Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 2015 > BCC Ruling No. 15-11-1400

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 15-11-1400

Email this page

BCC Logo    

Ruling No.: 15-11-1400
Application No.: B 2015-04

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 Article 9.10.20.3. of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Domenic (Nick) Carnicelli, Carriage Gate Homes, for the resolution of a dispute with Ed VanderWindt, Chief Building Official, City of Hamilton, to determine whether the proposed design of the access for fire department equipment, for a new one storey house that has a building area of 220 square metres, provides sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements in Article 9.10.20.3., of Division B, of the Building Code, for unit 33 at 60 Legacy Lane, Ancaster (City of Hamilton), Ontario.

APPLICANT

Domenic (Nick) Carnicelli

Carriage Gate Homes
City of Burlington, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Ed VanderWindt,
Chief Building Official
City of Hamilton, Ontario

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair
Marina Huissoon
Mina Tesseris

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

April 23, 2015

DATE OF RULING

April 23, 2015

APPEARANCES

Domenic (Nick) Carnicelli
Carriage Gate Homes
City of Burlington, Ontario

Applicant
Brian Gracie
Carriage Gate Homes
City of Burlington, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant

Frank Peter
Manager
City of Hamilton
Designate for the Respondent 

RULING

1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that, under clause 24(1)(a) of the Building Code Act, 1992, the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to make a determination on the issues raised in relation to the matter of unit 33, at 60 Legacy Lane, Ancaster (City of Hamilton), Ontario.

2. Reasons

  1. Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, provides the Commission with the jurisdiction to resolve disputes between the chief building official or building inspector and the applicant for a permit (emphasis added), holder of a permit or a person to whom an order has been given in connection with the interpretation of, or sufficiency of compliance with, the technical requirements of the Building Code. 
  2. The Commission heard from the Applicant that they attempted to apply for a building permit for the subject property, but the permit application was not accepted by the Respondent and that no written explanation was given regarding the reasons for not accepting the application. The Commission heard from the Respondent’s designate that they do not have a building permit application for the subject property before them. 
  3. In order for the Commission to exercise its jurisdiction, it needs to ensure that the individuals who have brought the matter before the Commission are considered parties, as described in subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992. In this case, as there is no building permit application before the municipality, there is no “applicant for a permit” and consequently, the Commission does not have jurisdiction to determine the matter.


Dated at the City of Toronto this 23rd day in the month of April in the year 2015 for application number B 2015–04.


Tony Chow, Chair

Marina Huissoon

Mina Tesseris