Building Code Commission

The applicants applied for a building permit to construct a one-storey residential dwelling on a flood plain.

The Chief Building Official refused to issue the permit due to technical issues related to the foundation design, specifically the shallow foundation and soil bearing capacity.

The Building Code Commission determined that the proposed foundation design provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 4.2.6.1.(1) and Article 4.2.6.2. of Division B of the Building Code, on the condition that the foundation footings are designed by a Structural Engineer in accordance with Part 4 of the Building Code.

The applicant sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the replacement of a gas furnace in an existing 3-storey mixed-use building.

The City argued the new furnace constituted a new building system requiring compliance with current Building Code provisions prohibiting air circulation between residential suites and other occupancies.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the replacement was a minor material alteration, not an extension of an existing system, and therefore the strict provisions did not apply, provided existing fire separations were maintained and fire dampers installed.

The applicant sought to construct a second-floor office space within an existing industrial condominium unit without installing a platform lift for barrier-free access.

The applicant argued that the space qualified for exemptions under the Building Code based on building area and raised floor provisions.

The Building Code Commission found that the building area exceeded the 600 square metre threshold for the exemption and that the second floor constituted a separate storey rather than a raised floor area.

The Commission ruled that the proposal to omit barrier-free access did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the capacity of an existing sewage system to service a proposed secondary dwelling unit.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant had submitted a revised permit application to upgrade the septic tank, which was approved, and proceeded with construction.

The Building Code Commission ruled it lacked jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Building Code Act because there was no longer an outstanding technical dispute between the parties.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the proposed egress design for two new dwelling units on the second and third floors of a residential building.

The applicant proposed using the existing interior shared staircase as a dead-end public corridor.

The Building Code Commission found that the existing staircase is an exit stair, not a public corridor, and the proposed location of two exit doors in close proximity at the main floor level did not comply with the Building Code requirements for separate and remote exits.

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

The applicant sought a building permit to repair a fire-damaged basement unit in a six-unit residential building.

The proposal included a single means of egress for the two basement units.

The Chief Building Official refused the permit, requiring a second means of egress under Clause 9.9.9.3(1)(b) of the Building Code.

The applicant argued the single egress was a legal non-conforming use established by a 1998 permit, but could not produce the permit.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as a second and separate means of egress is required.

The applicants sought to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the denial of a building permit for a Class 5 sewage system (holding tank) serving an existing church.

The municipality denied the permit on the basis that insufficient information was provided to show a Class 4 system could not be constructed.

The Building Code Commission found that due to site constraints, including an existing well, structures, property lines, and the need to maintain parking, the installation of a Class 4 system was impracticable.

The Commission ruled that the Class 5 system provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought to construct a new on-site sewage system for a gas station and convenience store using a reduced daily design flow of 3,500 litres per day, rather than the 6,940 litres per day calculated under the Building Code.

The applicant proposed a phased installation with a water meter to monitor flows.

The Building Code Commission found that the proposal did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code, as there was insufficient information to justify a lower design flow and the proposed flow was not supported by adequate metered flow data from similar establishments.

The applicant sought to install electromagnetic locks on two sets of exterior exit doors at a mixed-use building.

The Chief Building Official refused, arguing that the doors were part of an exit system and could not have electromagnetic locks under the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the single door without a latching mechanism was permitted to have an electromagnetic lock.

The double doors with a latching mechanism were not permitted to have electromagnetic locks unless the latching mechanism was removed.

The applicants constructed an interior stair leading to a flat roof via an openable skylight to access mechanical equipment, contrary to their approved building permit.

The City of Toronto issued an Order to Comply, citing non-compliance with Building Code requirements for headroom clearance and handrails.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the as-constructed stair provides sufficient compliance with the Building Code, provided the applicants install a lockable gate at the bottom of the stair and a handrail extension above the roofline.

The applicant appealed a condition of a building permit requiring the installation of a universal washroom in each unit of a renovated two-unit industrial storage building.

The applicant argued that the building would only be used for storage, would not be open to the public, and would not be occupied on a daily or full-time basis.

The Building Code Commission agreed, finding that under Clause 3.8.1.1.(1)(c) of the Building Code, buildings not intended to be occupied on a daily or full-time basis are exempt from barrier-free design provisions.

The Commission ruled that the proposal not to provide universal washrooms provided sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the location of a fire department connection for a new automatic sprinkler system in an existing 11-storey residential building.

The applicant proposed relocating the connection to a point 47 metres from the nearest fire hydrant, which exceeded the 45-metre maximum required by Sentence 3.2.5.16.(2) of the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposal provided sufficiency of compliance, noting that the relocation was voluntary, site restrictions prevented meeting the 45-metre requirement, and moving the connection from its existing 67-metre distance to 47 metres significantly improved the building's level of fire protection.

The applicant applied to the Building Code Commission to resolve a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the installation of a sewage pump chamber.

The issue was whether the horizontal setback distances for treatment units under Part 8 of the Building Code applied to the pump chamber, which was located within 15 metres of a neighbouring well.

The Commission ruled that a pump chamber is not a 'treatment unit' as defined in the Building Code, and therefore the clearance distances in Part 8 do not apply.

The proposed pump chamber was found to provide sufficiency of compliance.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding an Order to Comply concerning free-standing glass guards installed without a top rail in a new four-storey building.

The applicant proposed an alternative solution using laminated glass with a stiff interlayer, arguing it met the performance level required by the Building Code.

The Building Code Commission found that the alternative solution did not provide sufficiency of compliance with the structural and load requirements of the Building Code, noting that the calculations used reduced loading for a 'rare event' and failed to address specified vertical loads.

The Commission concluded that the required top rail provides a margin of safety for catastrophic failure that was not equivalently demonstrated by the alternative solution.

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.