Ontario Building Code Act the Planning Under 1992 Example, Code Act

Issue 95 / September 2012 OBOA Strategic Plan 2012+ CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIALS AND “…our association now has a strategic plan to RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS See Chris Williams, p.5-9 guide it’s decision-making and operations over the coming years…” President Leo Cusumano

56th ANNUAL “Good Faith and MEETING & TRAINING SESSIONS Abuse of Public Office” CITY OF GREATER SUDBURY, ON “CASE COMMENT” p.33 Stephen Lockwood, Counsel Sunday September 9th to Wednesday September 12th 2012 Legal Services Branch - Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing “WORTH EVERY NICKEL!” OBOA Featured Articles Tel: (905) 264-1662 200 Marycroft Ave. Unit #8 Woodbridge, Ontario L4L 5X4 President’s Message Legal Corner Case Comment 2012 AMTS Sudbury Editor In Chief www.oboa.on.ca Leo Cusumano - pg 2 Chris Williams - pg 5-8 Stephen Lockwood - pg 33 Guido Mazza - pg 18 Matt Farrell - pg 46 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing: - On-site Sewage System Study Project Advi- sory Committee

- Glass Panels in Balcony Guards Expert Advi- sory Panel Leo Cusumano, CBCO President PRESIDENT - Accessible Built Environment Enforcement Stakeholder Working Group Implementing the Plan - Next Edition of the Building Code Stakeholder The 2012 OBOA Board of Directors and Leadership Team Group continue to make great progress on implementing the new OBOA Strategic Plan 2012+. The new strategic plan is ef- - Training and Qualification Discussion Group fectively guiding the work of the association’s Board, staff and volunteers to ensure that OBOA is best positioned to - Building Advisory Council achieve its full potential, and take Ontario’s building official profession to the next level. Continuing with the theme of Office of the Ontario Fire Marshall: ‘Implementing the Plan’, I wish to highlight our progress in - Fire Marshall's Public Fire Safety Council respect to another Strategic Priority. - Vulnerable Occupancies Technical Advisory Committee Government Relations OBOA 2012+ Strategic Priority [SP4] ‘Government Rela- - Ontario Fire Code Technical Advisory Com- tions’; the corresponding Strategic Goal being: mittee • To be an active voice for the profession on building regulatory issues by drawing Industry/Professional Associations: on members’ expertise and collaborating - Ontario Association of Certified Engineer- with other organizations ing Technicians and Technologist Institute of Engineering Technologists of Ontario Board To achieve this goal, the Board developed Implementation Strategies [IS] which include: - Engineers Architects Building Officials Joint Committee • leveraging our relationship with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Ontario Municipal Administrators Association (MMAH) to secure results that address Municipal Management Accreditation Action members’ concerns [IS4.1]; Team

• developing a program to mobilize subject matter expertise within the membership Education: [IS4.2]; - George Brown College School of Architectural Studies Program Advisory Committee • enhancing relationships/partnerships with CBOs/CBO groups [IS4.3]; and Our progress on achieving this goal through such involvement not only recognizes the progressively expanding • pursuing opportunities to collaborate with role of Ontario’s Building Officials, but also demonstrates industry/professional associations [IS4.4]. OBOA’s commitment to ensuring a safer and a more sustainable and accessible Ontario, while advancing the Build- Our progress on achieving this goal has involved represen- ing Official profession. [OBOA 2012+ vision statement: tation and participation on various MMAH, Office of the “Ensuring a safer and a more sustainable and accessible Ontario Fire Marshall, industry/professional associations, Ontario by advancing the building official profession”.] and education sector task forces, panels, committees, and boards. Examples of this involvement include:

2 | Ontario Building Officials Association Further, our work toward achieving this goal reinforces Government Relations has long been, and will continue to

OBOA’s mission to support the profession in ensuring a be a core activity for OBOA. We intend to continue building PRESIDENT safer and a more sustainable and accessible Ontario by on the close relationship we have established with the Min- working with industry partners and providing a voice to istry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and other industry policymakers. [OBOA 2012+ mission statement: “OBOA stakeholders and partners to ensure we provide an even supports Ontario building officials in ensuring a safer and more active voice to government on building regulatory is- a more sustainable and accessible Ontario by delivering sues and professional and educational related matters. training and certification, promoting uniform code application, working with industry partners, providing a voice to Respectfully submitted, policymakers, and advancing the profession”.] Leo J. Cusumano OBOA President

th Have you REGISTERED as a DELEGATE? 56 Annual Meeting Have you REGISTERED your COMPANION? & Training Sessions Have you REGISTERED for GOLF? NOTE: Shuttle buses will run between Conference Sudbury, Ontario Hotel (Holiday Inn) & overflow hotels Eg.Hampton Sun. Sept. 9th to Wed. Sept. 12th 2012 Inn, Homewood Suites & Travelodge.

SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 3 Direct IT Land Manager Software for Building Services

• Built For Ontario • Permit Application Kiosk • Bill 124 Support • Mobile Inspections • Permits • Designed for Small • Orders and Medium Sized Municipalities • By-Law Enforcement • Affordable Monthly Pricing

For more details, contact: Jim Boyer, Direct IT (905) 833-3922 ext. 2103 [email protected] or visit www.directit.ca

Practical solutions you can afford

Direct IT • 26 Doctors Lane, King City, Ontario L7B 1G2

Direct IT - OBOA Journal Ad.indd1 1 11/17/06 3:43:14 PM

Delegate Passport Prize Trip for 2 to Las Vegas sponsored by IPEX (Mike Speziale)

