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. 13-23-1351

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 13-23-1351

Email this page

 BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 13-23-1351
Application No.: B 2013-20

 

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 Articles 9.7.1.7. and 9.7.2.1. and Sentences 12.2.1.1.(1) and 12.3.2.6.(1) of Division B, of Regulation 350/06, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Ellen Mason, for the resolution of a dispute with Kyle Bentley, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the two as-installed site-built exterior fixed windows provide sufficiency of compliance with Articles 9.7.1.7. and 9.7.2.1. and Sentences 12.2.1.1.(1) and 12.3.2.6.(1) of Division B, of the Building Code for a new addition to an existing residential building at 434 Churchwin Street, Whitevale (City of Pickering), Ontario.

APPLICANT

Ellen Mason
Owner
Whitevale, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Kyle Bentley
Chief Building Official
City of Pickering, Ontario

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair
Doug Clancey
Gerry Egberts

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

September 5, 2013

DATE OF RULING

September 5, 2013

APPEARANCES

Ellen Mason
Owner
Whitevale, Ontario
Applicant

Kyle Bentley
Chief Building Official
City of Pickering, Ontario
Respondent

Andras Szonyi
Senior Examiner/Inspector
City of Pickering, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent

RULING

 

1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that two as-installed site-built exterior fixed windows do not provide sufficiency of compliance with Articles 9.7.1.7. and 9.7.2.1. and Sentences 12.2.1.1.(1) and 12.3.2.6.(1) of Division B, of the Building Code for a new addition to an existing residential building at 434 Churchwin Street, Whitevale (City of Pickering), Ontario.

2. Reasons

  1. The Commission heard that Part 9 of Division B of the Building Code applies to the installation of windows for a new addition to the existing residential building, In Subsection 9.7.2., “Window Standards”, Article 9.7.2.1. says that windows shall conform to CAN/CSA-A440 and CAN/CSA-A440.1. Conformance includes, but is not limited to, testing methods. The subject windows would also be required to conform to Article 9.7.1.7., which sets out the maximum air leakage rate for windows when evaluated in accordance with the required standards and that the evaluation includes, but is not limited to, testing methods.

  2. The Commission also heard that Article 12.2.1.1., “Energy Efficiency Design”, applies because the permit was issued before January 1, 2012. Compliance with Clause 12.2.1.1.(3)(a) and specifically the thermal resistance of windows requirement in Sentence 12.3.2.6.(1) set maximum heat transfer values or minimum energy ratings.

  3. Article 1.2.2.1. of Division A of the Building Code, states, all materials, appliances, systems and equipment installed to meet the requirements of this Code shall possess the necessary characteristics to perform their intended functions when installed in a building. The Commission heard that the subject windows have not been tested in accordance to the applicable standards nor have the insulated glass units been labeled for the required energy ratings. The Commission was not convinced by the evidence provided that the as-constructed site-built exterior fixed windows would be able to perform their intended functions, as evidence was presented that the sealant used was not suitable for use with sealed unit glazing.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 5th day in the month of September in the year 2013 for application number B 2013-20.

Tony Chow, Chair

Doug Clancey

Gerry Egberts