Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > The Building Code Commission’s Public Accountability Documents > Annual Report 2016-2017 > C. Analysis Of Building Code Commission Performance

Follow us

C. Analysis Of Building Code Commission Performance

Email this page

TITLE C. Analysis Of Building Code Commission Performance HTML

Performance Measures and Targets

The Commission has adopted the recommendations for performance measurement established by the Agency Reform (Guzzo) Commission. These are: fairness, accessibility, timeliness, quality and consistency, transparency, expertise, optimum cost, and courtesy. While not all of the goals were rated as “high” by the Commission, there are processes in place to ensure that all goals are integrated into the Commission’s operations and are, therefore, adequately addressed. The chart below indicates how the Commission ranked the goals.

Chart
   Goals       Ranking  
   Fairness  High
   Accessibility*  Low
   Timeliness High
   Quality and Consistency   Medium
   Transparency  High
   Expertise  High
   Optimum Cost  Low
   Courtesy  High

 

* It should be noted that the term “Accessibility” for the purposes of the performance measurement recommendations of the Agency Reform Commission was related to providing seamless and simple access to dispute resolution so that the public can receive quality and timely services regardless of their familiarity with the system.

Measured Performance Results

Several steps have been taken to enhance the Commission’s performance and accountability over the past several years, including incorporating performance measurement in the ministry’s Estimates Briefing Book and introducing Commission-specific performance measures (Guzzo Report recommendations). Overall, the Commission has surpassed its targets for high rated goals. Performance measures based on these goals are found in Appendix 1.

Fairness

  • The stated target of not more than 10% of hearings resulting in judicial review was again met in the 2016 - 2017 fiscal year. The Commission did not receive any judicial reviews. Survey results for the 2016 - 2017 fiscal year indicate that 100% of clients that responded to the survey agreed that they were treated fairly.

Timeliness

  • In past general meetings, the Commission reviewed the wording of its performance measure related to timeliness of hearings. The Commission decided that the performance measure should track what the Commission is responsible for, which is providing hearing dates, and filter out matters beyond the control of the Commission, such as delayed return of documents or parties being unavailable for hearing dates.
  • The Commission decided that the performance measure will read “Offer a date for a hearing to be held within 40 working days from receipt of a complete application for 85% of all hearings” and “Offer a date for a hearing to be held within 20 working days from receipt of the Respondent’s confirmation of dispute for 85% of all hearings”. The Commission’s process includes input from the parties; therefore the Commission’s ability to hold a hearing within a certain number of working days is based on the responses from the parties being received by the Commission within a specific time frame.
  • The Commission met its target in both of these performance measures. The Commission offered a hearing date within 40 working days from receipt of a complete application in 97% of its cases and within 20 working days from receipt of the Respondent’s confirmation of dispute in 87% of its cases.
  • The above figures do not include the wait time associated with service level appeals, for which the hearing must be held by the Commission not more than 5 business days after receipt of an application for hearing. In this regard, the Commission met the stated target 100% of the time.
  • The Commission’s performance in meeting its target for preparation and finalization of full written decisions has improved significantly. The Commission’s target of preparing and finalizing full written decisions within six months of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings was met during this fiscal cycle. Written decisions for 87% of the technical disputes and for 100% of the time frame disputes have been completed within six months of completion of the hearing.

Quality and Consistency

  • The Commission has set a target that 85% of parties will feel that the process had a high degree of quality and consistency. Survey results indicate that 92% of clients that responded to the survey agreed that the processes and procedures had a high degree of quality and consistency.

Transparency

  • The Commission has set a target that 85% of parties will feel that the process and procedures were clear and understandable. Survey results indicate that 100% of clients that responded to the survey agreed that the processes and procedures were clear and understandable.

Expertise

  • The Commission has set a target that 85% of clients will be satisfied that Commission members demonstrated an appropriate level of expertise regarding the technical matters under consideration. Survey results indicate that 92% of clients that responded to the survey agreed that members demonstrated an appropriate level of expertise regarding the technical matters under consideration.

Courtesy

  • The Commission has set a target that 85% of parties will feel that they are treated with courtesy throughout the application process and the hearing. Survey results indicate that 100% of clients that responded to the survey agreed that they were treated with courtesy by Commission staff throughout the application process, and 92% felt that they were treated with courtesy by Commission members.

The “Goals” ranked high and medium were surveyed by the Commission, and the results can be found in
Appendix 1.

Operational Performance

The Commission believes that in order to provide quality service, to the public and the design and construction sector in particular, the Commission as an agency must operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. This means more than having performance measurements in place to strive for service excellence on a day-to-day basis. It also means pursuing excellence from an operational and administrative standpoint over the long term. To achieve this, the Commission also assesses itself on its operational performance. As with the above performance measures, operational excellence ensures accountability. The following are some of its operational achievements in 2016 - 2017:

  • The Commission continued to provide a cost effective and expeditious mechanism for resolution of disputes.
  • The Commission continued to maintain its compliance with the Management Board of Cabinet’s Agencies and Appointments Directive for agencies:
    • prepared, finalized and submitted its three year Business Plan for 2017-2020; and
    • its Annual Report for 2015-2016 fiscal year was completed and approved by the Commission within the specified time frame.
  • The Commission continues to maintain compliance with the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009.
  • The Commission held two meetings of the full Commission, and will continue this practice as it accommodates the review and approval of accountability requirements such as the Annual Report and the Business Plan.
  • Thirteen new members were appointed to the Commission in November 2016 and one new member in February 2017.
  • The Commission achieved its gender diversity target set by the Ontario government that, by 2019, women make up at least 40% of all appointments to every provincial Agency, Board and Commission.
  • The Commission continued its practice of surveying clients and received an overall satisfaction rating of 92% from clients that responded to the survey.
  • The Commission Chair and staff worked with the Public Appointments Secretariat and the ministry to develop a job advertisement which advertised vacant and upcoming on-site sewage system membership positions in late 2016. The Chair has made recommendations to the Minister for possible new appointments.
  • As a result of an amendment to the Building Code, the Commission began collecting application fees for its services as of January 1, 2014. In accordance with the Building Code amendment, the application fee increased on January 1, 2016 and January 1, 2017.
  • The Commission continues to be committed to providing services in accordance with the Accessibility Standards for Customer Service and the Integrated Accessibility Standards regulation made under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA).
  • The Commission staff continues to work with the Ministry to ensure that its webpage and its public documents complied with the AODA requirements.
  • The Commission received two references from the Superior Court of Justice under Section 25 of the Building Code Act, one in 2016 and one in 2015. The court reference received in 2016 required one hearing day, which was held in 2016. The 2015 court reference, which is still ongoing, has resulted in multiple hearing days. As of March 31, 2016 this hearing has taken up 7 hearing days.