4 | Ontario Building Officials Association LEGAL CORNER SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 5 “… 5. Economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality. of persons. and well-being 6. Health, safety … of persons and property, 8. Protection including consumer protection. …” , have some other authorities of a regulatory nature , have some other authorities of a regulatory 4 FORMER MUNICIPAL ROLE IN THE REGULA- TION OF ENERGY PROJECTS Many energy projects would meet the definition of “building” in the Building Code 1992 Act, and would also be - or a “use of land” as contem considered “development” generating (e.g. hydro-electric plated by the Planning Act ethanol plants, wind stations, gas-fired generating stations, con- require therefore would projects These etc.). turbines, other regulatory by- formance to municipal planning and permit in con- laws and enactments, as well as a building and the Buildingformance with the Ontario Building Code Act the Planning under 1992 example, Code Act, . For energy projects would have to conform to Official Plans, V under Part zoning by-laws and related by-laws enacted ; receive site plan approval pursuant to of the Planning Act ; section 41 of the Planning Act if required, obtain a minor Act; and con- variance under section 45 of the Planning pursuant to the form to whatever conditions are attached VI of set out in Part subdivision and consent authorities as . the Planning Act the Municipal Act, In addition, municipalities, through 2001 which which could be applied to energy projects. The authority 2001set out in subsection 10(2) of the Municipal Act, , which could be of interest if regulating energy projects include: could theoreti- specific powers that are also a few There in- cally apply to regulate energy developments. These clude: section 28 relating to the regulation or prohibition of public nuisances, and section 129 relating to the ability to regulate noise and vibration by by-law and section 129 dust permits a municipality to regulate or prohibit odour, and outdoor illumination. energy projects”, what energy is projects”, a “renewable energy project” and whether there has been any regulatory jurisdiction left for of role the on touch briefly shall then We municipalities. ap- Official, what is and now what is not the Chief Building plicable law as it relates to renewable energy projects and Officials should deal with this issue. how Chief Building , it 2 , the change brought , the change 3 The Green Energy Act, Green Energy Act, The Christopher J. Williams, Christopher J. Williams, Aird & Berlis LLP Planning Act , enacted in the spring 2009, has taken away tradi- 1 LEGAL CORNERLEGAL This article will provide some background and context by context and article will provide some background This the traditional municipal regulatory role of energy exploring projects through the can be assumed that Chief Building Officials will be asked regu- to municipalities by attempts whether determine to late or prohibit renewable energy projects constitute “applicable law”, whether the project in pro- the whether question project”, energy “renewable a of meets definition the vincially imposed conditions have been met, and whether your municipal Councils will understand the independent role that Chief Building Officials are required to take, even when dealing with highly unpopular structures in their community. INTRODUCTION Municipal Board, As evidenced by appeals to the Ontario of prohibitory by- Court applications, and the enactment is a growing conflict laws by various municipalities, there provincially sanc- between municipal governments and projects. energy renewable tioned 2009 July 27, 2012 July 27, CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIALS AND AND OFFICIALS BUILDING CHIEF PROJECTS ENERGY RENEWABLE As the custodians of building permits and the enforcers of As the custodians of building permits the Building Code and the Building Code 1992 Act, tional planning authority for many types of energy projects which meet the definition of a “renewable energy project”. certain While types of energy projects were previously im- the Green En- mune from municipal planning regulation, 2009ergy Act, the that fact the home brought graphically willing to permit prohibition or reg- was no longer Province level. municipal the at projects energy renewable of ulation 2009 the Green Energy Act, , the various Unfortunately, and the regulations pieces of legislation that it amended led to confusion as to what consti- spun off it have which municipal any, if what, and project energy renewable a tutes regulatory role there is left. by the Green Energy Act, 2009 as regards to “renewable 1 Green Energy Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, A. c. 12, Sched. 2 Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23. 3 Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. 4 Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25. LEGAL CORNER 1998 into thePlanningAct Act,). The Ontario EnergyBoard put simply not was this why (query from thePlanningAct transmission distributionfacilitiesthatexisted in1999 permanent grandfatheringforallelectricalgeneratingand Court inUnionGasLtd.v. Dawn(Township) tion supersedesallmunicipalby-lawsandotherActs.The regulatory approval process for renewable energy projects energy renewable for process approval regulatory able energy. Italsosoughttostreamlineandfacilitatethe tario tobealeadingnationinthegenerationofrenew - jobs, encouraging energy conservation and positioning On- including thecreationofmorethan50,000“greencollar” objectives, of number a had It 2009. 14, May on Assent lowing afast-tracked legislativeprocess,receivedRoyal introduced for first reading in and fol- February of 2009 The ACT, ENERGY 2009 GREEN THE 8 Union GasLtd.v. Dawn (Township) (1977), 15O.R.(2d)722, 2 c.15,Sched. B. S.O.1998, 7 OntarioEnergyBoardAct,1998, c.15,Sched. A. S.O.1998, 6 ElectricityAct,1998, c.E.18. 5 EnvironmentalAssessmentAct,R.S.O. 1990, ment AssessmentAct oftheEnviron- energy undertakingsapprovedunderPart II addition, section62.0.1ofthePlanningAct exempted all most, ifnotall,Ontariohydropowergenerationfacilities.In the ning Act exempted all Hydro One projects approved under into effect. For example, subsection62(1)ofthePlan- differently, came evenbeforetheGreenEnergyAct, 2009 little a treated been had however, projects, energy Some thePlanningAct. andtheMunicipalAct,in both 2001 comprehensive municipalregulationandcontrolsetout to subject were sorts many of projects energy Therefore, . Energy Act, 2009 these from exemptions butfromthechanges not effected bytheGreen flows controversy current The projects. planning andregulatorycontroloverenergygeneration eral importantexemptions, therewastypicalmunicipal withsev- Therefore, priortotheGreenEnergyAct, 2009 ample, section 46.1 oftheElectricityAct, 1998 ample, section46.1 say theleast)foundinotherpiecesoflegislation.For ex- projects from nated by regulation. Restrictions or exemptions for energy generating facilityintheTownship ofKing,hasbeendesig- electrical gas-fired however,a project one Only private. or public whether province the in sort any of project energy in effect. This broadexemption authoritycouldapplytoany regulation undersubsection70(h) ofthePlanningAct was Board Act Board the to subject facilities transmission and absolutely nomunicipalplanningcontrolovergaspipeline determined thatsuch aprovisionmeantthattherewas 6 |OntarioBuilding Officials Association M.P.L.R. 23,76 D.L.R.(3d)613(Div. Ct.). Environmental AssessmentAct. These wouldinvolve was Green EnergyandEconomyAct, 2009 LEGAL CORNER CONT'D LEGAL CORNER 7 in section128.1 provides that that Act 9 . Planning Act controlarealso(confusinglyto 5 orexempted underthatActifa Ontario Energy and regula- 8 6 in1977 provides A renewableenergygenerationfacilityisdefinedas: Concurrently, anewpartisaddedtotheEnvironmental projects. newable energygeneratingfacilitiesorrenewable zoning andminorvarianceorderspreviouslyappliedtore - defines arenewableenergyprojectas: ous otherpiecesoflegislation,includingthePlanningAct, the by forward put definition The project”. energy “renewable carvesoutanewclassoflanduse, Energy Act, 2009 through several ministries and municipalities. The Green which wasthendividedbetweentheOntariogovernment ning and Development Act, 1994 ning andDevelopment plies andneitherdoordersmadeundertheOntario Plan - As well,theCityofToronto siteplanauthoritynolongerap- application torenewableenergyprojects. projects. Firstly, the land useregulatoryscheme forsuch renewableenergy The Regard, therefore,mustalsobehadtoregulations. A renewableenergysourceisthendefinedas: 13 Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994, S.O. 1994, c.23,Sched. A. S.O.1994, 13 OntarioPlanningandDevelopmentAct, 1994, s.1(1). 12 GreenEnergyAct,2009, c.15,Sched. A,s.2(1). S.O.1998, 11 Ibid.;ElectricityAct,1998, s.1(1). 10 GreenEnergyAct,2009, 9 OntarioEnergyBoardAct,R.S.O.1970, c.312. which founditswayintovari- Green EnergyAct, 2009 establishesanentirelynew Green Energy Act, 2009 of thisdefinition;” prescribed byregulationforthepurposes ated wastedisposalsite,unlessthesiteis regulation, butdoesnotincludeanassoci- and technologies asmaybeprescribedby sociated orancillaryequipment,systems prescribed byregulationandincludesas- and thatmeetssuch criteriaasmaybe electricity fromarenewableenergysource “… agenerationfacilitythatgenerates energy generationfacility;” eration, changing orretiringofarenewable “… theconstruction,installation,use,op- ergy source;” prescribed bytheregulationsforthaten- source satisfiessuch criteriaasmaybe by theregulations,butonlyifenergy other energysourcesasmaybeprescribed geothermal energy, tidalforcesandsuch biomass, biogas,biofuel,solarenergy, natural processesandincludeswind,water, “… anenergysourcethatisrenewedby Planning Act isamendedtoremoveits 12 11 10 13

regardingministerial LEGAL CORNER Environmental Pro- SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 7 . Notably, all of these planning . Notably, 17 authorities have been removed from the regulation of renewable energy projects. Significantly, article 1.4.1.3 was amended to add section of 47.3 the , tection Act with respect to the requirement for renewable energy approvals. It appears therefore that with respect to a renewable energy project, if a permit has been issued 17 City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, A. c. 11, Sched. 17 City of Toronto As noted, most renewable energy projects would require a Building Official building permit to be issued by the Chief pursuant to section 8 of the Building Code 1992 Act, . As is well known, subsection 8(2) sets out the prerequisites met, there is no dis- (6) for a building permit and if they are Official to not issue cretion on the part of the Chief Building is section 8(2)(a) the permit. Of interest in this discussion which states that the proposed renewable energy project, any other appli- building or structure must not contravene “other what constituted controversy over The cable law. enactment of article applicable law” was ended with the 1.4.1.3 of the 1997 Ontario Building Code which specifi- in found now law” “applicable of list the enumerated cally article 1.4.1.3 of the Building Code. 1.4.1.3 While article not in altogether out set definition the that appears it certain, Applicable law includes, amongst many other is exhaustive. things, development plans under the Ontario Planning and Development 1994 Act, , zoning and related by-laws made , site plan approval under section under the Planning Act , by-laws and other enactments pur- 41 of the Planning Act suant to the development permit regulation under the Plan- the in out set provisions approval plan site and , Act ning 2006 Act, City of Toronto APPLICABLE LAW, RENEWABLEAPPLICABLE LAW, ENERGY PROJECTS AND THE ROLE OF THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL or operation. The regulation that was enacted pursuant to was enacted pursuant regulation that The or operation. generation and geothermal designates solar this section, not wind. facilities but some municipal is an argument that there remains There above-referencedrole, relying on the authorities, to deal particu- in projects, energy renewable of types certain with generally become of course have These lar wind power. the most controversial of renewable energy projects. An the remains that depending upon important issue, however, whether of regulation (e.g. a de facto prohibition), extent fall under section 14 of the Municipal they would in fact 2001Pro- Act, with the Environmental as being in conflict energy approvals. Re- regime for renewable tection Act test the limits some municipalities have decided to cently, regulate or in some cases and have enacted by-laws which de facto prohibit wind farms. so 15 Municipal Act, 2001Municipal Act, . Prohibiting what other levels Prohibiting 16 . The . The Act Environmental Protection - Energy) creat (Renewable being V.0.1 14 and 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) v. Société Canada Ltée (Spraytech, d'arrosage) v. and 114957 2001 SCC 40, [2001] 2 SCR 241. Hudson (Town), ing a new one stop approval regime for renewable energy regime for renewable one stop approval ing a new projects exclusively through the Ministry of the ment. Environ- It exempts renewable energy projects from all oth- and other Act Protection er areas of the Environmental Resources Act as the Ontario Water legislation such 14 Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990,14 Environmental Protection c. E.19. Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.40.15 Ontario Water O.R. (3d) 357; (City) (2005), 75 Toronto Canada v. See Croplife 16 As noted above, there are some specific and some general apply to could which powers available regulatory municipal the under projects energy renewable no of are municipal by-laws that provides 14 section While regulations, Provincial legislation, if they conflict with effect licences or approvals, the concept of conflict has to date been narrowly applied by the Courts where the Courts believed that the municipalities were attempting to regulate and safety and health public of interest the in prohibit, or environmental protection. IS THERE ANY MUNICIPAL ROLE LEFT? Protection Act Protection It should be noted, that subsection 5(1) of the Green En- of that subsection 5(1) noted, should be It 2009ergy Act, - allows the Lieutenant Governor in Coun cil, by regulation, to designate renewable energy projects use under regulation municipal any to subject not are which of government had permitted did not, in the Court’s mind, the in permitted did not, had of government necessarily amount to a conflict. that only one single approval is required being of to the section pursuant 47.3 In short, rather than being the primary regulator through In short, rather than being the primary energy un- the land use planning process for renewable relegated to the role dertakings, municipalities have been of commenting agencies with very limited ability to require the regarding a Director decision by of review of a any sort This project. energy renewable the for permit a of issuance down well gone not has municipalities for role truncated projects unwanted and controversial where communities in through the (often wind farms) are proposed and approved . Environmental Protection Act criteria and requirements for such approvals are set in out O. Reg. 521/10. Under the regulation, a (as are other people) and there is are to be consulted municipalities normal ap- process set up. The formal public consultation and Act the Environmental Protection peal process under Bill of Rights is limited for renewable the Environmental energy projects so that a third party disputing a renewable energy project can have a hearing before the Environmen- only if the party is able to establish that tal Appeal Tribunal human to harm serious either cause would undertaking the animal life plant life, health or serious irreversible harm to and natural environment. LEGAL CORNER CONT'D

