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. 14-23-1386

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 14-23-1386

Email this page

BCC Logo FR 

Ruling No.: 14-23-1386
Application No.: S 2014-21

 

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 Clauses 8.3.3.1.(1)(a) and 8.9.1.2.(1)(c) of Division B, of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by David Sephton, Owner, for the resolution of a dispute with Robert Palin, Chief Building Official – Sewage System, North Bay Mattawa Conservation Authority, to determine whether the an existing earth pit privy provides sufficiency of compliance with Clauses 8.3.3.1.(1)(a) and 8.9.1.2.(1)(c) of Division B, of the Building Code, when considering the bottom of the pit and its distance above the high ground water table, at 244 Toeppner Boulevard, Powassan (Township of Nipissing), Ontario.

APPLICANT

David Sephton
Owner
Powassan, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Robert Palin
Chief Building Official – Sewage System
North Bay Mattawa Conservation Authority
Township of Nipissing, Ontario

PANEL

Judy Beauchamp, Vice-Chair

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

October 23, 2014

DATE OF RULING

October 23, 2014

APPEARANCES

David Sephton
Owner
Powassan, Ontario
Applicant

Robert Palin
Chief Building Official – Sewage System
North Bay Mattawa Conservation Authority
Township of Nipissing, Ontario
Respondent

 

RULING

1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the existing earth pit privy does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Clauses 8.3.3.1.(1)(a) and 8.9.1.2.(1)(c) of Division B, of the Building Code, when considering the bottom of the pit and its distance above the high ground water table, at 244 Toeppner Boulevard, Powassan (Township of Nipissing), Ontario.

2. Reasons

  1. The Commission notes that this Class 1 earth pit privy is an existing sewage system, no building permit was required to construct it and that no new construction is being proposed by the Applicant. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Commission that, in this case, an unsafe building order under subsection 15.9(4) of the Building Code Act, 1992, should have been issued, instead of an order to comply, under section 12(2) of this Act, because the Respondent believed this sewage system is not being maintained or operated in accordance with this Act and the Building Code. Notwithstanding this opinion, the Commission has rendered its ruling for the following reasons.
  2. Clause 8.3.3.1.(1)(a) of Division B, of the Building Code, requires that a new Class 1 earth pit privy shall be constructed so that he bottom of the pit shall be at least 900 mm above the high ground water table. Further, Clause 8.9.1.2.(1)(c), requires that existing sewage systems shall be operated and maintained so that except as provided in Sentence (2), sanitary sewage or effluent shall not emit, discharge, seep, leak or otherwise escape from the sewage system or any part of it onto the ground water or into surface water. Sentence (2) provides that Clause (1)(c) does not apply to the use of a sewage system designed and operated such that properly treated effluent is discharged into soil.
  3. The Commission heard evidence that, on June 13, 2014, the Respondent found excess water from an exterior source within the pit of the existing privy. The Commission was also presented with evidence that the depth of the soil above the bedrock to grade level at this site is less than 1 000 mm and that high ground water table is less 500 mm from grade level. It is the opinion of the Commission that the bottom of the pit is below the high ground water table and therefore sanitary sewage within the pit may mix with ground water without being properly treated. It is also the opinion of the Commission that if the Applicant chooses to repair the existing sewage system instead of replacing it, compliance with Part 11 of Division B would apply to this work.
     

Dated at the City of Toronto this 23th day in the month of October in the year 2014 for application number S 2014-21.

Judy Beauchamp, Vice-Chair