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. 96-01-484

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 96-01-484

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #96-01-484

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentence 9.10.14.12.(2) of the Revised Regulation of Ontario 1990, Regulation 61, as amended by O.Regs. 400/91, 158/93, 160/93, 383/94 and 20/95 (the "Building Code").

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mr. Malcolm B. Thomas, Homeowner, for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Harold Bratten, Chief Building Official, Borough of East York, concerning whether applying an intumescent fire retardant paint to combustible cladding on an existing north exposing building face will provide sufficiency of compliance with the requirements for non-combustible cladding in Sentence 9.10.14.12.(2) of the Building Code, at 10 Rutherglen Road, Toronto, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Mr. Malcolm B. Thomas
Toronto, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Mr. Harold Bratten
Chief Building Official
Borough of East York

PANEL

Mr. Roy Philippe, Chair
Mr. Michael Lio
Ms. Susan Friedrich

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF RULING

January 24th, 1996

RULING

  1. The Applicant

Mr. Malcolm B. Thomas, Homeowner is the holder of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to construct a second storey addition to a single family dwelling at 10 Rutherglen Road, Toronto, Ontario.

  1. Description of Constrution

The subject building is a second storey wood frame addition to a single family dwelling that is located approximately 450 mm (1' 6") from the property line.

The existing first storey cladding consists of brick veneer. The exposing building face on the new second storey is clad with 7/16" Abitibi stucco board with 3/4"x 4"x 6" and 8" battens over the joints.

The construction of the exposing building face has the required fire resistance rating, but does not have noncombustible cladding.

  1. Dispute

The dispute between the Applicant and Respondent concerns sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Sentence 9.10.14.12.(2) of the Building Code. At issue is whether applying an intumescent fire retardant paint to combustible cladding on the second storey exposing building face will provide sufficiency of compliance with the requirement for noncombustible cladding.

  1. Provision of the Building Code

Sentence 9.10.14.12.(2) Exposing Building Face of Houses

Except as required in Article 9.10.14.3., in buildings containing only dwelling units in which there is no dwelling unit above another dwelling unit the requirements of Article 9.10.14.11. do not apply provided that the exposing building face has a fire-resistance rating of not less than 45 minutes where the limiting distance is less than 1.2 m (3 ft 11 in) and when the limiting distance is less than 0.6 m (23 5/8"in), the exposing building face is clad with noncombustible material.

  1. Applicant's Position

The Applicant submitted that the construction of subject exposing building face has the required fire resistance rating, but does not have noncombustible cladding.

The Applicant proposed to paint the exterior of the second storey with intumescent fire retardant paint.

The Applicant submitted that the requirement for noncombustible cladding was unknown to him until five weeks after the start of construction and about eight weeks after the permit was issued. If the municipality would have advised him of this when the permit was issued he would not have spent part of the construction budget on the wrong material. The Applicant estimated that it would cost about $3000.00 to rectify the situation.

The Applicant submitted that the regulation should be based on the distance between neighbouring buildings and not the distance from the lot line. The north exposing building face is separated from the building on the adjacent property by approximately 3 m.

  1. Chief Building Official's Position

The Respondent submitted that he does not have the authority under the Building Code Act to accept the combustible cladding consisting of stucco board.

Sentence 9.10.14.12.(2) of the Building Code clearly requires the north exposing building space to be clad with noncombustible material.

  1. Commission Ruling:

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that applying intumescent fire retardant paint to combustible cladding on the north exposing building face of the second floor addition in combination with other site specific safety provisions demonstrates sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

  1. Reasons:

    1. The building is in close proximity to a fire station.

    1. The building is separated from the adjacent building by a distance of approximately 3.92 m (9' 7").

    1. The building is located 457 mm (18") from the property line.

    1. Evidence was submitted describing the intumescent paint product, including surface preparation and application.

    1. No evidence was provided to suggest that the application of intumescent paint alone to a combustible material would change its characteristics to meet the definition of a non- combustible material in accordance with the Building Code.

    1. The general use of intumescent paint as a means of complying with the cladding requirements of the spatial separation provisions of the Building Code should be referred to the Building Materials Evaluation Commission for consideration.

Dated at Toronto, this 24th day, in the month of January, in the year 1996, for application number 1995-65.

Roy Philippe

Michael Lio

Susan Friedrich