Construction Law - OBCC

The applicant sought to install a new Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) containing combustible components on an existing seven-storey, unsprinklered residential building.

The Chief Building Official refused the permit, arguing the Building Code limits such systems to noncombustible buildings that are sprinklered and do not exceed six storeys.

The Building Code Commission agreed with the Chief Building Official, finding that the proposed EIFS does not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code because the building is unsprinklered and exceeds three storeys in height.

The applicant sought a building permit for a new sewage treatment system to service a proposed automotive development, including a dealership and car wash.

A dispute arose with the Chief Building Official regarding the methodology for calculating the total daily design sanitary sewage flow.

The applicant argued that the proposed occupancies were not listed in the Building Code and relied on metered data from similar establishments.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the applicant's calculation methods did not provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 8.2.1.3 of the Building Code, as calculations could be established using multiple listed occupancies and the provided metered data was insufficient and lacked appropriate peaking factors.

The applicant sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a building permit for a two-storey rear addition to an existing residential building.

The applicant proposed to relocate existing windows to the new extended wall face, arguing this complied with the compliance alternatives in Part 11 of the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission held that while Part 11 permits relocating existing windows on the existing wall, it does not permit relocating them to a new wall that is part of an addition, especially where the limiting distance is less than 1.2 metres.

The proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought to construct a self-service storage facility on the first storey of an existing 31-storey mixed-use building containing residential suites.

The Chief Building Official denied the alternative solution proposal.

The Building Code Commission held that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code's prohibition on occupancy combinations, as the proposed compensating measures were insufficient to offset the fire and life safety risks to the residential occupants.

The applicant homeowner applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a secondary suite.

The issue was whether the existing 1/2 inch unrated gypsum board on the floor and wall assemblies achieved a 15-minute fire-resistance rating under compliance alternative C152 of the Building Code.

The Commission found that the component additive method and the HUD Guideline on Fire Ratings of Archaic Materials and Assemblies did not apply to unrated gypsum board or to a building constructed in 2002.

The Commission ruled that the assemblies did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought to construct an addition to an existing cottage and add plumbing fixtures, which would increase the finished floor area by more than 15%.

The Chief Building Official denied the building permit on the basis that the existing Class 5 sewage system (holding tanks) could not accommodate the expansion under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed construction did not increase the total daily design sewage flow beyond the capacity of the existing holding tanks.

The Commission ruled that the proposal provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant homeowner sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a basement apartment renovation.

The issues included the use of an air admittance valve, the amount of insulation in the laundry room ceiling, and the requirement to excavate the basement floor for a plumbing inspection.

The Building Code Commission determined it lacked jurisdiction over the administrative requirement for a plumbing inspection.

However, the Commission ruled that the as-installed air admittance valve and the upgraded insulation matching the existing framing achieved sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code.

The applicant sought a building permit to construct a detached, two-storey laneway house.

The Chief Building Official refused the permit, arguing the proposed design did not meet the Building Code requirements for fire department access.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposed firefighting access provided sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.10.20.3. of the Building Code, provided the laneway house is sprinklered, has exterior walls with a 45-minute fire-resistance rating, and uses non-combustible cladding.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a technical dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding spatial separation requirements and the relocation of existing windows in a residential addition.

At the outset of the hearing, the municipality raised a jurisdictional objection, noting that the applicant had already submitted revised drawings complying with the municipality's interpretation and had been issued a building permit.

The Commission ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, as there was no longer an outstanding technical dispute between the parties under subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992.

The applicants applied for a building permit to replace a failing sewage system at their restaurant.

The municipality denied the permit, arguing that because the restaurant was located on a highway designated as 'controlled access' by the Ministry of Transportation, the Building Code required a design flow of 400 litres per day per seat.

The applicants argued the restaurant was not a 24-hour rest stop and should be assessed at 125 litres per day per seat.

The Building Code Commission agreed with the applicants, finding that the restaurant was not consistent with a typical rest stop on a 400-series highway and lacked public showers.

The Commission ruled that a design flow of 125 litres per day per seat provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's denial of a building permit to replace a deck.

