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. 13-20-1348

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 13-20-1348

Email this page

 BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 13-20-1348
Application No.: B 2013-17

 

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 Subsection 8(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended and of Regulation 350/06, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Paul Hazen and Mara Eglitis, Owners, for the resolution of a dispute with Randy Dunsmore, Chief Building Official, Municipality of Highlands East, to determine whether an as-constructed structure, that was designed to provide a landing for a secondary exit for a Group C house, is required to provide sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Part 9 of Division B of the Building Code when considering the definition of “building” in the Building Code Act, 1992 at 1101 Tall Pine Road, Municipality of Highlands East (Wilberforce), Ontario.

APPLICANT

Paul Hazen and Mara Eglitis
Owners
Wilberforce, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Randy Dunsmore
Chief Building Official
Municipality of Highland East, Ontario

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair
Gary Burtch
Susan Friedrich

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

August 22, 2013

DATE OF RULING

August 22, 2013

APPEARANCES

Paul Hazen and Mara Eglitis
Owners
Wilberforce, Ontario
Applicant

Randy Dunsmore
Chief Building Official
Municipality of Highland East, Ontario
Respondent

RULING

 

1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that, under clause 24(1)(a) of the Building Code Act, 1992, the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to make a determination on the issues raised in relation to the matter at 1101 Tall Pine Road, Municipality of Highlands East (Wilberforce), Ontario.

2. Reasons

  1. Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992 provides the Building Code Commission with the jurisdiction to resolve disputes between a permit applicant, permit holder or a person to whom an order has been issued and a chief building official, a registered code agency or inspector concerning the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code.

  2. While an Order to Comply has been issued by the municipality to the Applicant, it is an Order which requires the Applicant to obtain a building permit as per subsection 8(1) of the Act.

  3. The Commission acknowledges that there is a dispute between the Chief Building Official and the Applicant concerning the as constructed structure, its relationship with the building and whether a permit to construct the structure is required; however, the Commission, as noted above, has a narrow jurisdiction outlined in subsection 24(1) of the Act. Disputes concerning compliance with subsection 8(1) of the Act are not disputes which are identified in subsection 24(1). Therefore, the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to make a determination in this matter.

  4. The Chief Building Official included Article 9.8.6.2. of Division B, of the Building Code, required landings, as a provision in dispute in section 5.2 on the Confirmation of Dispute form submitted in response to the application for hearing. However, the Commission has not been presented adequate technical information concerning the as constructed structure to determine if there is a dispute concerning the provisions of Article 9.8.6.2. or whether it was constructed in conformance with these provisions.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 22 day in the month of August in the year 2013 for application number B 2013-17.

Tony Chow, Chair

Gary Burtch

Susan Friedrich