Citation: Winters v. Anderson 2024 ONBCC 17
Ruling No.: 24-17-1651
Application No.: B-2024-13
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 Articles 9.8.7.4. and 9.8.7.5. of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Nadia Winters & Maria Bajinauth, for the resolution of a dispute with Debbie Anderson, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the as-constructed railing serving the stairs between the ground floor and upper level of a two-storey residential dwelling, provides sufficiency of compliance with Articles 9.8.7.4. and 9.8.7.5. of Division B of the Building Code, at 3 Mayapple Street, Tottenham, Ontario.
APPLICANT Nadia Winters & Maria Bajinauth
Tribute (Colgan 2) Limited
Pickering, Ontario
RESPONDENT Debbie Anderson
Chief Building Official, Township of Adjala-Tosorontio
Alliston, Ontario
PANEL Matthew Graham, Chair Designate
Michael Egberts
Michael Gooch
PLACE via by video conference
DATE OF HEARING September 19, 2024
DATE OF RULING September 19, 2024
APPEARANCES Nadia Winters & Maria Bajinauth
Tribute (Colgan 2) Limited
Pickering, Ontario
Applicant
Michael Lio, P.Eng
Lio & Associates
Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Arian Krazniqi
Tribute (Colgan 2) Limited
Pickering, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Dhiyandra Faizal
Lio & Associates
Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Michael Romanin
Ideal Railings
Concord, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Angus Hartery
Ideal Railings
Concord, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Ross Savatti
Greater Toronto Railing Association
Concord, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Debbie Anderson
Chief Building Official, Township of Adjala-Tosorontio
Alliston, Ontario
Respondent
Diana Sobaszek
Building Inspector, Township of Adjala-Tosorontio
Alliston, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant received an Order to Comply, under the Building Code Act, 1992, to remedy certain alleged deficiencies during construction of a new two-story home at 3 Mayapple Street in Tottenham, Ontario.
The subject building is group C residential occupancy with a building height of two stories with an area under 600m2.
The construction in dispute involves whether the as-constructed railing serving the stairs between the ground floor and upper level of a two-storey residential dwelling, provides sufficiency of compliance with Articles 9.8.7.4. and 9.8.7.5. of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
9.8.7.4. Height of Handrails (See Appendix A.)
(1) The height of handrails on stairs and ramps shall be measured vertically from the top of the handrail to,
(a) a straight line drawn tangent to the tread nosings of the stair served by the handrail, or
(b) the surface of the ramp, floor or landing served by the handrail.
(2) Except as provided in Sentence (3), Clause 3.8.3.4.(1)(e) and Sentence 9.8.4.5A.(1), handrails shall be 865 mm to 1 070 mm high.
(3) Handrails installed in addition to required handrails need not comply with Sentence (2).
9.8.7.5. Ergonomic Design
(1) The clearance between a handrail and any surface behind it shall be not less than,
(a) 60 mm, if the surface behind the handrail is rough or abrasive, or
(b) 50 mm, in all other cases.
(2) All handrails shall be constructed so as to be continually graspable along their entire length with no obstruction on or above them to break a handhold. (See Appendix A.)
3. Applicant’s Position
The Agent for the Applicant (The Agent) submitted that the as-constructed railing is part of the stair from the ground floor to the upper level terminating with winders near the top. The Agent further submitted that the handrail would require a vertical section near the apex of the winders. The Agent noted that handrail configurations with a vertical section near the apex of winders is common practice for many homes in many municipalities located in Ontario.
The Agent provided photographic evidence illustrating vertical measurements from the tangent of the tread nosing to various locations of the handrail near the winders. The photos included a measuring tape and annotations to show where 914 mm (36”) would be located on the handrail. In response to questions, the Agent confirmed that the vertical distance between the tangent of the tread nosing at the winder apex and the top of the handrail was 1,473 mm (58”).
In response to questions from the Respondent, the Applicant submitted that the intent of the Building Code is not to require a second handrail as proposed by the Respondent.
The Agent submitted that the cross section and configuration allowed for users to continuously grasp the handrail without breaking their handhold for the entire length of the handrail. Further, the Agent provided photographic evidence illustrating that the as-constructed clear space between the handrail and adjacent objects was greater than 50 mm as required by the Code.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent submitted that the handrail is reasonably graspable by a user climbing up the stair, however, had concerns that a user would not be able to maintain continuous grasp of the handrail when descending the stairs. The Designate for the Respondent (the ‘Designate) demonstrated the ergonomic behaviour of how a user would have to articulate their wrist to maintain a handhold while descending the stairs. The Designate further submitted that the articulation of the wrist would encourage the user to move their center of gravity forward which would increase the likelihood of falling down the stairs, especially amongst individuals who have reduced mobility or are of a less than typical size.
The Respondent submitted that they consulted with other Chief Building Officials and Legal Council regarding similar handrail conditions noting that handrails are a significant safety concern. The Respondent further submitted that the height of the as-constructed handrail relative to the nosing was not compliant with the requirements of the Building Code and therefore required a compliant handrail, such as a second handrail placed on the opposite wall, to meet the requirements of the Code.
In response to questions, the Respondent noted that the design of the building had options for alternative stair and handrail configurations which could have been compliant within the requirements of the Code.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-constructed railing serving the stairs between the ground floor and upper level of a two-storey residential dwelling does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Articles 9.8.7.4. and 9.8.7.5. of Division B of the Building Code, at 3 Mayapple Street, Tottenham, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) The Commission heard evidence that the as-constructed vertical section of the handrail is offset from the apex of the of the winder which results in a height measurement vertically of 1,473 mm (58 inches) from the top of the handrail to the tangent of the tread nosing which exceeds the allowable range in the Building Code. It is the opinion of the Commission that the handrail height does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.8.7.4. of Division B of the Building Code.
ii) The intent of Article 9.8.7.5., Ergonomic Design, is to limit the probability that the shape of the handrail will lead to users having difficulty maintaining their grasp. The Commission heard evidence that the cross-section of the handrail allows for a user to grasp the handrail, however, the vertical position relative to the stair exceeds the reachable height. Further, evidence was submitted demonstrating that the grasp of the handrail is difficult to maintain while descending the stair which creates an unacceptable risk of injury due to hazards caused by tripping, slipping, or falling. It is the opinion of the Building Code Commission that the handrail does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.8.7.5. of Division B of the Building Code.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 19th day in the month of September in the year 2024 for application number B-2024-13.
Matthew Graham, Chair Designate
Michael Egberts
Michael Gooch