Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 1998 > BCC Ruling No. 98-49-654

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 98-49-654

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #98-49-654

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 9.29.2. of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98 and 122/98 (the "Ontario Building Code").

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mr. Neil Husband, Homeowner, R.R. # 4, Orangeville, Ontario, for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Michael Giles, Chief Building Official, County of Dufferin, to determine whether the non-water resistant drywall, as installed, in the main bathroom and the master bedroom ensuite washroom provides sufficiency of compliance with Subsection 9.29.2. of the Ontario Building Code at R.R. # 1 (20 Station Street), Grand Valley (Amaranth Twp), Ontario.

APPLICANT

Mr. Neil Husband
Homeowner
R.R. # 4
Orangeville, Ontario

RESPONDENT
Mr. Michael Giles
Chief Building Official
County of Dufferin

PANEL

Mr. Roy Philippe (Chair)
Mr. Susan Friedrich
Mr. Cliff Youdale

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING

December 15, 1998

DATE OF RULING

December 15, 1998

APPEARANCES

Mr. Neil Husband
Homeowner
Orangeville, Ontario
The Applicant

Mr. Michael A. Giles
Chief Building Official
County of Dufferin, Ontario
The Respondent

RULING

  1. The Applicant

Mr. Neil Husband, Homeowner, R.R. # 4, Orangeville, Ontario, is the holder of a building permit issued on August 25, 1998 under the Building Code Act, 1992 to complete a series of interior and exterior repairs and renovations at R.R. # 1 (20 Station Street), Grand Valley (Amaranth Twp.), Ontario.

  1. Description of Construction

The Applicant is the owner of a three storey single-detached dwelling constructed in 1987 of combustible construction. This house has been the subject of a series of interior and exterior finished repairs and renovations, including changes to the main bathroom and master bedroom ensuite washroom. A non-water resistant type of gypsum wallboard was installed in the main bathroom and master bedroom washroom when that house was constructed in approximately 1987. These areas were then finished with a Bar ker product (a completely moisture resistant decorative wall panel).

The repairs that were undertaken in the main bathroom and master bedroom washroom were limited to recaulking of joints and repainting of the walls and the replacement of a small patch of damaged drywall. The gypsum wallboard installed in the main bath room and master bedroom washroom was not replaced with a water resistant gypsum wallboard at the time that repairs were being made to moisture damaged areas.

  1. Dispute

The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the repairs that were undertaken in the bathroom areas including keeping the non-water resistant drywall, as installed, in the main bathroom and the master bedroom ensuite washroom provides sufficiency of compliance with Subsection 9.29.2. of the Ontario Building Code at R.R. # 1 (20 Station Street), Grand Valley (Amaranth Twp), Ontario.

  1. Provisions of the Building Code

Article 9.29.2 Waterproof Wall Finish

9.29.2.1. Where Required

(1) Waterproof finish shall be provided to a height of not less than

(a) 1 800 mm (5 ft 11 in) above the floor in shower stalls

(b) 1 200 mm (3 ft 11 in) above the rims of bathtubs equipped with showers, and

(c) 400 mm (15 3/4 in) above the rims of bathtubs not equipped with showers.

Article 9.29.2.2. Materials

(1) Waterproof finish shall consist of ceramic, plastic or metal tile, sheet vinyl, tempered hardboard, laminated thermosetting decorative sheets or linoleum.

  1. Applicant's Position

The Applicant submitted that the Ontario Building Code requires that moisture resistant drywall be used where it provides a base for the wall finish around bathtubs and showers. In order to resolve an outstanding dispute with the municipality, the Applicant understood that repairs would be done to the bathroom to bring it into compliance with the Building Code requirements for new construction. When repairs were done in the main bathroom and in the master bedroom washroom around the bathtubs and showers, however, an acceptable waterproof finish was not achieved because regular gypsum wallboard was maintained rather than replaced with a moisture resistant drywall, the Applicant argued.

  1. Respondent's Position

The Respondent submitted that the building is over 5 years old, Part 11 of the Ontario Building Code would apply to the work carried out in the subject bathrooms. Notwithstanding, the Respondent stated that the only work performed in the main bathroom was recaulking of the joints and repainting of the walls, and therefore no material alterations were done in the main bathroom areas. He argued that the master bedroom washroom was repaired with a tempered hardboard product that meets the requirements of Part 11.

  1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the drywall backing installed in the main bathroom and master ensuite washroom provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.29.2. of the Building Code.

  1. Reasons

i) The tempered hardboard finish does not require water resistant drywall backing as it is considered a water resistant finish under Article 9.29.2.2.

ii) Water resistant Drywall backing is required where ceramic or plastic tiles are used only under Article 9.29.10.4.

Dated at Toronto this 15th day in the month of December in the year 1998 for application number 1998-57.

Mr. Roy Philippe, Chair

Ms. Susan Friedrich

Mr. Cliff Youdale