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. 15-16-1405

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 15-16-1405

Email this page

BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 15-16-1405
Application No.: B 2015-10

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 Sentences 3.3.1.3.(8), 3.3.1.3.(9) and Clause 3.1.3.1.4.(4)(a) of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Stefano Racco, for Greystone Design Group Inc., for the resolution of a dispute with Ann Borooah, Chief Building Official for the City of Toronto, to determine whether the proposal to provide exiting to two new tenant spaces via an unenclosed public corridor provides sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Sentences 3.3.1.3.(8), 3.3.1.3.(9) and Clause 3.1.3.1.4.(4)(a) of Division B, of the Building Code, at 2375 Brimley Road, City of Toronto, Ontario, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Stefano Racco
Greystone Design Group Inc.
City of Kitchener, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Ann Borooah
Chief Building Official
City of Toronto, Ontario

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair
Ed Link
Mina Tesseris

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

June 11, 2015

DATE OF RULING

June 11, 2015

APPEARANCES

Stefano Racco
Greystone Design Group Inc.
City of Kitchener, Ontario
Applicant

James Mccabe
Jim McCabe Building Code Consulting
City of Kitchener, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant

Ewa Okolotowicz
Building Code Examiner
City of Toronto, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent

RULING

1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal to provide exiting to two new tenant spaces via an unenclosed public corridor provides sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements  of Sentences 3.3.1.3.(8), 3.3.1.3.(9) and Clause 3.3.1.4.(4)(a) of Division B, of the Building Code, at 2375 Brimley Road, City of Toronto, Ontario, Ontario.

2. Reasons

  1. Section 3.3 of the Building Code contains provisions related to safety within floor areas.  Article 3.3.1.3. lays out the requirements related to the means of egress for Part 3 buildings.  Sentence 3.3.1.3.(8) of the Building Code requires each suite within a floor area that contains more than one suite to have either an exterior exit doorway or a doorway into a public corridor or an exterior passageway.  
    The Building Code defines the term public corridor as “a corridor that provides access to exit from more than one suite.”  The term access to exit is defined as “a part of a means of egress within a floor area that provides access to an exit serving the floor area.”  
    The Commission heard that the floor area contains more than one suite and that the exit arrangement includes a path of travel through an unenclosed corridor to two separate exit doors.  The Commission heard that the path of the unenclosed corridor meets the width required by the Building Code.  Further, the Commission noted that the drawings submitted did not show obstructions that would encroach into the width of the corridor. The Commission is of the opinion that the unenclosed corridor can be considered a public corridor that forms part of the means of egress that provides access to the exit serving the floor area of these two suites.  
  2. Sentence 3.3.1.3.(9) specifies that at the point where a doorway referred to in Sentence (8) opens onto a public corridor, it shall be possible to go in opposite directions to each of two separate exits.  The Commission heard that there is a choice of two exits from the unenclosed corridor and there will be signage directing occupants to these exit doors.  It is the opinion of the Commission that the requirements of Sentence 3.3.1.3.(9) have been achieved as once occupants are within the unenclosed corridor there are two exits that are available to them.
  3. Sentence 3.3.1.4.(1) of the Building Code states “Except as otherwise required by this Part or as permitted by Sentence (4), a public corridor shall be separated from the remainder of the storey by a fire separation”.  Clause 3.3.1.4.(4)(a) of the Building Code offers an exception to the requirement for a fire separation for certain occupancy types provided the floor area is sprinklered and the travel distance from any part of the floor area to an exit is not more than 45 m.  The Commission heard that the floor area contains a Group D occupancy, is sprinklered and that the travel distance from the most remote part of the floor area is less than 45 m.  The Commission therefore concludes that this exception is applicable to the unenclosed corridor that provides access to the exit from the floor area.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 11th day in the month of June in the year 2015 for application number B 2015–10.

Tony Chow, Chair

Ed Link

Mina Tesseris