OBCC 2024

The applicant sought to reconstruct a fire-damaged rear extension of a mixed-use building without incorporating barrier-free design elements, arguing it was not an addition and compliance would require prohibitive modifications to the existing structure.

The Chief Building Official maintained that the extension must comply with all other parts of the Building Code, including barrier-free requirements.

The Building Code Commission determined that the proposed construction constituted an extensive renovation, not a basic renovation, and therefore the extension must comply with Section 3.8 of the Building Code.

The Commission found the proposal did not offer sufficient compliance.

The applicants applied for a building permit for a Class 4 sewage system, which was refused by the Chief Building Official.

They applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve the dispute.

However, a subsequent permit for a different design had already been approved and constructed on the property.

The Commission ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute because there was no longer an outstanding technical dispute under subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992.

The applicant sought to reconstruct a rear extension of a mixed-use building destroyed by fire without complying with the barrier-free design requirements of Section 3.8 of the Building Code.

The applicant argued the repair was not a new addition and compliance would require prohibitive modifications to the existing building.

The Building Code Commission found the proposed construction constituted an 'extensive renovation' and an extension of an existing building system, thereby requiring compliance with all other Parts of the Building Code, including Section 3.8.

The Commission ruled the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance.

The applicant homeowner applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an as-constructed secondary stair in a residential dwelling.

The stair featured winders that turned 180 degrees without separation, contrary to the prescriptive requirements limiting winders to 90 degrees and requiring a 1.2 m separation between sets.

The Commission ruled that the stair did not provide sufficiency of compliance, finding that it far exceeded the prescriptive requirements and created a hazardous condition.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether a proposed shared egress for a new two-storey residential addition complied with the Building Code.

The municipality argued the egress was an exit stairway requiring a second means of egress, while the applicant argued it was an exterior passageway under 1.5 metres above ground level.

The Building Code Commission ruled in favour of the applicant, finding the shared egress constituted an exterior passageway under Clause 9.9.9.3.(1)(c), meaning a second and separate means of egress was not required.

The applicants sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an Order to Comply for an as-constructed handrail in a new two-storey home.

The applicants argued the handrail, which included a vertical section near the apex of winders, was common practice and compliant.

The respondent maintained the handrail height exceeded the allowable range and was not continually graspable when descending, posing a safety risk.

The Building Code Commission found the handrail height of 1,473 mm exceeded the allowable range and its design made it difficult to maintain a grasp while descending.

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

The applicant homeowner applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether the as-constructed foundation of a new residential dwelling complied with the Building Code.

The dispute centered on whether the exterior foundation walls met the minimum 150 mm height requirement above finished ground level and whether structural wood elements were adequately protected from decay.

The Commission found that the installation of hardscape surfaces raised the finished ground level such that the foundation walls did not extend the required 150 mm above ground.

The Commission ruled that the construction did not comply with Sentences 9.3.2.9.(3) and 9.15.4.6.(1) of the Building Code.

The applicant sought a ruling from the Building Code Commission on whether egress doors from rental spaces in a self-storage building could swing against the direction of exit travel.

The applicant argued that the Building Code provisions allowed doors serving 60 or fewer persons to swing in either direction.

The respondent maintained that the specific provisions for self-storage buildings required doors serving rooms greater than 50 square metres or with a travel distance over 10 metres to swing in the direction of exit travel.

The Commission ruled that the applicant's proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance, finding insufficient evidence to waive the specific conditional limitations in the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute regarding an Order to Comply issued by the Chief Building Official, which required a change of use permit for four suites operated as a care facility.

The applicant argued no change of use had occurred.

The Building Code Commission ruled it lacked jurisdiction under subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, as the dispute concerned administrative requirements and provisions of the Act rather than the sufficiency of compliance with technical requirements of the Building Code.

The applicant applied for a building permit to construct a new semi-detached house using a Polycore Foundation system.

