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. 98-02-607

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 98-02-607

Email this page


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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 9.32.1. of "the Building Code" (Ontario Regulation 419/89 as amended by Ont. Reg. 183/88, 581/88, 11/89 and 115/89).

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mr. and Mrs. Jeff Davie, Property Owners, 939 Queen Street West, Mississauga, Ontario, for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Andrew Feetham, Chief Building Official, Town of Wasaga Beach, Ontario, concerning whet er the proposed building is required to provide ventilation facilities under Article of the Ontario Building Code at Lot 14, Plan 674, 276-278 Shorelane, Wasaga Beach, Ontario.


Mr. Jeff Davie and Mrs. Louisa Davie
Property Owners
Mississauga, Ontario


Mr. Andrew Feetham
Chief Building Official
Town of Wasaga Beach


Mr. Roy Philippe (Chair)
Mr. Michael Lio
Mr. Ross Thomson


Toronto, Ontario


Thursday, January 15th, 1998


Mrs. Louisa Davie
Property Owner
Mississauga, Ontario
The Applicant

Mr. John Stark, Principal
Stark Ireland Architects Inc.
Mississauga, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant

Mr. Murry Lockhart
Building Inspector
Town of Wasaga Beach
For the Respondent

Mr. Charles Sangster
Building Inspector
Town of Wasaga Beach
For the Respondent


  1. The Applicant

Mr. Jeff Davie and Mrs. Louisa Davie, Property Owners, were issued a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to demolish an existing cottage and to construct a new residence at Lot 14, Plan 674, 276-278 Shorelane, Town of Wasaga Beach, On tario.

  1. Description of Construction

The Applicants are constructing a three storey, residence with a total building area of 185 m2 (2,000 ft2). The building, which is substantially completed, is constructed of combustible construction. The building, however, has not been equipped with ven tilation in accordance with Subsection 9.32.3. of the Building Code.

  1. Dispute

The issue at dispute between the Applicants and Respondent is whether the subject building is required to provide full heating and ventilation systems. The Applicants believed they were constructing the residence in accordance with Subsection 9.36.2 of t he Building Code, which sets out the requirements for cottage construction. The Respondents, on the other hand, view the structure as a year-round residential dwelling.

  1. Provisions of the Building Code Mechanical Ventilation for Dwelling Units. Every dwelling unit that is supplied with electrical power shall be provided with a mechanical ventilation system in accordance with Subsection 9.32.3. Exclusions

(1) Except as provided in Article and Subsection 9.10.15., building used or intended to be used as seasonal recreational buildings need not comply with Sections 9.5. to 9.7. and 9.9. to 9.11.

(2) Flooring need not comply with Section 9.30, but tight-fitting floors shall be provided to support the live and dead loads. (3) Except as provided in Sentences (4) and (5), thermal insulation, vapour barrier, air-barrier construction, interior finishes, plumbing, heating, mechanical ventilation, air-conditioning and electrical facilities, need not be provided, but where any o f these are provided, they shall comply with the requirements of this Part.

(4) Where heating and air-conditioning are provided, Articles need not be complied with.

(5) Where thermal insulation is provided, the minimum thermal resistance of insulation in Table 9.25.2.A. need not be provided.

  1. Applicant's Position

The Applicants submitted that the building is designed to be, and will be used as a seasonal residential building. As a result, they believe that Subsection 9.36.2. (Cottages) of the Building Code applies. In their view, this Subsection clearly exempts cottages from the heating and ventilation requirements found in other provisions of Part 9. Since they are not intending to use the building on a year-round basis, they feel that providing additional ventilation would be unnecessary and would add additional costs to their cottage construction.

The Applicants also argue that there does not appear to be a municipal by-law (zoning or otherwise) requiring that new dwellings be designed for permanent residential year-round use. Further, they note that the Respondent initially indicated that this is a Building Code issue and not a zoning issue which the Applicants took to mean that the municipality does not dispute their view that the building can be constructed as a seasonal residential structure on the subject land. If this is the case, then as a cottage building, the exemptions of Subsection 9.36.2. are relevant.

  1. Chief Building Official's Position

The Respondent submitted that, in their opinion, the subject building was designed, and is being built as a full time residential home. They note that the zoning by-laws for the property in question does not permit seasonal recreational uses. Accordingl y, all applicable provisions of Part 9 of the Building Code are relevant for the construction of the subject building, including Sections 9.25 Thermal Insulation and Control of Condensation, 9.32 Ventilation, 9.33 Heating and Air-Conditioning, and 9.38 Thermal Design.

  1. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the residential building provides sufficiency of compliance with of the Building Code.

  1. Reasons

i) The building is a seasonal recreational use facility. ii) The building is provided with openable windows and with mechanical ventilating fans in washroom facilities.

Dated at Toronto this 15th day in the month of January 1998 for application number 1997-76.

Roy Philippe, Chair

Michael Lio

Ross Thomson