional sightlines.

The applicant applied to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the jurisdiction over a proposed sewage system for a property with multiple buildings.

The applicant argued that by using balancing tanks, the daily design flow would be reduced below 10,000 L/day, bringing it under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission ruled it lacked jurisdiction, finding that while balancing tanks can reduce component sizes, they cannot be used to determine design flow under the Building Code, meaning the combined flow exceeded the 10,000 L/day threshold.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the major occupancy classification of a car dealership with a new addition.

The applicant proposed a classification of Group D and Group F, Division 2, while the respondent argued the entire building should be classified as Group E. The Building Code Commission ruled in favour of the applicant, finding that the principal use of the building is Group F, Division 2 for the repair garage and Group D for the showroom, and that sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code was achieved.

The applicants sought to install a composting toilet and a Class 2 sewage system (leaching pit) on a vacant island property to serve a future seasonal dwelling.

The Chief Building Official refused the application because the island lacked sufficient in-situ soil as required by the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that there was no contiguous area of natural in-situ soil on the property and that the proposed design lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance.

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

The applicant sought to revise a building permit to increase the occupancy of a residential bunkhouse for seasonal agricultural workers from 4 to 7.

The Chief Building Official refused, arguing the building constituted a camp for housing of workers and required fire separations between sleeping rooms.

The Building Code Commission found that because each worker had an independent employment contract and there was no single tenancy agreement, the building was not a single dwelling unit or suite.

The Commission ruled that the building did not comply with the fire separation requirements of the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether the proposed standpipe system design and water supply for a six-storey residential building complied with the Building Code.

The applicant argued that the system could meet requirements with the support of a fire department pump, though they had not confirmed availability with the local fire department.

The respondent provided evidence that the fire department could not provide the necessary equipment and that field tests failed to meet the required flow rates.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed design did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought to legalize an as-built rooftop deck accessed through an openable skylight at the top of a stairway.

The City of Toronto had issued an Order to Comply, arguing the construction did not meet Building Code requirements for means of egress, headroom clearance, and door opening mechanisms.

The Building Code Commission found that the openable skylight did not provide the same clear opening as a swinging door, lacked sufficient headroom clearance when partially open or closed, and did not comply with emergency opening mechanism requirements.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a ruling from the Building Code Commission on whether a proposal to construct one universal washroom and one unisex washroom for a new ground floor office complied with the Building Code.

The applicant argued that the occupant load should be calculated using a design method based on the expected number of staff.

The respondent Chief Building Official maintained that the Code explicitly requires Group D occupancies to calculate occupant load based on 14 square metres per person for plumbing fixture purposes.

The Commission agreed with the respondent, finding that the Code clearly defines the method for determining occupant load for Group D occupancies, and ruled that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance.

The applicant applied for a building permit to renovate a single-family dwelling.

The Chief Building Official failed to issue the permit, refuse it with reasons, or notify the applicant that the application was incomplete within the prescribed 10-day statutory time period.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the Chief Building Official did not comply with the timelines set out in the Building Code Act and the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether condo pack units on the north exterior wall of a new residential building could be considered protected openings without installing fire shutters.

The Building Code Commission found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the condo pack units achieved the required 1-hour fire-resistance rating or that the surrounding combustible enclosures complied with the Building Code.

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

The applicant sought a building permit for a 6-storey residential building containing dwelling units with dens, some of which had built-in closets but no windows.

The Chief Building Official argued that dens are principal rooms requiring minimum window areas under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that dens, with or without closets, are not principal rooms used for primary living purposes and therefore do not require windows.

The Commission ruled that the proposed design provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

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.