by a director pursuant to section 47.3 of the Environmen- opposition, including by-laws which would not be included tal Protection Act then the only “applicable law” that the with “applicable law” prohibiting same. The roles and con- Chief Building Official needs to consider is section 47.3. flict between municipal Council and Chief Building Officials The situation is of course different for conditional permits has been explored at length in a series of articles in this as their “applicable law” means any general special Act and magazine by Mr. Longo and myself in 2008 and 2009. A all regulations and by-laws enacted thereto that prohibit Chief Building Official must operate independently of the the proposed use building. will or desires of Council and is to be guided only by the Building Code and the Building Code Act, 1992 in issuing LEGAL CORNERLEGAL Controversy could arise for Chief Building Officials in a permits or otherwise enforcing the provisions of the Build- couple of ways. Firstly, a municipality may enact a by-law ing Code Act, 1992 and the Building Code. The Courts regulating or prohibiting a wind farm development on the have come down very hard on Chief Building Officials, mu- basis of its general Municipal Act, 2001 authority, as set nicipal staff and Councils where it appears that the Chief out above. For a normal building permit, that would not ap- Building Official was influenced into taking a position that pear to be applicable law. However, if a conditional permit was at odds with the requirements of the Building Code were sought, it could be. It is possible as well, that a mu- Act, 1992 or the Building Code. nicipal Council may advance the proposition that the scope of applicable law as it applies to full permits is not entirely exhaustive and that a permit should not be issued. This is WHAT TO DO? tried from time to time. For example, see Simcoe (County) It appears possible that some municipal Councils and their District School Board v. Oro-Medonte (Township).18 Chief Building Officials will be on collision courses regarding the issuance of permits for which certificate or approval Another area of controversy which could be advanced by a has been issued under section 47.3 of the Environmental municipal Council that was opposed to an energy project is Protection Act for a renewable energy project. There may that it did not meet the precise definition of a “renewable be situations where such a project, particularly if it is a wind energy project”. Given the rather complex and convoluted farm, could be on its face prohibited by-laws enacted by definitions (often requiring you to look at different Acts and a municipality pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001. The regulations) could create some confusion. Another inter- role of the Chief Building Official, however, is to be guided esting question is, can a Chief Building Official go behind by what is set out in the Building Code Act, 1992 and a permission or approval issued by a director under section the Building Code. It appears clear that if the certificate 47.3 of the Environmental Protection Act to see that in fact of approval is issued by the Director under section 47.3 of all prerequisites were complied with leading up to the ap- the Environmental Protection Act, there should be no room proval? As well, there could be conditions attached to such for any other municipal regulatory by-law to be considered approval. Is it then up to the Chief Building Official to en- applicable law and so a building permit should be issued. sure that such conditions are properly fulfilled before issu- That may not make your municipal Council happy but it ap- ing a building permit? What if ongoing conditions or terms pears to be the law. of the renewable energy permit, such as noise monitoring, were violated? Could the building permit be revoked? Mr. Christopher Williams and his colleagues, Leo Longo and John Mascarin welcome your input regarding future A Chief Building Official may find itself in the unpopular articles. They can be reached at cwilliams@airdberlis. position of issuing a building permit which conforms to ap- com; [email protected] and jmascarin@airdberlis. plicable law in the face of very express and clear municipal com.

18 Simcoe (County) District School Board v. Oro-Medonte (Town- ship) (2007), 2007 CarswellOnt 6799, 56 M.P.L.R. (4th) 231.

“You have the most important profession that relates to public safety in the world!” There is the appropriate statement that summarizes this statement: We are the Ontario Building Officials Association.

8 | Ontario Building Officials Association MMAH AWARDS

AWARDS AND RECOGNITION AWARDS MMAH MMAH Building & Development Branch wins Partnership/Commu- nity Building Award; Energy Implementation Project Team

From right to left: Deputy Minister William Forward, Heather Black, Honourable Minister of Municipal Af- fairs and Housing Kathleen Wynne, Stephanie Costantino, Cengiz Kahramanoglu, James Douglas, No- elle Richardson (selection committee), Ben Pucci. Ralph Digaetano on the team is absent.

The award recognizes the team responsible for delivering opment Branch staff. The stake holder group was formed new energy requirements of the Building Code which sup- to assist with the transition of the substantial energy con- port public policy goals around energy conservation and servation changes (SB 12). The stake holder group started the needs of the building sector. Energy Implementation to meet in-advance of the January 1, 2012 effective date. Project Team members worked in close partnership with In fact, the stake holder group continues to monitor the in- the sector to identify and respond to implementation is- dustry issues that arise with these changes and has revised sues, and prepare materials that have helped ensure that and created new documents to assist with the implementa- builders, designers and enforcement officials have the cation. pacity to apply the new requirements. Team members have gone above and beyond the call of duty to provide a supe- For all the up to date documents and releases on energy rior level of customer service and ensure the success of an conservation, members are encouraged to continue visiting important government initiative. the OBOA website @ www.oboa.on.ca.

The implementation of new energy conservation code requirements included the creation of an industry stake hold- OBOA PROVINCIAL OFFICE er group. The industry group included membership of four 200 Marycroft Ave. Unit 8, stake holders; Ontario Building Officials Association, Large Woodbridge, Ontario L4L 5X4 Municipality Chief Building Officials Association, Ontario Home Builders Association and MMAH Building & Devel- (905) 264-1662 www.oboa.on.ca

SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 9 STUDENT SPONSOR learning andapplicationof the BuildingCodeisagood students gainedanappreciationincodeknowledge.The excelling in BuildingCodeknowledgewhiletheremaining Officials. Four studentswererecognizedand rewardedfor of codeknowledge and increasedawarenessofBuilding development and learning supporting is banquet awards One ofthebenefitsparticipatingineventssuch asthe career. fessionals, construction companies and a building official graduates securingfull-timeemploymentwithdesignpro - offers a 3 year diploma program for students and supports Conestoga Collegeisonepost-secondaryinstitutionthat excellence. dents that demonstrated a high proficiency inbuilding code promote awareness.Four awardswerepresentedtostu- andto OBOA on behalfoflocalbuildingofficialsandthe attending the banquet was to present building code awards of purpose main The April. in Banquet Awards 2012 ogy tended theArchitecture ConstructionEngineeringTechnol- Public Awareness. Insupport ofthesetwodirectives,Iat- Strategic Priorities includingGovernmentRelationsand StrategicPlan2012+includesanumberof The OBOA 10 |OntarioBuilding Officials Association STUDENT SPONSOR Justin Massecar(1styear),JimMcCabe,JarrisJantzi(2ndyear).AbsentNathanHeyeryear) From lefttoright:SeanCook;Peter FinnBuildingCodeExcellenceAward (3rdyear),GlenGood, CHAPTER CHAPTER Conestoga College,2012Awards Banquet Wellington Waterloo Chapters) (Halton, GrandErie,Niagara& Region D Mike Seiling same student. tunity asotherconstructionsectorsattempttoattractthe time and money toraise awareness of this career oppor- continuestoinvest OBOA municipal buildingofficial. The recruitment ofstudentstotheopportunityafull-time and awareness the to relates benefit second The site. job the road; applying for building permits and/or working on a investment asthisawarenesswillbenefitthestudentdown The Start youDeserve The Start ® Internship Program… Internship The OBOA rsmbuildingconsultants.com

PLANS EXAMINATION Need more resources for your plans review team? We can help!

Code compliance review and preparation of de ciency letters. Technically experienced in all quali cation categories. Hire us for a single project or on an ongoing basis. We service all of Ontario.

GERALD MOORE, CRBO, CBCO, AScT Building Code Specialist 519.496.1434 EMAIL [email protected]

SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 11 Fullport Backwater Valve • Clear Top for easy visual inspection and cleaning • Fullport (Normally-open) Non-Flow Restricting • No problems with Blockages • Gate closes automatically when sewer starts to backup • Cleaning-rod does not destroy the gate when feeding or retrieving cable • Normally-open design allows the free circulation of air throughout the plumbing system to the municipal sewer • Award-winning technology Extendible Adapt-A-Valve™ • Eliminates Manhole or Expensive Vaults • Lightest gate in the industry offers • Allows easy ground level access at any depths next-to-no fl ow-restriction • Removable seat and gate (Cassette) • Double-hinge gate design keeps allows full servicing of unit gate aligned to seat • Refl ective sticker in body serves as • O-ring seal guide for ease of cassette insertion • For SDR Pipe use SDR adapters • Cassette locks in body 4” Extendible Adapt-A-Valve™ Inspecton Chamber • The cassette & receiver system is integrated into the inspection chamber. • This system allows the use of removable & re-insertable pressure test gate, normally opened or normally closed cassette for backfl ow prevention. • Cassettes are easily installed or removed from any depth with the extension handle eliminating the need for special tooling. • The cassette features a revolutionary light weight gate that offers next-to-no fl ow restrictions.The double hinged gate design keeps the backfl ow gate aligned for a perfect O-ring seal. www.backwatervalve.com Toll free 1-877-734-8691 U PDATE SEPT 2012 | ISSUE13 95 | Over yet? Not quite. appealed the decision to the Su- Martin Grove Properties May 12, 2012, The preme Court of Canada. On Thursday Martin Grove’s Leave Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Ontario Court of Ap- means The to Appeal application. That peal decision stands. Now its over. Allen Ted Supervising Prosecutor Region of York [email protected] article does not constitute legal advice, is the opinion This those of the Region of and does not reflect of the author, York. Now it’s over. Properties Martin Grove v. Update on York when you think Same thing, just it isn’t over. it is over, Court of Justice was the matter where the Ontario This of Court Ontario the level and Peace the of the Justice at in level, ruled that the limitation period Justice at the Judge the Building Code Act (BCA)comply. applied to orders to of Appeal heard On November 10, 2011 the Ontario Court Properties Grove Martin v. of York Municipality the Regional the two of decision and reversed the appeal matter, Ltd. lower courts. are irrelevant to the determina- decision says orders The comply to order an once and period, limitation the of tion one year from the has been issued, the municipality has with, to lay the date that the order has not been complied greater than one year since the even if it has been charge, actual offence. On May 24, 2012 The Supreme Court of Canada refused Court of Canada Supreme 2012 The On May 24, (Case City of Guelph decision the Davis v. to appeal Leave # 34637), which means the stands. Court of Appeal decision "THE STEP ABOVE!" Ted Allen Ted Supervising Prosecutor Region of York [email protected] CBCO Official Certified Building Code U PDATE Over yet? Not quite. the Supreme (Davis) appealed this decision to defence The means Davis had to “Seek leave to Court of Canada. This means the Judge must review the particu- appeal” which lar circumstances of the case and determine if it is in the public interest, or for the due administration of justice, that leave be granted to proceed to the Supreme Court of Can- ada so as to have the appeal heard. The City of Guelph appealed the Judges decision and the City of Guelph appealed The rul- courts lower the reversed Ontario for Appeal of Court was no bias regarding the city em- meant there ings, which swim- a illegally, property the not enter did city the ployee, ming pool is not a “dwelling” and that the Building Code Act municipal- the require to authority Judge the give not does ity to share costs. Just when you think it is over, it isn’t over. it isn’t over. Just when you think it is over, the issue where the Superior Court Davis matter was The the regarding bias was that there determined Justice of standing water bylaw city official who was dealing with a that the city entered the and a property standards bylaw, that a swim- property illegally to complete an inspection, that costs were to be shared and ming pool is a “dwelling”, regarding the dam- by the homeowner and the municipality age found concerning the pool. Update on Davis v. City of Guelph – Update on Davis v. Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada York v. Martin Grove Properties - Grove Properties Martin v. York Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Update on Two Matters; Update on Two Guelph - City of Davis v. Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. OAA

In 2006, Architecture 2030 issued the American Institute of Architects (AIA) 2030 Challenge Education Program, a measured and achievable strategy to dramatically reduce global building sector energy consumption and GHG emissions by the year 2030. OAA Sheena Sharp, Architect President, OAA These targets may be accomplished by implementing innovative sustainable design strategies, generating on-site renewable power and/or purchasing (20% maximum) renewable energy and/or certified renewable energy credits. The 2030 Challenge and 2030 Challenge Education Program The AIA 2030 Challenge Education Program helps professionals create buildings that meet the energy efficiency In an effort to transform the global building sector from the goals of the 2030 Challenge. Ten 4-hour sessions offer major consumer of fossil fuels and contributor to green- strategies to reach 60% reduction in fossil fuel GHG emis- house gas (GHG) emissions to a central part of the so- sions, giving design professionals the knowledge and le- lution to the energy and climate change crisis, the 2030 verage to create next-generation, super-efficient buildings Challenge has been endorsed by the Ontario Association – and providing firms and individuals with the skills that of Architects (OAA) and Architecture Canada/RAIC as will set them apart in the marketplace. The program also part of its commitment to promote sustainable design as a includes the AIA’s 50to50 program: Techniques for carbon recognizable skill of its members and other Canadian orga- and energy reduction in buildings; 50 strategies toward 50 nizations within the design and construction sector, such as percent fossil fuel reduction in buildings. the Ontario Building Officials Association (OBOA). Consequently, the OAA is currently negotiating a contract It was in 2009 that the OAA’s Council approved a motion with Architecture 2030 to adopt and adapt the 2030 Chal- to adopt and advocate the 2030 Challenge, which now lenge Education Program to offer it as one of the Con- coincides with the first item of the mandate of the OAA’s tinuing Education options. The OAA also intends to offer Sustainable Built Environment Committee (SBEC) – to the program to other organizations within the design and advance the principles and goals of sustainable built envi- construction sector, including the OBOA ronments by expanding and developing the membership’s The AIA 2030 Challenge Education Program is a compre- knowledge, skills and understanding of sustainable design hensive curriculum developed by expert architects and en- matters. gineers. While the OAA is adopting and adapting the pro- The 2030 Challenge was created in the U.S. by Architec- gram, and although the outlines of the sessions, the core of ture 2030, an independent, non-profit, non-partisan re- the curriculum package (created in the U.S.) already exist, search organization, and was established in response to the information and organization of the program will largely the energy and global-warming crisis in 2002. Its mission stay the same. Smaller nuances in Canadian and Ontario’s is to transform the global building sector from the major cultures, codes, measurement systems and technical sys- consumer of fossil fuels and contributor to GHG emissions tems, will need to be accounted for. to a central part of the solution to the energy and climate Notably, the program will firstly offer the opportunity for fa- change crisis. miliarizing the design and construction industry with con- Specifically, the 2030 Challenge calls on the global archi- temporary information on sustainability, and its assump- tecture and building community to adopt specific targets: tions and methods toward its attainment. Secondly, it will All new buildings, developments and major renovations also offer the opportunity for lively interchange – question- shall be designed to meet a fossil fuel, GHG-emitting, en- ing and debating those assumptions and methods and ergy consumption performance standard of 60% below the what they accomplish. regional average (or country average) for that building type. After all, the concept of sustainability, its adherents and At a minimum, an equal amount of existing building area practitioners are – as well they should be – no less vulner- shall be renovated annually to meet the same performance able to challenges to their assumptions and methods of im- standards. plementation. The rapid morphing of sustainability from rel-

14 | Ontario Building Officials Association OAA SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 15 4 FFICE L4L 5X

.oboa.on.ca view of what is currently on the public’s mind.” is currently on view of what to address a unified program and promoting By adopting the design and and resource shortage, climate change national as a itself position can better industry construction the program energy issues. Offering leader on climate and organizations and related of the OAA helps the members through the as possible, groping blindly to avoid, as much – concepts, assumptions common – and populist and and leverage of sustainability, methods of implementation and opportunities for policy changes reliable and effective influence. CIAL O www oodbridge, Ontario

W IN 662 e. Unit 8, OV Av 4-1 26 PR ) Marycroft 200 905 ( OA OB In his fascinating book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel and Slow, Fast book,fascinating In his Thinking, mentioned topics pop- cautions us: “Frequently Kahneman awareness. away from as others slip mind even ulate the by assess the relative importance of issues tend to People memory – and they are retrieved from the ease with which coverage in the of by the extent this is largely determined In Design and Construction media). media (including the to their to report corresponds choose turn, what the media ative obscurity to a populist notion, whether due to climate notion, whether due to a populist ative obscurity resource shortages, or artificially-created or natural change e.g. OPEC’s 1973 oil embargo – in itself, say?) positive balanced skepticism. rational and (shall we calls for alert, SUDBURY

SUDBURY

MESSAGE FROM THE MAYOR

As Mayor of the City of Greater Sudbury, I am pleased to welcome delegates from across the province to the Ontario Building Officials Association from Sept. 9 to Sept. 12.

I would like to extend the warmest of welcomes to all of our visitors to our beautiful community. T Building officials play a crucial role in every municipality. Greater Sudbury is in the midst of a remarkable development boom right now and local building officials are on the front lines. We are indebted to these dedicated men and women for the incredible work they do.

This weekÕ s sessions will be an excellent opportunity for you to network with officials from across the province, attend informative seminars and continue to build on the professionalism for which the OBOA is known.

Conference organizers have also put together an exciting list of activities in the community for you to enjoy. If your busy schedule allows, please take some time to sign up for them and get to know our community better.

On behalf of City Council and the City of Greater Sudbury, I hope your stay in our community is safe and productive.

Yours sincerely,

Marianne Matichuk Mayor

16 | Ontario Building Officials Association SUDBURY SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 17 2012 AMTS

been working hard to provide some unique northern flavor to the Silent Auction items and of course the prizes for the Games of Skill Contest Fundraiser.

