Ruling No.: 24-11-1645
Application No.: B-2024-05
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 3.7.4.1. of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Robert Martel, for the resolution of a dispute with Jeff Lapierre, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposal to use privies and hand sanitizing stations with a potable water supply provided by means of dispensing units to serve a proposed new one storey building under preliminary design, which will be used as a place of worship, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.7.4.1. of Division B of the Building Code, at 280 Lee Valley Road, Massey, Ontario.
APPLICANT Erwin Martin Cornerstone Mennonite Church Massey, Ontario
RESPONDENT Jeff Lapierre Chief Building Official Township Sables-Spanish Rivers Massey, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair Elektra Vrachas Mike Gooch
PLACE City of Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING July 16, 2024
DATE OF RULING July 16, 2024
APPEARANCES Robert Martel Robert Martel Interior Design Inc. Massey, Ontario Agent for the Applicant
Roch Belair Roch C. Belair Architect Sudbury, Ontario
Jeff Lapierre Chief Building Official Township Sables-Spanish Rivers Massey, Ontario Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Agent for the Applicant has submitted a building permit application on behalf of the Applicant for a preliminary design review of a proposed building at 280 Lee Valley Road, Massey, Ontario.
The subject proposed building is a new, one-storey, Place of Worship (Group A, Division 2, Assembly Occupancy) that has a building area of approximately 250 m2 and is of combustible construction. The proposed building is intended to be used every two weeks and for the occasional funerals and weddings, with no food preparation or serving facilities. A potable water supply is proposed to be provided by means of dispensing units and sanitary privies for the disposal of human waste.
The dispute involves whether the proposal to use privies and hand sanitizing stations with a potable water supply provided by means of dispensing units to serve a proposed new one storey building under preliminary design, which will be used as a place of worship, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.7.4.1. of Division B of the Building Code.
At the outset of the hearing the Commission addressed the matter of jurisdiction allowing the parties to make submissions on why they believed the Commission could hear the matter. After questions were asked by the panel, the Commission proceeded to adjourn the hearing to deliberate and obtain legal advice, which was later disclosed to the parties along with its decision.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
3.7.4.1. Plumbing and Drainage Systems
(1) Except as permitted in Sentence (3), each building situated on property that abuts on a street in which a public or municipal water main is located shall be provided with or have accessible to its occupants a plumbing system including a potable water supply, a sanitary drainage system and plumbing fixtures.
(2) When the installation of a sanitary drainage system is not possible because of the absence of a water supply, sanitary privies, chemical closets or other means for the disposal of human waste shall be provided.
(3) Plumbing fixtures need not be provided in a building that is not normally occupied by persons where such installations are impractical and other fixtures are available in nearby buildings when the subject building is in use.
3. Applicant’s Position
In response to questions, the Agent for the Applicant (“the Agent”) submitted that the purpose of the building permit application was for a preliminary design review to obtain advice for two specific building code requirements, regarding the use of privies and hand sanitizing stations with a potable water supply provided by means of dispensable units. The Agent also acknowledged that the building permit application was incomplete and that the preliminary design drawings were not intended to be used for construction.
In response to questions, the Architect for the Applicant submitted that the proposed drawings forming part of the building permit application are not construction documents, and were provided only as information in support of the Ontario Building Code Matrix.
The Agent clarified that the Applicant made an application to the Building Code Commission for the sole purpose of obtaining an interpretation on the technical requirements of the building code that are in dispute before investing the time and money to produce the full permit drawings for the proposed building. The Agent explained that a decision of the Commission would be required for the Applicant to determine whether or not they would proceed with the project.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent submitted that he conducted a review of the preliminary design drawings and informed the applicant (via email correspondence) that it was not in compliance with the Building Code.
In response to questions, The Respondent also submitted that the building permit application was deemed incomplete, i.e., lacking sufficient information to be able to perform a review for determining if a permit could be issued.
Further, the Respondent advised that it was his position that when there is a dispute between an Applicant of a building permit and a Chief Building Official, the matter should be taken to the Building Code Commission for resolution.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that, under clause 24(1)(a) of the Building Code Act, 1992, the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to make a determination on the issues raised in relation to the matter at 280 Lee Valley Road, Massey, Ontario.
6. Reasons
(i) Subsection 24(1) Dispute Resolution of the Building Code Act, 1992, states:
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;
The Commission received evidence that the building permit application was for a preliminary design review and not for a permit to construct or demolish a building. Further, the building permit application was intended for obtaining advice on two technical matters related to the Building Code, before submitting a complete building permit application. The Commission heard that the parties agreed that the building permit application in question was not deemed complete, as per s 8(2)(e) of the Building Code Act.
Based on the legal advice received and the submissions made by both parties, the Commission is of the opinion that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter, as per s 24.(1) of the Building Code Act because the application made to the Building Code Commission was not made by an applicant for a permit. Furthermore, it is not the Commission’s mandate to provide advice or technical interpretations of the Building Code for preliminary designs.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 16th day in the month of July in the year 2024 for application number B-2024-05.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Elektra Vrachas
Michael Gooch