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. 13-17-1345

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 13-17-1345

Email this page

 BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 13-17-1345
Application No.: P 2013-21

 

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

July 11, 2013

DATE OF RULING

July 11, 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 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 storage building was submitted to the Corporation of the Municipality of West Grey on June 5, 2013. The Commission heard that the parties were not in dispute with respect to the payment of fees related to the proposed construction.

    As a result, it is June 6, 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 disagreed on the time frame associated with the construction proposed under the application in question. The Applicant believed it was subject to the 15 day time period set out in Column 3 of Row 2 of Table 1.3.1.3. of Division C of the Building Code, while the Respondent believed it was subject to the 20 day time period set out in Column 3 of Row 3 of Table 1.3.1.3. of Division C of the Building Code.

    The Commission determined, since the building area exceeds 600 m², that the proposed construction was subject to a 20 day time period.

  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 3, 2013. The Commission heard that the Respondent responded to the Applicant in writing on June 27, 2013.

  4. It should be noted that the validity, legality or reasonableness of the reasons for refusal of a permit identified in writing by the municipality is not within the mandate of the Commission to determine.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 11th day in the month of July in the year 2013 for application number P 2013-21.

Tony Chow, Chair