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. 14-25-1388

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 14-25-1388

Email this page

BCC Logo FR 

Ruling No.: 14-25-1388
Application No.: B 2014-17

 

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 Article 3.8.1.4. of Division B, of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mike Riccardi, Brookfield Estate Inc., for the resolution of a dispute with Dennis Purcell, Chief Building Official for the City of Cambridge, to determine whether the a barrier-free entrance, constructed in a location that is not the principal entrance of a Group D major occupancy building, provides sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Article 3.8.1.2. of Division B, of the Building Code, at 10 Limerick Road, City of Cambridge, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Mike Riccardi
Brookfield Estate Inc.
Concord, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Dennis Purcell
Chief Building Official
City of Cambridge, Ontario

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair
Susan Friedrich
Yaman Uzumeri

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

November 6, 2014

DATE OF RULING

November 6, 2014

APPEARANCES

Dan Lacroix
Hunt Design Associates
Markham, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant

Dennis Purcell
Chief Building Official
City of Cambridge, Ontario
Respondent

David Durnford
Municipal Building Official IV
City of Cambridge, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
 

RULING

1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that a barrier-free entrance, constructed in a location that is not the principal entrance of a Group D major occupancy building, provides sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Article 3.8.1.2. of Division B, of the Building Code, at 10 Limerick Road, City of Cambridge, Ontario.

2. Reasons

  1. Barrier-free design provisions, including Article 3.8.1.2., contained in the Building Code apply to buildings referred to in Sentence 3.8.1.1.(1) of Division B.  Article 3.8.1.2. and Table 3.8.1.2. specify the minimum number of pedestrian entrances into buildings that are also required to be barrier-free entrances. Furthermore, this Article provides the construction requirements for the barrier-free entrances and any ramps that lead to them.
    The Commission heard that the subject building’s major occupancy and description meant Sentence 3.8.1.2.(1) was used to determine the minimum number of barrier-free entrances. The Commission also heard that, since there are two pedestrian entrances into the building, Table 3.8.1.2. requires at least one of them to be a barrier-free entrance and that, in this case, only the ancillary entrance was constructed as a barrier-free entrance.
  2. It is the opinion of the Commission that the version of the 2012 Building Code, under which this construction was permitted, does not require that one of the barrier-free entrances should be a principal entrance to the building. The Commission acknowledges that the Appendix includes explanatory remarks in A-3.8.1.2. which suggests at least one of the barrier-free entrances should be a principal entrance to the building. However, the Commission notes that the Appendix remarks do not form part of the Building Code requirements.
  3. The Commission also heard that the Respondent had no concerns related to the design of the as-constructed ramp required by Article 3.81.2.
     

Dated at the City of Toronto this 6th day in the month of November in the year 2014 for application number B 2014–17.

Tony Chow, Chair

Susan Friedrich

Yaman Uzumeri