The permit was denied because the proposed deck would be located over an existing septic tank, failing to meet the minimum 1.5m clearance distance required by the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the existing septic system had not been compromised by the deck and that the vertical clearance did not hinder maintenance access.

The Commission ruled that the proposed clearance distance provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, on the condition that the area below the deck is not enclosed in the future.

The applicant demolished an existing seasonal cottage and its Class 5 sewage system (holding tank) to build a new cottage.

The municipality deemed the lot vacant and denied a building permit for a new holding tank, arguing the Building Code prohibits Class 5 systems on vacant lots.

The Building Code Commission found that because the previous dwelling was serviced by a Class 5 system, a Class 4 system could not be accommodated, and there would be no significant environmental impacts, the proposed Class 5 system provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute regarding the installation of three glazed openings on the west wall of a recreational accessory building.

The building department had refused to accept the as-installed windows because they exceeded the maximum allowable area of unprotected openings given the limiting distance to the property line.

The Building Code Commission found that the as-installed area of glazed openings substantially exceeded the allowable area under the Building Code and that no compensating measures were provided.

The Commission ruled that the construction did not achieve sufficiency of compliance.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the requirement to install a vapour barrier in a seasonal, unheated building.

The applicant proposed installing Rockwool insulation without a vapour barrier to prevent moisture accumulation and mould.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposed wall assembly without a vapour barrier provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, provided the insulation is installed according to Code requirements and a Borax solution is applied to the assemblies.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the construction of a flour mill.

The issue was whether protecting floor penetrations for process piping with additional sprinklers, rather than conventional fire stopping, complied with the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that providing a firestop around the sifter boxes would disrupt the manufacturing process, engaging the exception in Sentence 3.2.8.2.(3).

The Commission ruled that the applicant's proposal to provide additional sprinklers around the sifter box piping, and to fire stop all other process piping openings with concrete and steel plates, provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the use of SIN beams (hot rolled steel wide flanges welded to a sinusoidal cold formed steel web) in a 3-storey building addition.

The Chief Building Official had issued an Order to Comply, arguing the beams required third-party evaluation or a Minister's Ruling because they were designed to international standards not referenced in the Building Code.

The Commission found that the rational engineering analysis used to determine the shear resistance of the SIN beams satisfied the requirements of CSA S136, as permitted by the Building Code.

The Commission ruled that the design method provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, subject to the submission of an updated, site-specific engineer's letter.

The applicant sought a hearing before the Building Code Commission regarding a dispute with the Chief Building Official over a partially constructed residential building.

The applicant had begun construction without a permit, leading to a stop work order and a Superior Court order requiring him to obtain a permit or demolish the building.

The Commission found that the applicant qualified as an 'applicant for a permit' under s. 24(1) of the Building Code Act.

However, because both parties agreed that the technical provisions of the Building Code applied and the applicant was willing to comply, there was no actual dispute concerning the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements.

Consequently, the Commission ruled it lacked jurisdiction to make a determination and noted that disputes regarding the issuance of a permit must be appealed to the Superior Court.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a building permit for renovations.

The dispute centered on whether the existing sprinkler system in an interconnected floor space required closely spaced sprinklers and draft stops under the Building Code and NFPA 13.

The Commission found that the interconnected floor space met the exceptions in Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) of the Building Code, and because the sprinkler protection was not serving as an alternative to enclosing the vertical opening, closely spaced sprinklers and draft stops were not required.

The Commission ruled that the existing sprinkler protection provided sufficient compliance.

The applicant sought to construct a two-storey laneway house and proposed to sprinkler the building as a compensating measure for a reduced clear access width for fire department personnel.

The Chief Building Official refused the permit, requiring a minimum 1.0 m clear access width.

The Building Code Commission held that while sprinklering addresses fire suppression, it does not sufficiently compensate for a reduction in the clear access width required by firefighters to access a building for emergency response.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the design of two as-built stairs in a residential dwelling.

The dispute centered on whether the elliptical stairs with tapered treads complied with the Building Code requirements for curved stairs and angled treads.

The Commission found that the stairs constituted curved runs and achieved sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, subject to the conditions that a handrail be installed on the wall side and the nosing overhang be reduced.