Building Code Commission

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether a new 3-storey mixed-use building was exempt from providing a barrier-free path of travel for 15% of its residential suites.

The applicant argued that exemptions in the Building Code applied because the suites were on the second and third floors, which were only accessible by stairs.

The Building Code Commission held that there are no exemptions to Sentence 3.8.2.1.(5) and that the proposed design did not provide sufficiency of compliance, noting that barrier-free requirements also accommodate persons with limited mobility or sensory disabilities who may still use stairs.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a 9-storey student residence.

The applicant proposed an alternative solution to waive the requirement for combination smoke and fire dampers at the branch ductwork supplying ventilation air to individual rooms.

The Commission ruled that the proposed alternative solution provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as engineering data demonstrated it would provide better smoke migration resistance than a standard fan coil unit.

The applicant sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the requirement to install standpipe systems in the upper units of a 4-storey stacked townhouse development.

The applicant argued that the units met the exemption criteria under Sentence 3.2.9.1.(7) of the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission agreed, finding that the absence of a standpipe system would not adversely affect fire spread, that standpipes are intended for trained firefighters who would likely not use them in this context, and that the proposal provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought to install electromagnetic locking devices on cross-corridor doors serving second-floor assisted living suites in a retirement home.

The respondent Chief Building Official argued this would create an impeded egress zone contrary to the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposal provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as the locks are designed to release upon fire alarm activation, thereby facilitating emergency egress without requiring keys or special knowledge.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an Order to Comply concerning newly constructed stairs in a residential dwelling.

The original straight-run stairs were replaced with stairs containing two sets of winders that were not separated by the minimum 1200 mm required by the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the as-constructed stairs deviated substantially from the Code requirements and did not provide sufficiency of compliance, as the separation distance was less than half of the required amount and no compensating measures were proposed.

The applicants appealed the Chief Building Official's refusal to issue a building permit for a Class 5 sewage system (holding tank) to serve a newly constructed seasonal cottage.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed installation did not meet the acceptable circumstances for a Class 5 system under Article 8.8.1.2 of the Building Code, as the building was not for temporary operation, did not remedy an unsafe system, and was not an interim measure pending municipal sewers.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the rejection of a proposed Class 4 sewage system design for a new residential dwelling.

The proposed design utilized a modified shallow buried trench system with reduced spacing between chambers, compensated by a basal sand layer.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed layout did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as the adjacent layout could impede air flow and the lack of required separation distance could impact effectiveness.

The applicant sought a building permit for a detached laneway house.

A dispute arose with the Chief Building Official regarding whether the proposed fire department access complied with Article 9.10.20.3. of the Building Code.

The applicant proposed an alternative solution involving an automatic sprinkler system and exterior strobe light to compensate for an extended fire access route.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed access did not provide sufficiency of compliance, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the performance of the proposal would meet the minimum requirements of the Building Code or that water pressure could be maintained over the extended distances.

The applicant sought a ruling from the Building Code Commission on whether a proposed design for a 20-storey residential building complied with the Building Code.

The design proposed that public corridors on the second and third floors would traverse through unenclosed amenity spaces, using demarcations on the floor to indicate the path of travel to exits.

The Commission ruled that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance, finding that the demarcations lacked permanency, would not be suitable for visually impaired occupants, and that the use of the assembly spaces could create obstructions hindering egress during an emergency.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding whether a proposed floor opening in a new 9-storey student residence complied with the Building Code.

The applicant argued that the interconnected floor space between the first and second storeys met the exceptions to special protection under Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6).

The Building Code Commission found that the proposed design required occupants of the residential suites to traverse the interconnected floor space to access a required second exit, violating the Code.

The Commission ruled that the proposed design did not provide sufficiency of compliance.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an alternative solution for a new 13-storey building.

The applicant proposed installing close-spaced sprinklers on the interior side of unprotected openings that exceeded the maximum permitted percentage based on limiting distance under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the applicant's theoretical analysis and dated testing information did not adequately simulate anticipated service conditions.

The Commission ruled that the proposed alternative solution did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought an alternative solution building permit to install a Class 5 sewage system and a composting toilet on a vacant island property for a proposed seasonal dwelling.

The Chief Building Official refused the application.

The Building Code Commission held that the proposal did not meet the permissible conditions for a Class 5 sewage system under Article 8.8.1.2 of the Building Code and failed to demonstrate that the alternative solution achieved the required level of performance.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an Order to Comply issued for newly installed guards at Tim Hortons Field.

The issue was whether the 46 mm by 46 mm openings in the welded wire mesh panels facilitated climbing, contrary to Sentence 3.3.1.17.(5) of the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the size and design of the openings, which included horizontal members, did facilitate climbing and therefore did not comply with the Building Code.

The applicant constructed a six-storey residential building with a sloped floor in the entrance lobby vestibule, contrary to the original approved plans.

The Chief Building Official issued an Order to Comply, arguing the sloped floor lacked the required level area on each side of the vestibule doors.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the as-constructed lobby does not comply with Sentence 3.8.3.3.(13) of the Building Code, as the floor surface on each side of the door in a barrier-free path of travel must be level.

The applicant applied for a building permit to construct a self-storage building without plumbing facilities.

The Chief Building Official refused, arguing that the Building Code requires washrooms and a sanitary drainage system.

The Building Code Commission found that because there is no water supply for the first phase of the project, the applicant's proposal to provide sanitary privies or chemical closets provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant, a building owner, applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding a barrier-free ramp at a tenant's cannabis shop.

The Commission determined it lacked jurisdiction under section 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, because the applicant was not the building permit applicant or holder, nor had an Order to Comply been issued to him.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an Order to Comply that required the installation of a duct-type smoke detector on the below-grade exit stair pressurization fans of a 19-storey building.

The applicant argued that the below-grade exit stair does not serve more than one storey and that installing a detector could cause unsafe inadvertent shutdowns.

The Building Code Commission agreed with the applicant, ruling that the proposal not to install the detector provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the requirement for smoke dampers in air ducts opening into a public corridor in a new 25-storey residential building.

The applicant argued that the make-up air system functioned as a smoke control system, thereby exempting the supply air ducts from requiring smoke dampers under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the make-up air supply system on its own constituted a complete smoke control system as required for a high building.

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