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. 13-24-1352

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 13-24-1352

Email this page

 BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 13-24-1352
Application No.: P 2013-29

 

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 Harold Elders, for the resolution of a dispute with Brian Marcell, Chief Building Official, regarding the June 5, 2013 application for a permit to construct a building at Concession 8, Lot 3, Municipality of West Grey, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Harold Elders
Markdale, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Brian Marcell
Chief Building Official
The Corporation of the Municipality of West Grey

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

September 27, 2013

DATE OF RULING

September 27, 2013

APPEARANCES

Harold Elders
Markdale, Ontario
Applicant

Brian Marcell
Chief Building Official
The Corporation of the Municipality of West Grey
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 Concession 8, Lot 3, Municipality of West Grey, 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 proposing construction of a gazebo was submitted to the Corporation of the Municipality of West Grey on July 31, 2013. The Commission heard that a cheque for the estimated amount of the permit fees to be paid was included with the application and that the cheque had been cashed.

    No evidence was presented by the Respondent that the Applicant was notified, at the time the application was submitted or during the next two business days, that the application was incomplete or that all the required fees were not included in the payment received.

    It is the opinion of the Commission that this tacit acceptance of the application by the chief building official is tantamount to an application that meets the requirements of Sentence (5). As a result, it is August 1, 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. 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 Commission determined that the building permit application is for a Group A assembly occupancy 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 August 29, 2013. The Commission heard that the Respondent responded to the Applicant in writing on September 17, 2013 that the permit would be ready to be issued after additional permit fees were paid. This occurred after the applicable time period to respond expired.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 27th day in the month of September in the year 2013 for application number P 2013-29.

Tony Chow, Chair