Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 2001 > BCC Ruling No. 01-03-796

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 01-03-796

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #. 01-03-796

IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992.

AND IN THE MATTER OF Section 9.23. and Part 11 of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99 and 205/00 (the "Ontario Building Code").

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mr. Thomas Lehan, Homeowner, St. Catharines, Ontario, for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. John Fisher, Chief Building Official, City of St. Catharines, Ontario, to determine whether the various identified alleged deficiencies provide sufficiency of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code at the Lehan Residence, 1164 Pelham Road, St. Catharines, Ontario.

APPLICANT
Mr. Thomas Lehan
Homeowner
St. Catharines, Ontario

RESPONDENT
Mr. John Fisher
Chief Building Official
City of St. Catharines

PANEL
Dr. Kenneth Peaker, Chair
Mr. John Guthrie
Mr. Fred Barkhouse

PLACE
Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING
February 8th, 2001

DATE OF RULING
February 8th, 2001

APPEARANCES
Mr. Thomas Lehan
Homeowner
St. Catharines, Ontario
The Applicant

RULING

1. The Applicant

Mr. Thomas Lehan, Homeowner, St. Catharines, Ontario, has received an order under the Building Code Act, 1992 to remedy certain alleged deficiencies at the Lehan Residence, 1164 Pelham Road, St. Catharines, Ontario.

2. Description of Construction

The construction in dispute was not described at the hearing.

3. Dispute

The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent, as stated by the Applicant, is whether the various identified alleged deficiencies provide sufficiency of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code at the Lehan Residence, 1164 Pelham Road, St. Catharines, Ontario. The Respondent, on the other hand, claims there is no dispute.



4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code



Section 9.23. Wood-Frame Construction

Please refer to the Ontario Building Code.

Part 11 Renovation

Please refer to the Ontario Building Code.

5. Applicant's Position

At the hearing, the Applicant stated that it was his belief that the BCC could make a determination regarding the compliance of the identified alleged deficiencies in terms of the technical requirements of the OBC. While he acknowledged that he had completed all of the work indicated on the order issued to him, he argued that the Commission should still rule on these matters. This was because, as he claimed, he was given erroneous information about his appeal rights to the BCC, specifically regarding the statute of limitations in which an appeal could occur. As the Applicant explained, he was instructed that he had only 20 days to appeal his order to the Commission. He later discovered this 20 day limit does not apply to the BCC.

In summation, the Applicant stated that the BCC was the most appropriate body in Ontario to hear matters regarding the technical compliance with the OBC. Since his issues deal with conformance to the technical requirements of the Code, the BCC should therefore make decisions on the matters at hand.

6. Respondent's Position

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. The Commission therefore relied on his written submission only.

The Respondent submitted that since all of the various items in the work order had been complied with, they no longer had a dispute with the Applicant.



7. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that as there is no longer a dispute between the Applicant and Respondent, the Commission cannot make a determination in this matter. To do so, in our opinion, would be beyond the mandate of the BCC.



8. Reasons

  1. The mandate of the BCC is found is Section 24 of the Building Code Act. This Section authorizes the BCC to hold hearings regarding technical matters of the Ontario Building Code that involve disputes (our emphasis) between applicants and respondents as they are defined in Section 24. As this Section indicates, a dispute must be present between the defined parties for the Commission to have jurisdiction. Indeed, for adjudicative tribunals, hearing disputes between parties is the purpose of their existence.

  2. By fulfilling all of the items of the work order issued against him to the satisfaction of the municipality, the Applicant no longer qualifies, as Subsection 24(1) states, as "someone to whom an order has been given." Moreover, to our knowledge, he does not match the other criteria that makes one eligible as an applicant to the BCC either.

Dated at Toronto this 8th, day in the month of February, in the year 2001 for application number 2000-65.



__________________________________________________________

Dr. Kenneth Peaker, Chair



__________________________________________________________

Mr. John Guthrie



__________________________________________________________

Mr. Fred Barkhouse