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. 14-10-1373

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 14-10-1373

Email this page

 BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 14-10-1373
Application No.: B 2014-03

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 Division B, Sentences 9.8.8.3.(3), 9.8.8.3.(5), 9.8.8.5.(1), 9.8.8.6.(2) and 9.8.7.4.(2) of Regulation 350/06, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Rex Herrington and Marlene Archambeau, Owners, for the resolution of a dispute with Rod Larmer, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the design of the as constructed guards and handrail provides sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Sentences 9.8.8.3.(3), 9.8.8.3.(5), 9.8.8.5.(1), 9.8.8.6.(2) and 9.8.7.4.(2) of Division B, of the Building Code, for an existing dwelling unit, located at 966 Lake Drive East, Town of Georgina (Jackson’s Point), Ontario.

APPLICANT

Rex Herrington and Marlene Archambeau
Owners
Town of Georgina (Jackson’s Point), Ontario

RESPONDENT

Rod Larmer
Chief Building Official
Town of Georgina, Ontario

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair
Gary Burtch
Marina Huissoon

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

April 17, 2014

DATE OF RULING

April 17, 2014

APPEARANCES

Rex Herrington and Marlene Archambeau
Owners
Town of Georgina (Jackson’s Point), Ontario
Applicant

Rod Larmer
Chief Building Official
Town of Georgina, Ontario
Respondent

RULING

1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the design of the as constructed guards and handrail provides sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Sentences 9.8.8.3.(3), 9.8.8.3.(5), 9.8.8.5.(1), 9.8.8.6.(2) and 9.8.7.4.(2) , when considering Part 11, of Division B, of the Building Code, for an existing dwelling unit, located at 966 Lake Drive East, Town of Georgina (Jackson’s Point), Ontario.

2. Reasons

  1. Article 1.1.2.6. of Division A, of the Building Code, states that Part 11 of Division B applies to the design and construction of existing buildings, or parts of existing buildings, that have been in existence for at least five years. It is the opinion of the Commission that Part 11 applies to the design and construction of the subject guards and handrail because the Commission heard that the building and the attached deck system have been in existence for at least five years.

  2. Article 11.3.1.2. of Division B, states, in part, that except as provided in Section 11.5., the design and construction of an extension of an existing building system, shall comply with all other Parts. Sentence 11.5.1.1.(2) states, in part, that a compliance alternative shown in Table 11.5.1.1.C. may be substituted for a requirement contained in Part 9.

  3. The compliance alternative shown in Table 11.5.1.1.C. for Subsection 9.8.8., Guards, is C112 and it states that existing guards are acceptable, unless they are considered unsafe by chief building official. It is the opinion of the Commission that the design of the subject guards is acceptable because the Commission heard that the Respondent did not consider the existing guards to be unsafe. 

    The compliance alternative shown in Table 11.5.1.1.C. for Subsection 9.8.7., Handrails, is C111 and it states that existing handrails are acceptable, unless they are considered unsafe by chief building official. It is the opinion of the Commission that the design of the subject handrail is acceptable because the Commission heard that the Respondent did not consider the existing handrail to be unsafe.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 17th day in the month of April in the year 2014 for application number  
B 2014-03.

Tony Chow, Chair

Gary Burtch

Marina Huissoon