Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 1996 > BCC Ruling No. 96-52-535

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 96-52-535

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #96-52-535

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentence 6.2.3.11.(2) 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. Pat Carrozzi, Project Manager, Ontario Realty Corporation, 720 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Les Batson, Chief Building Official, City of Ottawa, Ontario, concerning whether the circulation of return air from students' bedrooms to a mechanical room where it is mixed with fresh air and recirculated back to the suites provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 6.2.3.11.(2) under the Building Code at Centre Jules-Leger, 281 Lanark, Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Mr. Pat Carrozzi
Project Manager
Ontario Realty Corporation
720 Bay Street, 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Mr. Les Batson
Chief Building Official
City of Ottawa

PANEL

Mr. Demir Delen, Chair
Mr. Michael Steele
Ms. Susan Friedrich

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF RULING

December 12th, 1996

APPEARANCES

Mr. Pat Carrozzi
Project Manager
Ontario Realty
Corporation
Toronto, Ontario
The Applicant

Mr. Kenneth J. Hazell
President
Clemann Large Patterson
AND
Mr. David J. Bryden
Architect
Bryden Martel Architects Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario
For the Applicant

RULING

  1. The Applicant

Mr. Pat Carrozzi, Project Manager, Ontario Realty Corporation is the holder of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to renovate a school to create a residential dormitory of 30 rooms, at the Centre Jules-Leger at 281 Lanark Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario.

  1. Description of Constrution

The subject building is a teaching centre with a building area of 8,405 square metres. The area under dispute is the renovation of a 2 storey former library wing with an area of 754 square metres which is being renovated into a dormitory of 30 rooms to accommodate approximately 53 students.

  1. Dispute

The dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent concerns sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 6.2.3.11.(2) of the Ontario Building Code. At issue is whether the recirculation of return air from the students' bedrooms to the mechanical room where it is mixed with fresh air from the exterior, then brought back into the furnace and recirculated back to the bedrooms provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

  1. Provision of the Building Code

Sentence 6.2.3.11. Interconnection of Systems

2. In a residential occupancy, air from one suite shall not be circulated to any other suite nor to a public corridor or public stairway.

  1. Applicant's Position

The Applicant submitted that the intent of the Building Code is to prevent the spread of smoke and odours between separate, self contained dwelling units of separate tenancies and that the proposed renovation is to create dormitory rooms used solely for sleeping and studying. The use of the rooms are not for self- contained suites as there are shared kitchenette and washroom facilities. The Applicant further submitted that the air handling systems will shut down immediately on the initiation of the fire alarm system and that each room is provided with a heat detector connected to the fire alarm system.

  1. Chief Building Official's Position

The Respondent submitted that the intent of the Building Code is to prevent contamination of residential suites from smoke and odours generated in adjacent suites and also to protect the integrity of the public exit corridor so that the occupants have a reasonable time to exit the building. The Respondent further submitted that Sentence 6.2.3.11.(3) is applicable to all occupancies. including residential occupancies.

  1. Commission Ruling:

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the design of the HVAC system provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 6.2.3.11.(2) of the Building Code.

  1. Reasons:

    1. The operation of the facility is under a single tenancy and individual sleeping rooms are not considered as suites.

    1. 24 hour supervision will be provided by at least 2 staff members.

    1. Duct type smoke detectors are provided in the return air ducts.

    1. Additional compartmentalization of the floor area between sleeping rooms and corridors, provide an increased level of protection.

Dated at Toronto, this 12th day, in the month of December, in the year 1996, for application number 1996-58.

Demir Delen

Michael Steele

Susan Friedrich