Citation: Grenier v. Revell 2024 ONBCC 18
Ruling No.: 24-16-18-1652
Application No.: B-2024-11
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 Clause 9.9.9.3.(1)(a) and (c) of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Daniel Grenier, for the resolution of a dispute with John Revell, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the shared egress serving two units in a four-unit, 2 storey residential building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clause 9.9.9.3.(1)(a) or (c) of Division B of the Building Code at 926-928 Giles Blvd. E., Windsor, Ontario.
APPLICANT Daniel Grenier
Hausology Inc.
Tecumseh, Ontario
RESPONDENT John Revell
Chief Building Official
City of Windsor
Windsor, Ontario
PANEL Matthew Graham, Chair Designate
Michael Gooch
Elektra Vrachas
PLACE via video conference
DATE OF HEARING September 24, 2024
DATE OF RULING September 24, 2024
APPEARANCES Daniel Grenier
Hausology Inc.
Tecumseh, Ontario
Applicant
Sarah Anderson, ADA Architects
Denis Buj, ADA Architects
Agent for the Applicant
Rob Vani, Acting Chief Building Official City of Windsor Building Department Windsor, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
Brandon Calleja, Acting Deputy Chief Building Official
City of Windsor Building Department
Windsor, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
Mirella Alison, Engineer-Plans Examiner
City of Windsor Building Department
Windsor, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
Laura Duncan, Engineer-Plans Examiner
City of Windsor Building Department
Windsor, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
David L. Dean, Senior Engineer-Plans Examiner
City of Windsor Building Department
Windsor, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
Marwan Al-Ezzi, Engineer-Plans Examiner
City of Windsor Building Department
Windsor, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has applied for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a 2-storey residential addition at the rear of the existing multi-unit residential building at 926-928 Giles Blvd. E., Windsor, Ontario.
The subject building is an existing 2-storey duplex building (Group C, Residential Occupancy), with basement, that has a building area of 99 m2 and is of combustible construction. The existing duplex contains a single dwelling unit on the main floor (Unit #1) and another on the second floor (Unit #2). The existing basement is unfinished and is currently used as storage space for the dwelling units above. The proposed addition is a 2-storey, duplex (Group C, Residential Occupancy) with an unfinished basement. The new addition has a building area of 81 m2 and is of combustible construction. A single dwelling unit is proposed on the main floor (Unit #3) and another on the second floor (Unit #4) of the new addition.
The construction in dispute involves the shared egress serving the new units of the proposed duplex addition. The dispute for the Commission to determine is whether the shared egress provides sufficiency of compliance with Clause 9.9.9.3.(1)(a) or (c) of Division B of the Building Code at 926-928 Giles Blvd. E., Windsor, Ontario.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
9.9.9.3. Shared Egress Facilities
(1) A dwelling unit shall be provided with a second and separate means of egress where an egress door from the dwelling unit opens onto,
(a) an exit stairway serving more than one suite,
(c) an exterior passageway,
(i) serving more than one suite,
(ii) served by a single exit stairway or ramp, and
(iii) more than 1.5 m above adjacent ground level
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant submitted that the construction in dispute is the new exterior stair and covered porch located at the rear of the building that will provide egress access from the two new units Unit #3 on the main floor, Unit #4 located on the second floor of the new rear addition. Also in dispute, is the height of the landing of the new exterior stair located approximately .90 m (3 feet) above finished grade. The Applicant advised that the design of the egress facility was specifically based on Clause 9.9.9.3.(1)(c) where the height of the landing of the new covered porch would be less than 1.5 m above finished ground.
The Applicant stated that the new exterior stair does not qualify as an exit stairway per Clause 9.9.9.3.(1)(a). The Applicant acknowledged that the word porch is not a defined term in the Building Code. The Applicant submitted that the porch is likened to a passageway, which serves more than one unit and is not more than 1.5 m above ground level. The Applicant maintained that the proposed exterior stair and covered porch meets the requirements of Clause 9.9.9.3.(1)(c) and therefore, a second and separate means of egress is not required for the new addition.
In response to the Respondent’s question, the Applicant advised that they did not submit an alternative solution based on the feedback provided by the plan examination staff. The Applicant explained that they reviewed a couple of design options and concluded that a substantial redesign would be required. The Applicant also noted that due to the project timelines and the drawn-out building permit review process, they did not want to incur further delays by redesigning and resubmitting a revised permit to the City.
