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. 13-15-1343

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 13-15-1343

Email this page

 BCC Logo 

Ruling No.: 13-15-1343
Application No.: B 2012-26

 

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 Article 3.2.3.17. and Table 11.4.3.4.B of Division B of Regulation 350/06, as amended, (the “Building Code”).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Claire Hayes, 113567 Ontario Inc., for the resolution of a dispute with Fritz Enzlin, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the fire-resistance rating of the as–constructed fire separation between the first storey mercantile occupancy and the second storey residential occupancies provides sufficiency of compliance with Table 11.4.3.4.B of Division B of the Building Code and further, whether the absence of canopy protection of openings in the exterior wall of the first storey mercantile occupancy vertically below an opening in the exterior wall of the second storey residential occupancies provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.2.3.17., when considering Part 11 of Division B of the Building Code for at 80 Alice Street, Waterford, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Claire Hayes
1313567 Ontario Inc.
Waterford, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Fritz Enzlin
Chief Building Official
Norfolk County, Ontario

PANEL

Tony Chow, Chair
Leslie Morgan
Alison Orr

PLACE

City of Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

June 20, 2013

DATE OF RULING

June 20, 2013

APPEARANCES

Claire Hayes
1313567 Ontario Inc.
Waterford, Ontario
Applicant

Fritz Enzlin
Chief Building Official
Norfolk County, Ontario
Respondent

RULING

 

1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the fire-resistance rating of the as–constructed fire separation between Group E and Group C major occupancies does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Table 11.4.3.4.B of Division B of the Building Code.

Further, it is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the existing absence of canopy protection of openings in the exterior wall between Group E and Group C major occupancies provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.2.3.17, when considering Part 11 of Division B of the Building Code for the two storey building located at 80 Alice Street, Norfolk County (Waterford), Ontario.

2. Reasons

  1. Article 1.1.2.6. of Division A of the Building Code provides the parameters regarding the application of Part 11 of Division B of the Building Code. It states that Part 11 applies to the design and construction of existing buildings, or parts of existing buildings, that have been in existence for at least five years. The Commission heard that the subject two storey building was constructed about 100 years ago. Therefore, Part 11 of Division B of the Building Code applies to the construction that forms the dispute before the Commission.

  2. Article 11.1.2.1. of Division B of the Building Code states that where an existing building is subject to extension, material alteration or repair, the proposed construction shall comply with Section 11.3. and the performance level of the building shall be evaluated and compensating construction shall be undertaken in accordance with Section 11.4. Section 11.4. requires the performance level of the building after construction to be not less than the performance level of the building prior to construction, and further requires that if the performance level of the building is reduced then compensating construction conforming with Subsection 11.4.3. is required.

  3. The Commission heard that the drawings submitted with the 2012 building permit specified a fire separation between Groups E and C major occupancies which would provide the 1 ½ h fire resistance required by Table 11.4.3.4.B. The Commission also heard that the fire separation that has been constructed is not as shown on the drawings and does not provide the required fire resistance rating.

  4. Article 1.1.2.7. of Division A of the Building Code states that except as provided in Sections 3.17. and 9.41. of Division B and Part 11 of Division B, if an existing building is extended or is subject to material alteration or repair, this Code applies only to the design and construction of the extensions and those parts of the building that are subject to the material alteration or repair. The Commission heard that there has been no extension to the subject building and that there has been no material alteration or repair done to the exterior of the subject building. Thus, with no changes to the existing facade, the requirements of 3.2.3.17. of Division B are not applicable. Also, the compensating construction required under Part 11 of Division B does not require upgrades to meet the requirements of 3.2.3.17. of Division B.

Dated at the City of Toronto this 20th day in the month of June in the year 2013 for application number B 2012-26.

Tony Chow, Chair

Leslie Morgan

Alison Orr