Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 2013 > BCC Ruling No. 13-30-1358

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 13-30-1358

Email this page

 BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 13-30-1358
Application No.: P 2013-31

 

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 Sentence 1.3.1.3.(1) and Table 1.3.1.3. of Division C of Regulation 350/06, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Guy Bazinet, Project Officer, for the resolution of a dispute with Arlene Grégoire, Chief Building Official, regarding the July 15, 2013 application for a permit to construct an addition to a building at 4170 Spratt Road, City of Ottawa (Gloucester), Ontario.

APPLICANT

Guy Bazinet, Project Officer
Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est
City of Ottawa, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Arlene Grégoire
Chief Building Official
City of Ottawa

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

October 24, 2013

DATE OF RULING

October 24, 2013

APPEARANCES

Guy Bazinet, Project Officer
Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est
City of Ottawa, Ontario
Applicant

Frank Bidin, Manager Permit Approvals
Building Code Services Branch
City of Ottawa
Designate for the Respondent

RULING

 

1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the Respondent has not complied with the requirements of Subsections 8(2.2) and 8(2.3) of the Building Code Act, 1992 and Division C, Sentence 1.3.1.3.(1) of the Building Code regarding a permit for 676 Lakeridge Drive, City of Ottawa (Orléans), 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 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 (8) and (9), the time period described in Sentences (1) to (3) and Clause 6(b) shall begin on the day following on which an application that meets the requirements of Sentence (5) is submitted to the chief building official.

    The parties agreed that a building permit application and the plans, specifications, supporting documents and payment for fees was received by City of Ottawa counter staff on July 15, 2013.

    No evidence was presented by the Designate that the Applicant was notified, at the time the application was submitted or during the next two business days that the application was incomplete.

    As a result, it is July 16, 2013, the day following the day on which an application meeting the requirements of Sentence (5), 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 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:
    1. 10 days, and
    2. the time period corresponding to the class of building described in Column 2 of Table 1.3.1.3. that the building in Sentence (4) serves, if any.

    The Parties agreed that the construction is about an addition to an existing school for the purpose of providing extra class room space. The Commission determined that the building permit application is for a Group A Division 2 building as described in Clause 1.1.2.2.(1)(a) of Division A and therefore subject to a 20 day time period set out in Column 3 of Row 3 of Table 1.3.1.3.

  3. Sentence 1.3.1.3.(7.1) provides that the time periods described in Column 3 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 20 day time period ended on July 26, 2013.

    The Commission heard the Designate explain that City of Ottawa counter staff made an error when they accepted the application as complete and that there was an oversight concerning applicable law and required site control plan approvals. Further, the Commission heard from the Designate that city planning department staff sent an email to the permit applicant on August 2, 2013 concerning applicable law and required site control plan approvals and the Designate also added that city building staff sent an email to the permit applicant on August 19, 2013 requesting clarification and or resolution of a number of Building Code provisions and that on September 25, 2013 the Respondent issued the permit.

    It is the opinion of the Commission that the Respondent did not issue the permit or refuse to issue the permit and provide in writing all the reasons for the refusal before the applicable time period to respond expired.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 24th day in the month of October in the year 2013 for application number P 2013-31.

Tony Chow, Chair