In response to questions, the Applicant submitted that both Unit 3 and Unit 4 are designed as fire compartments and that the exit doors serving these units are not proposed as fire-protected doors. The Applicant stated that the door schedule will be revised to ensure the subject doors are labelled with a fire rating. The Applicant also confirmed that the floor assembly of Unit 4 and the exterior poured concrete stair have the same fire-resistance rating.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent described the building as an existing 2-storey duplex and the proposed construction is for a new 2-storey addition. The existing duplex contains 2 stacked units in the front and the proposal is for 2 new stacked units at the rear with an unfinished basement in the new addition.
The Respondent confirmed that the exit doors serving Unit 3 and Unit 4 are not fire-rated doors. The Respondent referenced architectural drawing A1.1 to point out that the configuration of the doors (#3 and #2) of Unit 3 and Unit 4 are in dispute. The Respondent noted that door #3 of Unit #3 provides access from the main floor to the covered porch and exterior stair and that door #2 serving the Unit #4 also accesses the same egress facility as Unit #3. The Respondent submitted that they consider the shared egress facility as an exterior stairway.
The Respondent explained that the interior stairs of Unit 4, which is the only means of egress to the only exit (serving this suite), would be used to evacuate the suite if a fire were to occur on the main floor of Unit 3. Furthermore, given the exit doors serving both units are not fire-protected, the fire would breach the doors making it unsafe for the occupants to evacuate through the covered porch and exit stairway.
The Respondent noted that if the covered porch and exterior stair were considered an exterior passageway, as regulated by Article 9.9.9.2. which is not in dispute, one would need to travel in opposite directions to two separate exits. The Respondent further explained that if a person were exiting out of door #2 and entering the exterior passageway, they would have to travel in two different directions to get to two separate exits. In this instance, the only other direction available would be to go back into the unit which is not a safe option.
The Respondent advised that only Clause 9.9.9.3.(1)(a) is applicable, designating this space as an exterior stairway serving more than one suite, and is the relevant Code provision to this proposed design. The Respondent stated they disagree that the proposed shared egress facility could qualify either with (b), (c) and (d) as a corridor, exterior passageway or balcony.
The Respondent explained that if it’s classified as an exit stairway, it must include a landing as there are no exemptions under 9.8.6.2. Furthermore, according to Article 9.8.6.3., the minimum required landing size is 1.5 m x 1.1 m. The Respondent submitted that the permit drawing shows the measurements of the covered porch area as 1.5 m x 2.3 m. The Respondent noted that since both exit doors open onto this area which forms part of the required landing, it must be considered an exit stairway, as a required landing is integral to the stairway.
The Respondent referenced Objective Statement OS 3.7 and Functional Statement F10 in support of their argument. The Respondent submitted that they believe if one of the units catch on fire and there’s no second and separate means of egress, the occupants will not be able to leave the unit through the exit door because the covered porch will be engulfed in fire. The Respondent referred to the covered porch and exterior stair as a shared exit stairway, which as proposed, does not meet the objective statement or the functional statement for facilitating the timely movement of persons to a safe place during an emergency.
The Respondent summarized their position by stating that in the event of an emergency such as a fire, individuals in the building will face an unacceptable risk of injury due to hazards caused by delays or impediments in reaching a safe location. Further, risks arise from the lack of a separate and second means of egress in Units #3 and #4. The Respondent also advised that there were no alternative solutions proposed to the City of Windsor to achieve the objectives and functional statements.
In response to a question, the Respondent submitted that Clause 9.9.9.3.(1)(a) which refers to an ‘exit stairway’ is not only intended for interior applications but could also apply to an exterior application.
In response to questions, the Respondent submitted that the City would view this area of dispute differently if the subject exit doors were fire-protected. Furthermore, if a separate means of egress for each suite had been provided, the subject exit doors would still be required to be fire-protected because the exterior walls with exit doors are at an external angle of less than 135 degrees.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the shared egress serving two units in a four-unit, 2 storey residential building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Clause 9.9.9.3.(1)(c) of Division B of the Building Code at 926-928 Giles Blvd. E., Windsor, Ontario.
- Reasons
i) During the hearing the parties agreed that Clauses 9.9.9.3.(1) (a) and (c) were the subject of dispute.
The Commission heard evidence that the egress doors of the proposed dwelling units open onto an exterior passageway that serves more than one suite and is not more than 1.5 m above adjacent ground level.
It is the Commission’s opinion that Clause (c) related to an exterior passageway is the applicable Clause in this case and therefore, a second and separate means of egress is not required to be provided.
i) The Commission heard that the Applicant will provide the fire protection measures that are required by other parts of the Building Code to the satisfaction of the Municipality pertaining to fire compartments and exterior walls meeting at an angle, including fire separations and corresponding exterior doors and hardware.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 24th day in the month of September in the year 2024 for application number B-2024-11.
Matthew Graham, Chair Designate
Michael Gooch
Elektra Vrachas