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. 15-17-1406

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 15-17-1406

Email this page

BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 15-17-1406
Application No.: P 2015-21

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 Subsections 8.(2.2) and (2.3) of the Building Code Act, 1992 when considering Sentence 1.3.1.3.(1) and Table 1.3.1.3. of Division C of Regulation 350/06, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Dominique Hamed, Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est, for the resolution of a dispute with Frank Bidin, Chief Building Official for the City of Ottawa, regarding the April 2, 2015, building permit application for 2198 Arch Street, City of Ottawa, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Dominique Hamed
Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est
City of Ottawa, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Frank Bidin
Chief Building Official
City of Ottawa, Ontario

PANEL

Tony Chow

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

June 18, 2015

DATE OF RULING

June 18, 2015

APPEARANCES

Dominique Hamed
Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est
City of Ottawa, Ontario
Applicant

Luc Nadeau
Manager
City of Ottawa, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent

RULING

1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the Chief Building Official for the City of Ottawa did not comply with subsections 8(2.2) and 8(2.3) of the Building Code Act, 1992 and Division C, Article 1.3.1.3. of the Building Code to issue or refuse to issue the permit and, in the case of a refusal to issue the permit, to provide in writing all of the reasons for the refusal, within the applicable time period set out in Table 1.3.1.3. of the Building Code regarding 2198 Arch Street, City of Ottawa, Ontario.

2. Reasons

  1. Sentence 1.3.1.3.(7) of Division C of the Building Code specifies when the time periods set out in Table 1.3.1.3. commence. It states:
    Subject to Sentence (9) and (10), the time period described in Sentences (1) to (3) and Clause 6(b) shall begin on the day following on which an application that meets the requirements of Sentence (5) is submitted to the chief building official. 
    The requirements in Sentence (5) include the payment of all fees that are required.
    The parties agreed that a building permit application, which included the payment of fees, was submitted on April 2, 2015. The parties also agreed that the application was considered a complete application.
    Sentence 1.3.1.3.(8) provides that the time periods described in Column 2 of Table 1.3.1.3. do not include Saturdays, holidays and all other days when the offices of a principal authority are not open for the transaction of business with the public. 
    As April 3 and April 6 were considered holidays being Good Friday and Easter Monday, the Commission concludes that it is April 7, 2015 that the applicable time period set out in Table 1.3.1.3. commenced in this case. 

  2. The parties agreed that the construction proposed under the application in question was subject to a thirty (30) day time period set out in Column 2 of Row 4 in Table 1.3.1.3. of Division C. 
    In the present case, the applicable thirty day time period ended on May 19, 2015. The Respondent was required to either issue the building permit or refuse to issue the building permit and provide in writing all of the reasons for the refusal in respect of the Applicant’s permit application by May 19, 2015.
    The Commission heard that the Respondent had neither issued the permit nor provided written refusal and reasoning by May 19, 2015.

  3. Sentence 1.3.1.3.(6) of the Building Code states that the chief building official is not required to make a decision within the time period required by Sentence 1.3.1.3.(1) with respect to an application that meets the requirements of Sentence 1.3.1.3.(5) if the chief building official determines that the application is not accompanied by the plans, specifications, information and documents referred to in Subclauses 1.3.1.3.(5)(f)(ii) and (iii), or the proposed building, construction or demolition will contravene any applicable law and advises the applicant of his or her determination and provides in writing the reasons for the determination within two days.
    While the Commission heard that the site plan approval has not been provided by the zoning department, the Commission notes that the chief building official did not write to the applicant within two days and therefore did not exercise this option. 

  4. The parties agreed that correspondence in the form of a deficiency letter was sent on June 11, 2015, but for the purposes of determining compliance with Subsections 8(2.2) and 8(2.3) of the Building Code Act, 1992 and Division C, Article 1.3.1.3. of the Building Code, this correspondence occurred after the expiry of the applicable thirty day time period. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the chief building official did not comply with the applicable time frame contemplated by the Building Code.
     

Dated at the City of Toronto this 18th day in the month of June in the year 2015 for application number P 2015-21.

Tony Chow