Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 2014 > BCC Ruling No. 14-21-1384

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 14-21-1384

Email this page

BCC Logo FR 

Ruling No.: 14-21-1384
Application No.: P 2014-25

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 Article 1.3.1.3. and Table 1.3.1.3. of Division C of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Harold Elders, Owner, for the resolution of a dispute with Brian Marcell, Chief Building Official, regarding the July 18, 2014 application for a permit and whether the Municipality of West Grey has complied with subsection 8(2.2) and 8(2.3) of the Building Code Act, 1992, when considering the provisions of Division C, Article 1.3.1.3. and Table 1.3.1.3., of the Building Code, at Concession 8, Lot 3, RR 1 Markdale, (Municipality of West Grey), Ontario.

APPLICANT

Harold Elders
Owner
Markdale, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Brian Marcell
Chief Building Official
Municipality of West Grey, Ontario

PANEL

Gary Burtch, Chair-Designate

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

September 11, 2014

DATE OF RULING

September 11, 2014

APPEARANCES

Harold Elders
Owner
Markdale, Ontario
Applicant

Brian Marcell
Chief Building Official
Municipality of West Grey, Ontario
Respondent

RULING

 

1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the Respondent did not comply with the requirements of 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 regarding a permit for Concession 8, Lot 3, RR 1 Markdale, (Municipality of West Grey), Ontario. Under these subsections, the Respondent is required 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 Division C of the Building Code.

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 the day on which an application that meets the requirements of Sentence (5) is submitted to the chief building official. 
    The Commission heard that the building permit application was received by the municipality on July 18, 2014. As a result, it is July 19, 2014 that the applicable time period set out in Table 1.3.1.3. commenced in this case.
  2. Sentence 1.3.1.3.(3) of Division C, of the Building Code, states:
    If an application for a permit under subsection 8(1) of the Act (Building Code Act, 1992) proposes construction or demolition of a building described in Sentence (4), the time periods for the purposes of Sentence (1) shall be the longer of 
    (a) 10 days, and 
    (b) the time period corresponding to the class of building described in Column 1 of Table 1.3.1.3. that the building in Sentence (4) serves, if any.
    The Commission determined that the permit application is for a class of building not described in Column 1 for Item 2, 3 or 4 in Table 1.3.1.3. Therefore it is subject to either the 10 day time period set out in Column 2 for Item 1 of Table 1.3.1.3, or the 10 day period set out in Clause 1.3.1.3.(3)(a).
  3. 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. In the present case, the applicable 10 day time period ended on August 1, 2014.
    The Commission heard that Parties to this dispute are also involved in ongoing legal proceedings and that it is the Respondent’s position that as a result of these proceedings he was unable to issue the permit.
    It is the opinion of the Commission that if the Respondent feels that the ongoing legal proceedings prevent him from issuing the permit, then he should have communicated this reason to the Applicant in writing and within the specified timeframe.
    The Commission notes that the validity, legality or reasonableness of the reasons for refusal of a permit is not within the mandate of the Commission to determine as part of this service level appeal. It is the opinion of the Commission that the Respondent should have provided notice to the Applicant in writing, within 10 days and with all of the reasons for the refusal, because he did not issue the permit.
  4. Sentence 1.3.1.3.(6) of Division C of the Building Code specifies that the building official is not required to make a decision within the time period requirements if it is determined that the application is incomplete or the building will contravene any applicable law and the applicant is advised of this determination in writing within two days.
    The Commission heard that the Respondent did not provide notice to the Applicant in writing, within two days, that the building permit application was considered incomplete.
     

Dated at the City of Toronto this 11th day in the month of September in the year 2014 for application number P 2014-25.

Gary Burtch, Chair-Designate