However, the AMTS is not all about having fun, golfing and socializing. The Technical Program Committee Chair, Jason

2012 AMTS Guido Mazza, 2012 AMTS Radley, has produced an interesting and impactful set of Host Committee Chair topics and industry leading presenters sure to provide you with a wealth of information to assist us in our professional growth. Further, Jason’s group, thanks to Ron Kolbe and The 56th Annual Meeting and Training Sessions in the the Ministry, are providing some new and unique learning City of Greater Sudbury have finally arrived. All Commit- opportunities for the OBOA Membership at this AMTS, as tee Chairs have displayed amazing organization skills com- part of a new Technical Sessions format. bined with some unique and imaginative initiatives that will ensure your experience will be “Worth Every Nickel”. We Now returning to the “Fun” aspect, Entertainment Com- cannot wait to show you this great northern City and the mittee Chair, Angela Lanteigne, with her “Camp Northern unique lifestyle it provides to us who live here and those Lights” Theme Night is ready to provide you fun, laughter visiting. and northern music, not just that night but all through the event ably assisted by Markku Makitalo, our “Hospitality” The City of Greater Sudbury not only boasts the largest Chair with Andre Guillot, our Transportation Chair, ensuring land area of any municipality in the Province of Ontario, but shuttle buses get you safe and sound between the hotels also contains over 330 fresh water lakes, more lakes than to the conference site; check the OBOA website for details. any other municipality in Canada. Angela just wants to remind you that camp attire should be The Sponsorship Committee would like to thank all the or- as comfortable as possible. Jeans, flip-flops, best fishing ganizations and municipalities who have generously pro- hat (mosquito netting is a definite plus), hiking boots, plaid vided assistance to us in helping finance our event so as to hunting jacket (a.k.a. Sudbury dinner jacket), water wings, provide you with a unique northern experience. At the writ- sunglasses, Bermuda shorts, etc., however remember you ing of this article, Committee Members continue to canvas will be photographed and pictures are forever! Also don’t for the Chapter Chair Challenge to offer Cambrian College forget Angela’s theme nite mantra “What happens at Camp Students the opportunity to attend our great conference, a usually ends up on facebook ‘cause this sure ain’t Vegas unique opportunity for us as an organization to help moti- Baby!”. vate a new generation of Building Officials to our profession. Last but not least, our Companion Program Chair, Meredith Armstrong, from our Sudbury Tourism group is promising a The Golf Committee, led by Chair Ed Picco, has crafted unique northern experience such as on the Science North an event around the magnificent Timberwolf Golf Course “Cortina” cruise boat around one of Sudbury’s landmark which was professionally designed by world renowned golf natural jewels, Ramsey Lake situated in the heart of our course architect, Thomas McBroom, and has hosted many City. New to this year’s program we will be providing a sep- prestigious events including the 2003 Canadian PGA’s Se- arate companion wine and cheese Ice Breaker from 7:00 niors’ Championship. Further, Ed’s group has worked with p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday Night, with games and prizes to our Breast Cancer Chair, Corrie-Jo Delwo, to create some assist us in getting to know you and each other. unique opportunities to assist us in the Breast Cancer fundraiser and allow you to snag some great prizes. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation and heartfelt thanks to all the volunteers that have worked tirelessly over Speaking of the Breast Cancer Committee, Corrie-Jo and the last year to strive to make your experience with us a her group have again continued the calendar initiative of memorable one. A special thanks to my Co-Chair for this the London Conference with the generous assistance of event, Sherri Budgell, for her amazing organizational skills Barbara Rusan-Cronmiller. Further, the Committee has

18 | Ontario Building Officials Association and support, especially on the B.F.’s on my “To Do List”. If to return again. We know that once we meet you in Sud-

you see them during the course of your stay with their host bury, our northern hospitality as well as all the hard work 2012 AMTS committee paraphernalia, please give them a well deserved invested by our volunteers on the various events will prove thank you because we could not have done it without them. it to be “Worth Every Nickel”.

The 56th AMTS is shaping up to be a great one. We hope Look forward to seeing you! to show you a unique northern city with its world-renowned 2012 Host Committee Chair, Guido Mazza attractions, urban comforts, natural beauty and four season outdoor adventure possibilities that will whet your appetite

OBOA AMTS 2012 City of Greater Sudbury Greetings and Best Wishes from the President doubt further our knowledge and expertise, while the social activities are certain to foster relationships. On behalf of the OBOA Board of Directors and Leader- ship Team, I am delighted to offer greetings and best City of Greater Sudbury Mayor Marianne Matichuk, wishes to all delegates, companions, special guests, Members of Council, and the City’s Leadership Team exhibitors and sponsors attending this year’s Annual are to be commended for supporting the OBOA 2012 Meeting & Training Sessions in the City of Greater AMTS. On behalf of all those attending, we greatly look Sudbury. forward to the opportunity of visiting and learning more about Greater Sudbury. This year’s AMTS should prove to be another great success. The efforts of the host committee, lead by Chair On behalf of the OBOA Leadership Team, please ac- Guido Mazza, OBOA CAO Ron Kolbe, and other vol- cept our best wishes for a memorable and successful unteers are to be commended. I would also like to ac- conference - we look forward to seeing you all! knowledge MMAH Building and Development Branch Director Brenda Lewis and her staff for their participa- Yours sincerely, tion and valuable contribution to this year’s technical Leo J. Cusumano programs. OBOA President

The AMTS is an excellent opportunity to exchange ideas and information. The technical programs will no

2012 AMTS THEME NIGHT

Derek Edwards is proof positive that you can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy. His award-winning rural humor has made him the hottest comedy property in Canada. Identifying himself with the ordinary working guy, Derek Edward's comedic gift is making the ordinary extraordinary. As well as performing live to audiences from coast to coast, including the International Just for Laughs Festival in Montreal and the Just for Laughs Canadian Comedy Tour, Derek is currently developing a movie script based on a Vegas-inspired mélange of absurdity (Magnum Opus).

SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 19 2012 AMTS EXHIBITORS 2012 EXHIBITORS

20 | Ontario Building Officials Association 2012 EXHIBITORS SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 21 2012 AMTS EXHIBITORS CONT'D 2012 EXHIBITORS

22 | Ontario Building Officials Association 2012 EXHIBITORS SEPT 2012 | ISSUE23 95 | We are the Ontario Ontario are the We Officials Association. Building Engineers and others, our Like Architects, and trained members are dedicated for the ensuring public safety professionals, in Ontario. work, learn and play people who live, Communities. Building Knowledge. Growing ® Holiday Inn - Regent St. Sudbury, Ont. Holiday Inn - Regent St. Sudbury, Conference Hotel Conference MARK BOYD

Footings and Columns and Beams, Oh my! By Mark Boyd, P.Eng.

Top 4 Reasons You Should Read This Article: is that the 1.5KPa (31psf) in A-Table 9.23.4.3 is a typo – it 1. The steel beam spans in Table 9.23.4.3 are should be 0.5KPa (10psf). 1.5KPa (31psf) just seems ri- MARK BOYD part of a long-standing conspiracy diculous to me. More on this later.

2. The column footing sizes in Table 9.15.3.4 Next conundrum – what is the correct live load to use for are fraught with danger Part 9 floors? Well, there certainly is a variety to choose from: 3. Standard adjustable steel columns sold by virtually every lumber yard are basically use- 1.4KPa (30psf) for bedrooms (Table 4.1.5.3) less 1.9KPa (40psf) for stairs and other areas 4. A bit of controversy can be very educational (Table 4.1.5.3) 2.4KPa (50psf) maximum, as noted for: Follow the Yellow Brick Road Sometimes as a structural engineer using Part 9, I feel like Structural Design Requirements and Applica- Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz; torn away from Kansas and tion Limitations (9.4.1.1.(2)) dropped in a strange world where things don’t make sense. Although some things seem familiar, and we appear to be Footings (9.15.3.3.(1)(c)) speaking the same language, I become confused and dis- Columns (9.17.1.1.(1)(a)(ii)) oriented. I just want to get back home where the laws of physics and engineering actually apply. According to A-Table 9.23.4.3, the correct live load for single storey homes is 1.9KPa. Well, Recently, I had occasion to double check a steel floor beam alrighty then, let’s go with that. in Table 9.23.4.3. OK, so the first thing the engineer has to do is determine the loads on the beam; dead loads, live loads, etc. Now here’s a challenge: I dare you to show me I like simple. Let’s start with simple one spot in the OBC where it clearly states without contra- diction, what the dead load is supposed to be on a conven- Example 1: tional Part 9 floor. I double dare you. I can’t find it anywhere The drawing below is a plan examiner’s dream -- the per- in Volume 1. Volume 2 states the following: fect Part 9 one storey house.

A-9.15.2.4.(1) Preserved Wood Foundations – Design Assumptions: Dead Load = 0.47KPa (10psf)

A-Table 9.23.4.3 Spans for Steel Beams: Dead Load = 1.5KPa (31psf)

A-Table 9.23.4.4 Concrete Topping: Dead Load = 0.5KPa (10psf) without concrete but 1.3KPa (27psf) with concrete topping

Apparently floors with concrete topping (A-9.23.4.4) weigh less than floors without (A- Table 9.23.4.3)? Who knew? I love Oz! So what’s a poor engineer to do? Well, the I-joist industry favours a 10psf dead load (let’s say 0.5KPa), so I decided to run with that. My theory (yet to be confirmed, I must add)

