Citation: Battarai v. Gognal 2024 ONBCC 15
Ruling No.: 24-15-1649
Application No.: B-2024-10
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 Sentence 3.10.2.4.(4) of Division B of the Building Code of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Kishor Bhattarai, Architect, for the resolution of a dispute with Kamal Gogna, Acting Chief Building Official, City of Toronto, to determine whether the proposal to provide an egress door that does not swing in the direction of exit travel from each rental storage space located within a one-storey self-storage building containing 50 storage spaces, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.10.2.4.(4) of Division B of the Building Code, at 724 Caledonia Road, Toronto, Ontario.
APPLICANT Kishor Battarai Principal Architect Kishor Battarai and Associates, Inc. Brampton, Ontario
RESPONDENT Kamal Gognal Acting Chief Building Official and Executive Director Toronto Building Division, Toronto, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong James Eduful Leszek Muniak
PLACE via video conference
DATE OF HEARING September 10, 2024
DATE OF RULING September 18, 2024
APPEARANCES Aleksander Antoniuk Architect CodeNews Consulting Corporation Etobicoke, Ontario Agent for the Applicant
Kevin Petrovic Chief Executive Officer RediSpace Self Storage Agent for the Applicant
Scott Wiseman Building Code Examiner Toronto Building Division Toronto, Ontario Designate for the Respondent
David Johnson Supervisor of Plans Examination Toronto Building Division Toronto, Ontario Designate for the Respondent
Alex Shemilt Plan Review Manager, North Toronto Toronto Building Division Toronto, Ontario Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has applied for a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to make interior alterations to an existing warehouse for the purpose of operating a self-service storage facility at 724 Caledonia Road, Toronto, Ontario.
The subject building is an existing one-storey, Group F, Division 2, medium hazard industrial major occupancy warehouse structure having an approximate building area of 12,490 m2, which will be converted for use as a self-service storage facility. The building is fully sprinkler protected, of noncombustible construction and is provided with a fire alarm system. The building will contain up to 50 self-service storage rental spaces of various sizes, a large percentage of which exceed 50 m2 in area and 10 m travel distance to an egress door.
The construction in dispute centers on whether the egress doors from the rental spaces, located within the self-service storage building should swing in the direction of exit travel.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Article 3.10.2.4. Safety Requirements Within Floor Areas
(1) Except as provided in Sentences (2) to (12), the requirements in Section 3.3. shall apply.
(4) Egress doors from a rental space are not required to swing in the direction of exit travel or swing on a vertical axis provided,
(a) the area of the rental space is not more than 50 m2, and
(b) the distance of travel within the rental space is not more than 10 m.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Agent for the Applicant (the Agent) provided a thorough review of the code development associated with the addition of the self-service storage building requirements into the Ontario Building Code. The Agent explained the “Bottom-Up Analysis of National Codes”, which included the collaboration of Toronto Buildings staff, when the objectives and functional statements were being incorporated into Ontario Building Code. The Agent submitted that Building Code provisions, which do not have objectives associated with them, are considered to be non-requirement type provisions, and contended that Sentence 3.10.2.4.(4) is such a non-requirement type provision.
The Agent noted that the section of the Building Code titled “Self-Service Storage Buildings” was incorporated into the Building Code in 1983 as Section 3.9. The numbering of this Section was changed to Section 3.10. in subsequent editions of the Building Code.
The Agent stated that in the 1983 Building Code, all doors serving as exits were required to swing in the direction of exit travel. Additionally, the original Sentence 3.9.2.5.(3) regarding exit doors in rental spaces reflected the requirement in the 1983 Building Code Sentence 3.4.8.13.(6), which stated that all exit doors must swing in the direction of exit travel, regardless of the number of persons served.
The Agent explained that the current requirement of Sentence 3.10.2.4.(4) was never changed in the Building Code to reflect the allowance to have exit doors serving 60 persons or less, to swing in either direction. The Agent stated that the change to allow the exit doors to swing in either direction, when serving an occupant load of 60 persons or less, was adopted in the 1987 version of the Building Code.
The Agent explained that the intent of the current provision of Sentence 3.10.2.4.(1) is to allow doors which serve an occupant load of 60 persons or less to swing in either direction when the area of the room exceeds 50 m2 by virtue of the general requirement of Article 3.3.1.10., allowing egress doors serving 60 or fewer persons to swing in either direction.
The Agent stated that the requirement of Sentence 3.10.2.4.(1) is an allowance as an exception to a requirement. It is deemed to be a non-requirement and has no objectives and functional statements associated with it. In the absence of objectives and functional statements the designer must turn to the general requirements for door swing found in Article 3.3.1.10.
The Agent stated that the City of Toronto had indicated that it would be open to an alternative solution to resolve this dispute, but the Agent explained that one cannot have an alternative solution to a dispute which stems from an incorrect interpretation of the Building Code.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Designate for the Respondent (the Designate) submitted that Sentence 3.10.2.4.(1) of the Building Code is clear in its intent to have egress doors serving rooms greater than 50 m2 in area or not more than 10 m in travel distance to swing in the direction of exit travel.
The Designate stated that there are other factors which must be considered in applying the direction of door swing, which include protection against blockage of in-swinging doors which would impede first responders and the uncontrolled combustible fuel load which may be present within a rental unit when first responders attend to control a fire.
The Designate indicated that a potential alternative solution may be possible, but no such solution was submitted by the Applicant.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal to provide an egress door that does not swing in the direction of exit travel from each rental storage space located within a one-storey self-storage building containing 50 storage spaces, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.10.2.4.(4) of Division B of the Building Code, at 724 Caledonia Road, Toronto, Ontario.
Reasons
i) The arguments presented by the Agent for the Applicant focused on exit doors rather than egress doors. The doors from the individual rental units are governed by egress door requirements. Sentence 3.9.2.4.(5) of the 1983 Building Code and Sentence 3.10.2.4.(4) of the current Building Code are the same in that both refer to egress doors from spaces in which the limiting conditions for egress doors not required to swing in the direction of exit travel are 50 m2 in area and 10 m in distance of travel to an egress door.
ii) Throughout the hearing, the Agent for the Applicant referred only to the swing of exit doors under the provision of Sentence 3.9.2.5.(3) of the 1983 Building Code. No information was provided by the Agent for the Applicant as to the reason why the 50 m2 in area and 10 m travel distance limiting criteria addressing the direction of swing of egress doors, which was present in the original Sentence 3.9.2.4.(5) of the 1983 Building Code, remains unchanged in Sentence 3.10.2.4.(4) of Division B of the current Building Code. In the absence of information regarding the reasons for retention of the original provisions in Sentence 3.10.2.4.(4), the Commission is of the opinion that the inclusion of the limitations in the current Building Code has been done for a justifiable reason.
iii) Therefore, without such information, the Commission is also of the opinion that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the argument of the Agent that these restrictions should be waived.
iv) No reference was made during the hearing to 1983 Building Code Sentence 3.3.1.7.(1) which, when considered with the provisions of 1983 Building Code Sentence 3.9.2.4.(5), did address the direction of swing of egress doors from suites serving an occupant load of 60 persons or less.
v) No alternative solution was presented to address non-compliance with the conditional limitations of 50 m2 in area and 10 m distance of travel in Sentence 3.10.2.4.(4).
Dated at the City of Toronto this 18th day in the month of September in the year 2024 for application number B-2024-10.
Stephen Wong, Chair
James Eduful
Leszek Muniak