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. 15-14-1403

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 15-14-1403

Email this page

BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 15-14-1403
Application No.: B 2015-09

 

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 Articles 3.4.1.1. and 3.4.3.1 and Sentences 3.4.3.2.(3), 3.4.4.1.(1), 3.4.4.1.(5), 3.4.4.4.(1) and 3.4.4.4.(6) of Division B, of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by John Filipetti, for Oxford Properties Group, for the resolution of a dispute with Ann Borooah, Chief Building Official for the City of Toronto, to determine whether the proposed design and configuration of a means of egress, which is intended to serve the expansion of a shopping centre, provides sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Articles 3.4.1.1. and 3.4.3.1 and Sentences 3.4.3.2.(3), 3.4.4.1.(1), 3.4.4.1.(5), 3.4.4.4.(1) and 3.4.4.4.(6), of Division B of the Building Code, at 3401 Dufferin Street, City of Toronto, Ontario.

APPLICANT

John Filipetti
Oxford Properties Group
City of Toronto, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Ann Borooah
Chief Building Official
City of Toronto, Ontario

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair
Leslie Morgan
Yaman Uzumeri

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

May 21, 2015

DATE OF RULING

May 21, 2015

APPEARANCES

John Filipetti
Oxford Properties Group
City of Toronto, Ontario

Applicant

Demir Delen
Morrison Hershfield Limited
City of Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant

Jassie Khurana
Khurana Associates
City of Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant

Mike Nogas
MMC Architecture
City of Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant

William Johnston
Deputy Chief Building Official
City of Toronto, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent

Gene Lee
Manager - Plan Review
City of Toronto, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent

Fernando Cruz
Building Engineer
City of Toronto, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent 

RULING

1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed design and configuration of a means of egress, which includes a pathway that traverses the rooftop, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Articles 3.4.1.1. and 3.4.3.1 and Sentences 3.4.3.2.(3), 3.4.4.1.(1), 3.4.4.1.(5), 3.4.4.4.(1) and 3.4.4.4.(6), of Division B of the Building Code, at 3401 Dufferin Street, City of Toronto, Ontario.

2. Reasons

  1. Article 3.4.1.1., of Division B, of the Building Code, outlines the scope of the requirements pertaining to exits.  Sentence 3.4.1.1.(1) states that exit facilities complying with Section 3.4. shall be provided from every floor area that is intended for occupancy. After having heard the evidence presented by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the exit facilities provided for the floor areas do not sufficiently comply with Article 3.4.1.1.  The reasons contained below expand upon the Commission’s reasoning for concluding that the exit facilities provided are not sufficient considering the specific provisions from Section 3.4. that were at dispute between the parties.
  2. Article 3.4.3.1. states that for the purpose of determining the aggregate width of exits, the occupant load from every room or floor shall be determined in conformance with Subsection 3.1.17. and except as permitted by Sentence 3.4.3.2.(4), the required exit width shall be cumulative if two or more exits converge.  The Commission notes that the parties did not seem to dispute that, for the purposes of determining the required exit width, the cumulative number of occupants using the individual exits leading to the roof top needs to be used.  The Commission recognizes that there may have been a discrepancy between the parties as to what the appropriate cumulative number should be, however, as this is not a dispute with the technical requirement of the Building Code, there is no dispute for the Commission to consider in respect of Article 3.4.3.1.
  3. Sentence 3.4.3.2.(3) allows the minimum aggregate width of means of egress serving a Group A, Division 4 occupancy to be determined by multiplying the occupant load of the area served by 2.4 mm per person.  The Commission heard that there is no Group A, Division 4, occupancy in the subject building.  Therefore, it is the opinion of the Commission that applying the reduced factor permitted for Group A, Division 4 is not appropriate for determining the minimum aggregate width of means of egress for the subject building.
  4. Sentence 3.4.4.1.(1) states, in part, that every exit shall be separated from the remainder of the building by a fire separation having a fire-resistance rating not less than that required by Subsection 3.2.2.. The Commission heard that the pathway that traverses the rooftop is not enclosed and is open to the air.  The Commission also heard that the roof, which has a 2 h fire-resistance rating, has not been constructed as a fire separation.
  5. Sentence 3.4.4.1.(5) permits a path of travel to lead through open air parking where certain conditions are met.  It is the opinion of the Commission that this proposal does not satisfy the conditions in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sentence (5).
  6. Sentence 3.4.4.4.(1) specifies that a fire separation that separates an exit from the remainder of the building shall have no openings, except for those listed in Clauses (a) through (f). Notwithstanding that the roof was not constructed as a fire separation, the Commission heard that the roof includes openings other than those listed in Clauses (a) through (f).
  7. Sentence 3.4.4.4.(6) states, in part, that an exit shall be designed for no purpose other than for exiting. The Commission heard that a portion of the proposed rooftop pathway will lead through open air parking. The Commission acknowledges that provided the conditions of Sentence 3.4.4.1.(5) are satisfied, it may be permissible to have a path of travel lead through open air parking, however as noted above the proposal does not satisfy these conditions.  Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that this exit is considered to be an exit that has been designed for purposes other than exiting.
     

Dated at the City of Toronto this 21st day in the month of May in the year 2015 for application number B 2015–09.

Tony Chow, Chair

Leslie Morgan

Yaman Uzumeri