24 | Ontario Building Officials Association MARK BOYD SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 25 What did I find out about the beams for two storeys? 9.23.4.3 I didn’t even bother to look Frankly, at them. Table (30psf) 1.4KPa is floor second the on load live the assumes How realistic because all the rooms upstairs are bedrooms. are second floor bathrooms, laun- is that, anymore? There dry rooms, offices, media rooms and oh yeah, stairs. Is it still reasonable to assume the second floor has less load- ing simply because there are some bedrooms? Remember they are waterbeds? Just like everything else from the 70’s, too. attempting a comeback, are point Call from a client: “There loads on the beam…………..” renovation scenario. Homeowner wants to open up Typical a load-bearing wall between the first and second floor re- sulting in point loads on the basement steel beam (not over a column, of course). Designer says the original basement beam is adequate, but not over-sized, under even the Code, without considering the point loads. Without current hearing the rest of the information I can tell him with 99% Time to seek an audience with the Wizard to seek an Time I e-mailed the Min- and excitement, of fear a mixture With with my find- and Housing (MAH) istry of Municipal Affairs in a couple of hours I received a reply (read a ings. Within are optional); – flames for effect deep, frightening voice 9 that do not withstand are many elements in Part “There As it turned out, MAH was al- 4”. the scrutiny afforded Part na- provincial and The ready aware of the situation. What? tional Code people already knew about it? Someone else about sponta - . Talk had already laid claim to my discovery neous ego deflation. So I asked a reasonable question: why is the still Table in response: The the Codes if everyone knows it’s wrong? Associations. because of heavy lobbying by Home Builders’ Many people are aware the beams in Table 9.23.4.3 are to address it. Seri- over-spanned, but no one is prepared to stand up to the ously??? Is everyone really that afraid this remind anyone Home Builders’ Associations? Does a pail of water Where’s of the West? Witch of the Wicked when you need it? Simply supported beam spans (and simple span Simply supported beam spans (and simple floor joists as per Mark Boyd) Laterally supported top flange strength = 350MPaYield Deflection limit = L/360 Live load = 1.9KPa (40psf) (one storey only) Dead load = 0.5KPa (10psf) (as per Mark Boyd since 1.5KPa seems just plain wrong!) Am I actually the Scarecrow? Am Should I be asking for a brain? the spans I calculated actually correct? How could Were lower than the values in the OBC?they be so much I started to think maybe I was missing something. Maybe I made has been around for- a stupid mistake because this Table ever. Fearing I might just embarrass myself by mentioning and review to colleague a to off sent it I else, anyone to this a previously Had I unearthed with me. Hmmm. he agreed - overlooked error in the Code? I’ve got to admit, I was feel out like all puffed ing pretty darn proud of myself -- chest the Cowardly Lion with his medal! The chart below shows the allowable spans for the steel for spans allowable the shows below chart The beams in Table 9.23.4.3, along with what I calculate allowable the spans should be, based upon all of the requirements specified in the OBC. Drum Roll, please one storey beams As suspected, I found that some of the 9.23.4.3 failed. How many let’s you in see ask? Table Well, – 1,2,3,...... 63. Wow, all of them! That’s correct, all they failed with my 0.5KPa beams failed. And remember, of the (10psf) dead load. If I had used the 1.5KPa (31psf) harder dead crashed have would they 9.23.4.3, A-Table in as load than Dorothy’s house! So in order to double check the one storey, steel floor steel floor the one storey, So to double check in order beams in Table 9.23.4.3, I used the following design 9.23.4.3): assumptions (see Appendix A-Table The The floor joists and the beams are all simple spans.That into “smiley faces” under the applied means they bend loads. See the two smiles for the floor joists and the other two for the beams? MARK BOYD CONT'D

certainty the basement beam won’t work. The designer Example 3: asks how I can know that so quickly? “Easy”, I reply, “the Let’s repeat Example 2, but this time we will use a continu- beam never met the Code requirements for load and de- ous beam as shown below. The floor joists are still simple flection in the first place, so adding the point loads is like spans. This is a realistic scenario because almost every throwing gas on a smouldering Scarecrow”. contractor would order a 6m long beam and throw a post under the middle. Let’s be serious for a moment MARK BOYD How can an engineer seal a beam which he or she knows does not meet the load and deflection requirements clearly printed in the Code? If a client asked me to seal Table 9.23.4.3, I would have to refuse because all of the beams are over-spanned. If a client asked me to seal a point-loaded beam that fails, I would also have to refuse. Mr. and Ms. CBO, are you starting to wonder about the sealed, point loaded, steel floor beams you’re getting from engineers? While we’re still exploring Oz, let’s talk about footings and columns In Example 1, we considered simple span floor joists and simple span steel floor beams. That may happen in Oz, but Take a look at the deflected shape of the continuous beam. rarely in the real world. Let’s work out the load on the col- Instead of two smiles, this time we see a smile, then a umn and the required footing area: frown, then another smile. The frown is extremely important to an engineer, but the Code is silent on the whole issue. Example 2: Go ahead, look up “frown” in the index – I’ll wait. See? Nada. Specified (unfactored) Live Load = 1.9KPa (40psf) (A-Table 9.23.4.3) Your grandma may have told you “a frown weighs you Specified (unfactored) Dead Load down” – or maybe that was just mine. In structural terms, = 0.5KPa (10psf) (as assumed by Mark Boyd) this is very true. The frown increases the load from the Tributary Area on Column beam on the interior support, i.e., the column. A structural = 14.7m2 (158ft2) (4.9m x 3m) engineer will tell you the frown in that continuous beam Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure just increased the load on that column by 25% (trust me, = 75KPa (1568psf) (9.15.1.1.(1)(a)(i)) my grandma is really smart). Can you find that little gem anywhere in the OBC? No, no you can’t. Thanks, grandma. Specified (unfactored) Load on Column = (1.9KPa + 0.5KPa)( 14.7m2) Specified (unfactored) Load on Column = 35.3KN (7940#) < 36KN (8093#) (9.17.3.4.(1)) = (1.9KPa + 0.5KPa)( 14.7m2)(1.25) Therefore an Adjustable Steel Col- (due to the frown) umn is ACCEPTABLE = 44.1KN (9920#) > 36KN (8093#) (9.17.3.4.(1)) Area of Column Footing Therefore an Adjustable Steel Col- = (1.9KPa + 0.5KPa)( 14.7m2)/(75KPa) umn is NOT ACCEPTABLE = 0.47m2 (5.1ft2) > 0.4m2 (4.3ft2) (Table 9.15.3.4) Area of Column Footing Therefore the minimum footing area = (1.9KPa + 0.5KPa)( 14.7m2)(1.25)/(75KPa) in Part 9 is NOT ACCEPTABLE = 0.59m2 (6.4ft2) > 0.4m2 (4.3ft2) Now would be a good time to discuss that whole “what’s (Table 9.15.3.4) the correct dead load” question again. If the proper dead Therefore the minimum footing area load is 1.5KPa (31psf) as in A-Table 9.23.4.3, then the ad- in Part 9 is NOT ACCEPTABLE justable steel column fails like a Tinman in the rain (50KN or 11250#) and the area of the footing in Table 9.15.3.4 is Example 4: as undersized as Dorothy’s little dog, Toto (0.67m2 or 7.2ft2). Further support for my contention that the 1.5KPa (31psf) Let’s repeat Example 3, but this time we will use a continu- dead load in A-Table 9.23.4.3 is a typo. Just sayin’. ous beam and continuous span floor joists. Unlike builders

26 | Ontario Building Officials Association in Oz, real world contractors see the advantage of ordering 3. The OBC assumes steel floor beams are a 6m long beam and 9.8m long I joists. Again, the OBC is simple spans. How often does that happen? MARK BOYD MARK silent on this scenario. Most steel floor beams are continuous span, so you need to make the column footing bigger. 4. If the joists are continuous over the beam, you have to make the column footing bigger. 5. If the joists are continuous and the beam is continuous, you have to increase the column footing size twice. Personal Remarks Many years ago, I was responsible for plant safety. One day, a Ministry of Labour inspector showed up for a routine, ran- dom check (remember when they did that?) and he asked As we learned in Example 3, a single frown increases the where the guard was for the table saw. Well, it was on the load on the interior support by 25%. In this case, the frown wall, as it always was, covered in an inch of dust. I explained in the continuous floor joists increases the load on the steel that the guys in the shop didn’t like it and that we hadn’t beam by 25%. At the same time, the frown in the steel had an accident in 20 years. He replied, “Maybe you’ve just beam increases the load on the column by an additional been lucky for 20 years. Maybe that luck will run out tomor- 25%. That’s right, to get the load on the column you multi- row”. To this day I take those words to heart. ply by 1.25 twice. We all know there are things in Part 9 which don’t make Specified (unfactored) Load on Column sense. Houses are not magical structures -- the laws of = (1.9KPa + 0.5KPa)( 14.7m2)(1.25)(1.25) physics do still apply. I’m tired of people saying “we’ve done (2 frowns) it this way for years and we’ve never had a problem”. Maybe = 55.1KN (12400#) > 36KN (8093#) (9.17.3.4.(1)) we’ve just been lucky all these years; maybe that luck will Therefore an Adjustable Steel Col- run out tomorrow. It’s time to leave Oz and come back to umn is NOT ACCEPTABLE reality. It’s time we all acted professionally and in the best interest of the public that puts its trust in us. Enough ex- Area of Column Footing cuses. It’s time to correct the errors in Part 9. The = (1.9KPa + 0.5KPa)(14.7m2)(1.25)(1.25)/(75KPa) whole industry – code writers to contractors – needs to = 0.74m2 (8.0ft2) > 0.4m2 (4.3ft2) work together to develop one practical, logical, defensible (Table 9.15.3.4) Code. In the words of Professor Marvel, “E Pluribus Unum” Therefore the minimum footing area (out of many, one). in Part 9 is NOT ACCEPTABLE

Mark, I hate math. What are you trying to say? 1. The steel beams in Table 9.23.4.3 are all wrong, and the Table needs to be changed. Just keep that in mind. 2. Look at the standard, off-the- shelf, adjustable column in the photo below. This type of column sucks. It only supports 8000#, which is almost never enough. As an inspector, if you see one of these puppies on site, you should ask an engineer to confirm it is OK.

SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 27 CONCRETE CERTIFICATION

Clause 4.2.1 – Precast concrete elements produced and erected in accordance with this standard shall be produced by certified manufacturers, with certification demonstrating the capability of a manufacturer to fabri- cate precast concrete elements to the requirements of Robert Burak, P. Eng. President Canadian Precast Prestressed this Standard. Concrete Institute Clause 4.2.2 – Conformity assessment of precast con- CONCRETE CERT. CONCRETE crete products or elements to this Standard shall be per- Precast Concrete Certification formed by an organization accredited to do so. and the Ontario Building Code Building Divisions in all Ontario regions, municipalities, cit- Precast products are architectural, structural and specialty ies and towns need to ensure that building products con- products that are either prestressed or non-prestressed. form to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code Architectural Products include but are not limited to: Trim (OBC). Precast concrete products are no exception. Both units such as sills, lintels, coping, cornices and quoins, load the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) and the bearing and non load bearing insulated and non-insulated OBC provide for the technical provisions for the design architectural cladding, spandrels, beams, mullions, columns and construction of new buildings. They also apply to the and column covers. alteration, change of use and demolition of existing build- Structural Products include but are not limited to: Conven- ings. Their objectives include provisions for safety, health, tionally reinforced and pre-tensioned or post tensioned accessibility for persons with disabilities, fire and structural structural elements such as beams, I-girders, bulb Tees, protection of buildings. Double Tees, stemmed members, box girders, solid slabs, full or partial depth bridge deck slabs, hollowcore slabs, How Precast Certification is Specified in the joists, stairs, seating members, railroad ties, piling, sheet pil- Building Code ing, piling caps, retaining wall elements, median barriers, The OBC requires conformance to CSA A23.3 Design of parapet walls, sound barriers, vaults, and box culverts. Concrete Structures, through the following clauses:

Ontario Building Code 4.3.3. Plain, Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete

4.3.3.1. Design Basis for Plain, Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete

(1) Buildings and their structural members made of plain, reinforced or prestressed concrete shall conform to CSA A23.3, "Design of Concrete Structures".

CSA A23.3, in turn, requires that all precast concrete elements comply with the CSA A23.4 Precast Concrete – Ma- terials and Construction, through the following clause:

CSA A23.3 – Design of concrete structures: Clause 16.2.1 – All precast concrete elements covered CPCI Certification by this standard shall be manufactured and erected in In 2007, the Canadian Precast/Prestressed Concrete In- accordance with CSA A23.4. stitute (CPCI) established an enhanced on-going quality assurance program available to CPCI member and non- Finally, CSA A23.4 defines the requirements for certifica- member companies to improve the overall quality and con- tion of precast concrete elements, as follows: sistency of precast concrete products. The CPCI Precast CSA A23.4 – Precast Concrete – Materials Concrete Certification Program for Structural, Architec- and Construction: tural and Specialty Precast Concrete Products and Sys-

28 | Ontario Building Officials Association CONCRETE CERT. SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 29 Accredited Certification Organization Accredited Accredited Certification Organization (ACO) is the au- The diting consultant, specializing in precast concrete structures ACO evaluates manufacturers and building products. The during bi-annual audits on their quality system, documen- tation, production and erection procedures, management, engineering, personnel, equipment, finished products and assemblies in accordance with the certification program. ACO is responsible to the Quality Assurance Council. The At the end of all audits, auditors provide a close-out meet- provide a close-out all audits, auditors the end of At and production management management ing with senior for im- and areas areas that were well-executed to identify from precast- share their experience provement. Auditors - to enable all precasters an opportu ers across the country CPCI other. result, certification, as a nity to learn from each continuous improvement. is a commitment to Another unique feature of the CPCI CertificationProgram by an independent interdisciplinary is that it is governed Quality The Assurance Council (QAC). the Quality body, is a multidisciplinary bodyAssurance Council oversees that the CPCIProgram. Certification and reviews the CPCI plans, formulates, oversees QAC The meets a The QAC Program. Concrete Certification Precast these meetings the council At minimum of twice annually. approves important discusses typical non-conformances, the Accredited and assists all participants, advisories for as required. Certification Organization with interpretations the Chair of the Quality Assur- members include; QAC Certification Or- ance Council, Director of the Accredited engineers or ganization, CPCI professional Administrator, in the employ of a precast manu- not registered architects and ministry representatives, building officials, facturer, manufacturer’s representatives. CPCI Precast Concrete Certification Program for CPCI also sets itself apart in regards to the length of time The total process takes a minimum to attain certification. of 90 but it is this level of days to attain plant certification, scrutiny that enables a higher level of assurance for Build- ing Departments and owners. CPCI certification certifies to the more stringentrequire- ments to Canadian and U.S.A. precast concrete requirements on a clause by clause basis, whereas CSA only evaluates the Canadian requirements. Other requirements unique to CPCI Certification are; special requirements for new clients whereby they are required in additional the audits first year; and special audit In this certification. their product to adds a new precaster requirements when a instance, in addition to the normal requirements, they are required to demonstrate their capabilities during an audit of three full-day production cycles. Structural, Architectural and Specialty Precast ConcreteStructural, Architectural - Products and Systems and another operated by CSA In CPCIternational. CSA cer- the from differs Certification ways.tification audit program in many significant CPCI requires a minimum overall passing grade of 80% while CSA only provides “Acceptable/Not Acceptable” criteria. In addition CPCI auditors not only review the precasters Quality System Manual (QSM), but also comprehensively the final products. audit the manufacturing process and CSA only audits the QSMThe key and the final products. CPCIthe of success the to the to attention the is program manufacturing process requirements. How CPCI Other Cer- Certification Differs from Programs tification programs accredited in Canada, are two certification There the CPCImanufac- precast a requires that program only the is quality to commitment its demonstrate consistently to turer all aspects of the Audits examine principles and practices. engineering practices, production plant operation including methods, controls and management methods, construction uniform is report graded audit numerically The commitment. - large plants to small. Independent en coast-to-coast from Grades appraisal twice annually. gineers make the two-day are non-negotiable with an 80% passing requirement. A failed grade requires a thorough review of improvements 60within audit are audits special and days, extra an with required when substantiated complaints are received from owners or owner’s representatives. is your best way of confirming that a precast manu- precast a that confirming of way best your is tems in place. assurance system an ongoing quality facturer has CONCRETE CERTIFICATION CONT'D

Kassian Dyck & Associates (KDA) is a multidisciplinary Where to Get More Information engineering firm. The firm’s impressive portfolio includes Further details on the CPCI Precast Concrete Certification assignments ranging from small residential projects to program can be found at www.precastcertification.ca. Own- multi-million dollar facilities. KDA staff has extensive ex- ers and design professionals are encouraged to check this perience detailing projects with precast concrete cladding site regularly for an up-to-date listing of all certified pre- and structural framing. http://www.kdassociates.com/. cast plants. In Ontario there are 12 CPCI certified precast plants, and there are 45 in total across Canada. How to Specify CPCI Certification CONCRETE CERT. CONCRETE CPCI Certification is accepted by all provincial transporta- The CPCI Quality Assurance Council recently approved tion authorities across Canada and is being specified by a Version 1.5 of the CPCI Certification Program Require- growing list of engineers and architects who recognize the ments. This is the fifth edition of the program requirements benefits. since its inception in 2007.

The Construction Specifications Canada (CSC) TEK-AID When comparing the CPCI certification program to others, for 03 45 00 Architectural Precast Concrete and 03 41 the CPCI program is recognized for the thoroughness and 00 Structural Precast/Prestressed Concrete contains the frequency of audits, the stringency in attaining first certifi- following Clause cation, the strict requirements for the maintenance of certification as well as for adding new product groups, and 1.8 Quality Assurance: .1 Manufacturer must meet re- many other program principles such as compliance with the quirements of CSA A23.4, including Appendices A and more stringent requirements of either CSA A23.4 or PCI B, together with PCI MNL-116 and 117 and CPCI certi- MNL 116 and 117. fication requirements. The CPCI program continues to set itself apart from all .2 Manufacturer: certified to Canadian Precast/Pre- other precast certification programs in Canada. Please stressed Concrete Institute (CPCI) Certification Program contact CPCI for your copy of the most recent version at [email protected].

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

the opportunity to shape policies throughout the policy- making process. Professional administrators have a number of perceived advantages including subject matter expertise and accumulation of knowledge over time. Many administrators belong to professional associations, giving them authority and credibility. This expertise is beneficial in terms of providing guidance and advice to politicians Jason Schmidt-Shoukri, throughout the decision-making process. It also allows the MPA OAA CBCO

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION POLICY political leadership to delegate issues to staff for research, design, and solution-finding. This empowerment helps Policy Implementation municipal Councils as it allows them to bring additional and Building Officials resources to the table when making decisions, and reach the appropriate decision in an efficient and informed Policy-Making manner. In the course of the policy-making process in municipal government, the elected leadership provides initial Tenure is another major advantage that a bureaucracy has direction to the bureaucracy and also gives final approvals in its toolbox. While the elected political leadership changes before implementation. The administration however, has in a democracy, civil servants usually enjoy the stability of

