Citation: Hewitt and Graves v. Watson 2024 ONBCC 21
Ruling No.: 24-21-1655
Application No.: S-2024-18
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 8.7.4.2.(2) of Division B of the Building Code.
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Larry Hewitt and Kevin Graves, Hawk River Construction for the resolution of a dispute with Stephen Watson, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposed design for a Class 4 sewage system, which includes bedrock that was blasted, excavated and fractured, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 8.7.4.2.(2) of Division B of the Building Code at Site # 92 (1179) Echo Hills Road, Township of Lake of Bays, Ontario.
APPLICANT Larry Hewitt and Kevin Graves Hawk River Construction Dysart et.al., Ontario
RESPONDENT Stephen Watson Chief Building Official Township of Lake of Bays, Ontario
PANEL Judy Beauchamp, Chair Designate Katherine Rentsch Alexander Campbell
PLACE via video conference
DATE OF HEARING November 14, 2024
DATE OF RULING November 14, 2024
APPEARANCES Larry Hewitt Hawk River Construction Dysart et. al., Ontario Applicant
Kevin Graves Hawk River Construction Dysart et. al., Ontario Agent for the Applicant
Stephen Watson Chief Building Official Township of Lake of Bays, Ontario Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant applied for a building permit to construct a Class 4 on-site sewage system, under the Building Code Act, 1992, at Site #92 (1179) Echo Hills Road, Township of Lake of Bays, Ontario.
The subject building is a detached, 4-bedroom two storey, residential dwelling, having a building area of 370 m2, 36.5 plumbing fixtures, and a private well. The Applicant applied for a building permit to construct a Class 4 sewage system with a septic tank having an 8000 L capacity, and a gravity fed filter bed.
The dispute initially brought before for the Commission concerned whether the original proposed design for the Class 4 sewage system, which included bedrock that was blasted, excavated, and fractured, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 8.7.4.2.(2) of Division B of the Building Code.
However, at the outset of the hearing a matter concerning the status of the building permit for the above-noted design arose. In response to the Commission’s questions, the parties confirmed that a building permit for a subsequent sewage system design had been issued for the subject property, in place of the initial permit application, which had been refused and was the subject of this hearing. The parties also advised the Commission that the approved sewage system had since been constructed.
After hearing submissions from both parties, the Commission called a brief adjournment to seek legal advice regarding its jurisdiction. The Commission resumed the hearing to disclose the nature of the legal advice received and proceeded to advise the parties that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the technical dispute concerning sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 8.7.4.2.(2) of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Division B, Sentence 8.7.4.2.(2) Construction Requirements
If the unsaturated soil or leaching bed fill described in Sentence (1) has a percolation time greater than 15 minutes, any additional leaching bed fill added to it to form the leaching bed shall have a percolation time not less than 75% of the percolation time of the unsaturated soil or leaching bed fill to which it is added.
3. Applicant’s Position
In response to the Commission’s questions, the Applicant advised that a subsequent building permit had been submitted (by another party) to the building department and as a result, a building permit was approved and issued for the subsequent design.
In addition, the Applicant confirmed that the sewage system was constructed in accordance with the approved building permit and that he wished the Commission to make a determination regarding sufficiency of compliance with the initial permit he submitted which was refused by the Chief Building Official.
4. Respondent’s Position
In response to the Commission’s questions, the Respondent confirmed that the original design submitted by the Applicant for a Class 4 sewage system being constructed over blasted bedrock was refused.
In response to questions, the Respondent confirmed a subsequent building permit had been submitted by someone other than the Applicant in this case, which was subsequently approved and constructed.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that it does not have the jurisdiction to determine whether the proposed design for a Class 4 sewage system, which includes bedrock that was blasted, excavated and fractured, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 8.7.4.2.(2) of Division B of the Building Code at Site # 92 (1179) Echo Hills Road, Township of Lake of Bays, Ontario.
6. Reasons
The Building Code Commission is a quasi-judicial tribunal whose mandate is set out in subsection 24.(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, which states:
(1) This section applies if there is a dispute (emphasis added)
(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; (emphasis added).
The Commission heard from both parties that a sewage system permit had been issued for the subject property in place of the permit application which had been refused. The Commission also heard that the approved sewage system had been constructed. Thus, there was no outstanding technical dispute related to the issued permit.
Therefore, based on the evidence and testimony provided, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no outstanding technical dispute to determine in this case.
This ruling is specific to the facts of this dispute and property; thus, it should be noted that this decision of the Commission is not considered to be precedent setting.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 14th day in the month of December in the year 2024 for application number S-2024-18.
Judy Beauchamp, Chair Designate
Alexander Campbell
Katherine Rentsch