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. 14-18-1381

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 14-18-1381

Email this page

BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 14-18-1381
Application No.: B 2014-16

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 9.10.2.1.(1), 9.10.8.1.(1), 9.10.9.11.(2) and 9.10.14.5.(5) and Tables 9.10.2.1., 9.10.8.1. and 9.10.14.5 of Regulation 350/06, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Xiaohua Zhang, Owner, for the resolution of a dispute with Ann Borooah, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposal to provide 2 hour fire resistance rated walls, between the existing Group E occupancy building and a new Group C residential occupancy addition, and the installation of a sprinkler system, in the existing Group E mercantile occupancy building, provides sufficiency of compliance the technical requirements of Sentences 9.10.2.1.(1), 9.10.8.1.(1), 9.10.9.11.(3) and 9.10.14.5.(5) and Tables 9.10.2.1., 9.10.8.1. and 9.10.14.5 of Division B, of the Building Code and to determine whether the omission of a barrier-free access for the new addition provides sufficiency of compliance the technical requirements of Section 3.8, of Division B, of the Building Code, at 48 Commonwealth Avenue, City of Toronto, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Xiaohua Zhang
Owner
City of Toronto, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Ann Borooah
Chief Building Official
City of Toronto, Ontario

PANEL

Ed Link, Chair-Designate
Gary Burtch
Gerry Egberts

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

August 7, 2014

DATE OF RULING

August 7, 2014

APPEARANCES

Jianxun Gao
City of Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant

Hassan Iman
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 2 hour fire resistance rated walls, between the existing Group E occupancy and a new Group C residential occupancy addition, and the installation of a sprinkler system, in the existing Group E mercantile occupancy, does not provide sufficiency of compliance the technical requirements of Sentences 9.10.2.1.(1), 9.10.8.1.(1), 9.10.9.11.(3) and 9.10.14.5.(5) and Tables 9.10.2.1., 9.10.8.1. and 9.10.14.5. of Division B, of the Building Code at 48 Commonwealth Avenue, City of Toronto, Ontario.

Further, it is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the omission of a barrier-free access for the new residential addition provides sufficiency of compliance the technical requirements of Section 3.8, of Division B, of the Building Code, at 48 Commonwealth Avenue, City of Toronto, Ontario.

2. Reasons

  1. The Commission heard and the Parties agreed that the proposed construction of Group C residential occupancy addition to the existing Group E mercantile occupancy will create a multiple occupancy building.  

    It is the opinion of the Commission that the Applicant’s proposal to increase the fire-resistance rating of the fire separation between the two occupancies from 1 hr to 2 hr and to sprinkler the mercantile occupancy is not comparable to a firewall used to create two buildings, and therefore, the relevant Part 9 provisions in Division B, of the Building Code, for this type of multiple occupancy building, apply to the design of the residential occupancy addition.  

  2. The Commission heard that the Applicant was required to include a barrier-free access to this multiple occupancy building that would comply with Section 3.8 of Division B, of the Building Code, before the Respondent would issue the building permit. The Commission also heard and the approved permit drawings show that the barrier-free access is located on the west wall of the proposed residential occupancy addition and that there is no barrier-free path of travel between the two occupancies.  

    It is the opinion of the Commission, in this circumstance, that the proposal to omit the barrier-free access is acceptable because the proposed location, which provides access through the residential occupancy, does not satisfy the intent of the Building Code, which is to provide barrier-free access to the mercantile occupancy.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 7th day in the month of August in the year 2014 for application number B 2015–10.

Ed Link, Chair-Designate

Gary Burtch

Gerry Egberts