Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 1995 > BCC Ruling No. 95-18-438

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 95-18-438

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #95-18-438

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentences 6.2.3.11.(2) & 9.9.4.2.(4) of the Revised Regulation of Ontario 1990, Regulation 61, as amended by O.Regs. 400/91, 158/93, 160/93 and 355/94 (the "Building Code").

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mr. Peter Szpular, Owner, Guelph for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Bruce Poole, Chief Building Official, City of Guelph, concerning whether the proposed installation for a gas fired forced air heating system to heat 4 apartment units and circulate air to 4 suites, the public corridor and a common exit stair will provide sufficiency of compliance with the requirements of the Building Code, at 250 Alma Street North, Guelph, Ontario.

APPLICANT

Mr. Peter Szpular, Owner
Guelph, Ontario

RESPONDENT

Mr. Bruce Poole
Chief Building Official
City of Guelph

PANEL

Mr. Demir Delen, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael Lio
Mr. Sang Shim

PLACE

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF RULING

April 25th, 1995

APPEARANCES

Mr. Ben Kooh
Al Dunn Heating & A/C
Waterloo, Ontario
For the Applicant

Mr. John Bosyj
HVAC Inspector/Plans Examiner
City of Guelph
For the Respondent

RULING

  1. The Applicant

Mr. Peter Szpular, Owner received an Order to Comply under the Building Code Act,1992 prohibiting the use of a gas fired forced air heating system to heat 4 apartment units and circulate air to 4 suites, the public corridor and a common exit stair, at 250 Alma Street North, Guelph, Ontario.

  1. Description of Constrution

The existing 4 unit apartment building was originally heated by electrical baseboard heaters. The baseboard heating system was changed to a gas fired forced air system that heats 4 apartment units and circulates air to 4 suites, the public corridor and a common exit stair.

  1. Dispute

The dispute between the Applicant and Respondent concerns the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of Sentences 6.2.3.11.(2) & 9.9.4.2.(4) of the Building Code. At issue is whether the proposed installation for a gas fired forced air heating system to heat 4 Apartment units and circulate air to 4 suites, the public corridor and a common exit stair provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code.

  1. Provision of the Building Code

Sentence 6.2.3.11.(2): Interconnection of Systems

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

Sentence 9.9.4.2.(4): Fire Separation for Exits

  1. A fire separation that separates an exit from the remainder of the building shall have no openings except those for electrical wiring, noncombustible conduit and noncombustible piping that serve only the exit and for standpipes, sprinkler piping, exit door-ways and wired glass and glass block permitted in Article 9.9.4.3.

  1. Applicant's Position

The Applicant submitted that Compliance Alternatives C80, C147, and C148 of Part 11 of the Building Code should be applied to this subject building.

The applicant submitted that smoke detectors would be installed in the supply and return air duct system serving the entire building. Activation of the smoke detectors would turn off the fuel supply and electrical power to the heating system.

  1. Chief Building Officials Position

The Respondent submitted that the applicant's proposal is unsatisfactory because the building is not considered a heritage building nor are there any structural or construction difficulties which would prevent the applicant from complying with the Building Code. Furthermore, the proposal to match existing under Subsection 11.3.2. of the Building Code cannot be used in this case because the entire heating system is being replaced.

The respondent does not have the authority to permit a condition that deviates from the Building Code and the use of equivalents regulated by Section 2.7 is not applicable.

  1. Commission Ruling:

In favour of the Applicant. It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the existing forced air heating system serving dwelling units provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code subject to the following conditions:

  1. The smoke alarms in the dwelling units will be interconnected.

  1. Duct smoke detectors will be installed in the supply and return air system which would turn off the fuel supply and electrical power to the heating system upon activation.

  1. Fire dampers with a 45 min fire protection rating will be installed where the ducts pierce fire separations required to have a fire resistance ratings.

  1. High efficiency air cleaners will be installed at the source.

  1. Reason:

The system as described, including the above conditions, will exceed the requirements of the compliance alternatives in Part 11 of the Building Code.

Dated at Toronto, this 25th day, in the month of April, in the year 1995, for application number 1995-07.

Demir Delen

Michael Lio

Sang Shim