A dispute arose with the Chief Building Official regarding the system's compliance with the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter under subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, because the applicant had not submitted all required technical information and calculations to the Chief Building Official, rendering the permit application review incomplete.

The applicants sought to install a Class 4 sewage system on an island property with limited in-situ soil.

The Chief Building Official refused the permit, arguing the proposed use of leaching bed fill over blasted rock did not meet Building Code requirements for soil cover and clearances.

The Building Code Commission found that the Code's definition of soil does not mandate a minimum areal extent and that the proposed methodology of blasting rock to lower the grade to achieve required setbacks is not prohibited by the Code.

The Commission ruled that the proposed system provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought a resolution from the Building Code Commission regarding the sufficiency of compliance for a proposed place of worship using privies and hand sanitizing stations instead of standard plumbing.

The application was based on a preliminary design review rather than a complete building permit application.

The Commission determined that under section 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter because the application was not made by an applicant for a permit, and it is not the Commission's mandate to provide advice or technical interpretations for preliminary designs.

The applicants sought resolution of a dispute regarding an Order to Comply issued by the Chief Building Official, which required the replacement of an existing on-site sewage system at their cottage property.

The applicants argued the pre-1975 metal septic tank was functioning adequately despite never having been pumped or inspected.

The Building Code Commission found insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the system components were functioning in their intended manner, as the tank had not been uncovered or tested.

The Commission ruled that the existing sewage system did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought a building permit to upgrade an existing deck, which was refused because the deck was partially built over an existing septic tank, violating the clearance distances in the Building Code.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve the dispute.

The Commission ruled that the as-constructed deck provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, subject to conditions requiring an access hatch, maintained airflow, and a minimum soil cover over the tank.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the proposed sanitary and storm services for a new 12-storey residential building.

The proposed design connected the building's services to municipal mains through existing private sewers located on separate properties.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposed design does not comply with Article 7.1.5.4. of the Building Code, which requires piping in any building to be connected to public services separately from piping of any other building, as the exceptions for buildings on the same property did not apply.

The applicant sought to legalize an existing secondary dwelling unit and disputed the Chief Building Official's requirement that smoke alarms be interconnected and located in the bedrooms of both units.

The Building Code Commission found that the applicant's proposal to provide an interconnected smoke alarm in each dwelling unit, but not within each bedroom, did not comply with the Building Code's compliance alternatives for a 15-minute fire separation.

The Commission ruled that sufficiency of compliance had not been achieved.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the refusal of a building permit for an aerial high ropes course on the rooftop of a restaurant.

The dispute centered on whether barrier-free access was required to the rooftop under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposal not to provide barrier-free access provided sufficiency of compliance, as the high ropes course is considered a hazardous location for those with mobility impairments and access is limited, supervised, and controlled.

The applicant homeowner applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a requirement to provide 6 mm of mortar parging on a new below-grade unit masonry foundation wall.

The applicant had applied a self-adhering waterproofing membrane directly to the block wall without parging, relying on manufacturer instructions.

The Commission found that the installation did not comply with the Building Code, as the product's CCMC evaluation report explicitly required surface preparation in accordance with the Code, which mandates parging for unit masonry walls.

The applicant school board sought a ruling from the Building Code Commission on whether its as-constructed gender-neutral washrooms and kindergarten washrooms complied with the privacy requirements of Sentence 3.7.4.16.(2) of the Building Code.

The secondary school washrooms featured lavatories behind a partial height wall visible from the corridor, and the kindergarten washrooms featured lavatories visible from the classroom entrance.

The Commission ruled that the configurations did not provide the required level of privacy and therefore did not comply with the Building Code.

The applicant sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an Order to Comply that required a change of use permit for eight barrier-free suites.

The respondent challenged the Building Code Commission's jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The Commission ruled that it lacked jurisdiction under section 24(1) of the Building Code Act, as the dispute concerned a change of use permit under section 10(1) and Fire Code assessments, rather than the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code.