30 | Ontario Building Officials Association POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 2 Both 5 SEPT 2012 | ISSUE31 95 | Local development and housing liaison development and Local This includes immunity from action, and includes immunity This 3 4 protection from interference and obstruction. Successful protection from interference local policy making lies in finding a balance between the conflicting interests of stakeholders. Sustainable policy implementation means being able to tap into a community’s is fundamental to local policy making. core values, which levels of governments market forces and higher However, place structural constraints on what a community can do. and efficiency between tension on-going the also is There are being bureaucratic practices Traditional democracy. to adopt private sector models and governance challenged systems. In essence, Bill 124 is an outcome of such pressures, designed through consultations that took place with stakeholders including builders and developers. the political leadership and the bureaucracy have an interest in the Municipal Act or in other provincial legislation or other provincial legislation Act or in in the Municipal or federal overrule by-laws cannot Municipal regulations. no public the BCA. legislation, including provincial While consultations are required under the BCA, notificationrelated of changes making to prior required is meetings public to follow certain Municipalities have to building permit fees. explicit steps aligned with their processes and specific policies. It is worth noting that authority when developing formulated for administrative reasons, some policies are dealt with in legislation. and these are rarely and Democratic Pressures Policy-Making Influence on democratic pressures on an governments experience Local they have on the on-going basis due to the direct impact inevitable is It constituency. their of activities day-to-day a say in the policy- therefore that people want to have place at that level. making and decision-making that takes individuals and local It is at that micro-level where most groups tend to Local groups can practice direct democracy. democratic pressures organize in various fashions to exert taxonomy of citizens’ interest The and influence policy. social movement groups includes community groups, elite groups. groups, public interest groups and business NIMBYand groups, also issue-related are There my in (not groups. backyard) committees have been created to facilitate consultations committees have been created to facilitate and decision- into policy-shaping input stakeholders and making. extent development by building officials is to a large Policy sheltered from many of the above pressures, partly due to the statutory authority given to the CBO in the BCA, and between the given how the Act addresses the relationship CBO and Council. 1 These consultations took place through the Building Regulatory Reform Advisory Group (BRRAG).Regulatory Reform took place through the Building consultations These Similar on-going consultations take place today through the Building Advisory Council (BAC). 1 Sancton, Andrew, 2011. Canadian Local Government: An Urban Perspective. Don Mills: Oxford University Press. Ch.3, pp. 26-28. Don Mills: Oxford University Press. Government: An Urban Perspective. 2011. Canadian Local 1 Sancton, Andrew, Inc., California. 2nd Edition. Sage Publications 2 Davies, Jonathan S. and David L. Imbroscio, 2009. of Urban Politics, Theories Nelson. Thomson Toronto: 6, Ch. Edition, 3rd Times, Turbulent in Management Issue Public Analysis: Policy Beyond 2006. A, Leslie Pal, 3 Canada Inc., September 2009. Nexis Ontario Building Code Act. Lexis L. and John Mascarin, 2010 Annotated Jeffery 4 Levitt, 5 Municipally, the policy process is limited by instruments Municipally, available to municipal councils. Councils can enact by- laws to establish specific policies. Councils can also pass resolutions within the powers granted to them as outlined There are fundamental differences between the local differences are fundamental There of higher levels of government policy process and that Act, 1867 Constitution only recognizes government. The governments governments. Local and provincial federal policy As such, are created by provincial legislation. by the authority and process in local governments is limited the Municipal powers granted by the provinces. In Ontario, overall framework Act provides municipalities with the they can operate. Other provincial legislation under which provides municipalities with authority in specific areas of jurisdiction. Federal and provincial governments have the their respective laws in and statutes legislate to power the parliaments or legislative assemblies. Federally, receives royal it before any legislation has to ratify Senate The is when a policy finally becomes law. ascent which Constitution defines areas of jurisdiction federal for and to municipal or provincial governments without referring local governments. Policy Process in Local vs. Higher in Local vs. Higher Process Policy Levels of Government Another advantage civil servants have, is their established civil servants have, is their established Another advantage relationships developed with roots or networking neighbourhoodgovernment groups, social networks, These stakeholders in their community. officials and other within the same constituency that relationships are forged design in policy leadership. Whether elects the political over control gives often legislation implementation, or is emphasized in the This the process to professionals. the Building Code administration and enforcement of Act (BCA) and the Ontario Building Code (OBC). The BCA clearly identifies the role of builders, manufacturers, building officials registered code agencies, chief responsible for and inspectors. Council is ultimately enforcement of the Act and is required to appoint a Chief deemed as inspectors qualified and (CBO) Official Building necessary. long-term service. This tenure provides them with the provides them with tenure service. This long-term familiar with and tools to become knowledgeable necessary leadership political The community. their in stakeholders information and to receive background relies on that tenure have Scholars facts when making decisions. contextual emphasized tenure as being a major advantage but in these modern times. may be overstated this POLICY IMPLEMENTATION CONT'D

in engaging community and business groups to various as it is the phase where most municipalities encounter their degrees depending on the political agenda, social values setbacks. and the structural arrangements of the local government. Policy-making cannot be successfully designed and Successful policy implementation needs to encompass implemented without consulting and engaging local groups. a few key elements7 including clear objectives, good communication, adequate time and resources, valid The Policy Cycle design, correct sequencing, and full compliance. Effective In order to address issues related to the development implementation requires a solid conceptual framework to 8 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION POLICY application approval processes, municipalities undertook address all the variables identified above. This blueprint many initiatives to raise productivity, increase efficiency, of policy development can be summarized as the best and improve customer service. Given the direct impact on design suited to address the specific policy problem in local economies, the primary goal was to facilitate obtaining order to achieve the desired goal, utilizing the appropriate the required approvals in an efficient and timely fashion. instruments. In other words, it has to be a customized Governance in local governments has also been evolving and comprehensive process. Many municipalities in from the traditional “authoritarian” approach to a more open Ontario, particularly in the GTA, have developed similar democratic “consultative” style. This may have a lot to do policy blueprints although under different branding names. with the fact that municipalities are in essence local service Generally, well developed policy designs lead to successful delivery organizations. A framework for a rational policy and effective policy implementation. process is crucial for public policy development. As per Prepared by: Leslie A. Pal, a public policy cycle includes the following Jason Schmidt-Shoukri, MPA OAA CBCO 6 six steps: Chief Building Official 1. Problem Definition and Agenda Setting, Planning & Building Department 2. Policy Instruments and Design (blueprint), Development & Infrastructure Division 3. Policy Implementation, City of Burlington 4. Policy Communities and Networks, B 905-335-7600 x7619 5. Policy and Program Evaluation [email protected] (cost benefit analysis), and 6. Performance Measurement. The above article is based on a summary of Chapter 1: “Policy Implementation” of the Masters of Research Paper Local governments usually undertake the first few steps in (MRP), prepared by Jason Schmidt-Shoukri for his Masters the policy cycle. The last two steps are sometimes missed of Public Administration (MPA) from the University of or may be conveniently avoided. The second stage of the Western Ontario. Jason is the chief building official with cycle is comprised of three steps: policy design, policy the City of Burlington, and is a registered architect. He is instruments and policy implementation. This stage requires member of the OBOA, OAA and RAIC and serves on the sophisticated expertise and scientific methodology in executive of TACBOC. order to develop a good policy-making design. Policy design is the process that allows a municipality to choose the most appropriate instrument to address the defined policy problem and achieve the desired goals. Policy instruments are techniques based on specific types of ® government resources that can be used to achieve the stated objectives. Policy implementation includes the delivery and execution of the blueprint through the chosen policy instruments. This step requires organization and coordination of decisions including clearance points for periodic assessment, intervention and redesign as needed. This helps address any derailments in the process and provides an opportunity to adjust or reassess decisions in order to ensure achievement of the desired outcomes. Flexibility is crucial for the success of policy implementation

6 Pal, Leslie A , 2006. Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times, 3rd Edition. Toronto: Thomson Nelson. 7 Leslie A Pal, Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times, 3rd Edition. Thomson Nelson, 2006. 8 Mazmanian, Daniel A. and Paul A. Sabatier, 1981. Effective Policy Implementation. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.

32 | Ontario Building Officials Association CASE COMMENT

Good Faith and Abuse of Public Office of that bylaw, the B.C. Building Code, and all other appli- CASE COMMENT cable enactments”. Stephen Lockwood, Counsel Legal Services Branch - Ministry of Municipal [It is worth noting that what constitutes “other applicable Affairs and Housing1 enactments” does not appear to have been defined in the Township’s building by-law. This differs from Ontario, where When does a building official’s conduct amount to an the “applicable law” that must be considered before issu- abuse of public office? Is a delay in issuing a building per- ing a building permit under s. 8(2) of the Building Code mit enough? This issue was address in the recent Brit- Act, 1992 is defined in Sentence 1.4.1.3.(1) of the Building ish Columbia Supreme Court decision in Scory v. Langley Code.] (Township) 2, which is instructive for how such issues might also be addressed in Ontario. Mr. Scory argued that enforcement of the Fisheries Act was outside of the Township’s jurisdiction and that the Town- Background ship was intentionally blocking his development. On March Mr. Scory owned a property in the Township of Langley on 1, 2011, he sued the Township for damages for allegedly which he wanted to build a home with an attached storage committing the tort (civil wrong) of abuse of public office. space for farm equipment. He submitted a building permit application for the structure on August 19, 2010.3 However, through negotiation over the summer of 2011, the Township withdrew some of the requirements and The plans submitted with the application showed that the Mr. Scory met the remaining requirements by September proposed driveway adjacent to the storage building was 13 27, 2011. The building permit was approved on October metres from the top of the bank of a ravine that ran through 7, 2011. However, Mr. Scory proceeded with his lawsuit the property. against the Township. The Township refused to issue a building permit though on Tort of Abuse of Public Office the basis that the plans did not conform with a guideline Mr. Scory claimed that the Township committed the tort of 4 made under the federal Fisheries Act, which restricted ac- abuse of public office by refusing to issue the building per- tivities that would result in harmful alteration, disruption or mit until he had complied with the federal Fisheries Act. destruction of fish habitat (known as HADD). The guideline includes a suggested minimum setback of 15 m from He argued the Township had no authorization or authority the top of a ravine, in order to avoid HADD. to enforce that Act, and that the Township was aware that the Fisheries Act was not a basis on which it could refuse As Mr. Scory’s plans showed a driveway only 13 m from the to issue a permit. top of the ravine bank, the Township required him to submit one of the following in support of the building permit ap- He stated that the Township’s actions resulted in a delay plication: in him receiving his building permit, which caused him damages. • revised drawings showing the driveway setback 15 m from the top of the ravine What is Abuse of Public Office? bank, The Court described abuse of public office as “an inten- tional tort requiring proof of bad faith, and with generally • written confirmation from the Department carry the ‘stench of dishonesty’”. 5 of Fisheries and Oceans that the development would not cause HADD, or In order to prove a claim of abuse of public office, the key element that must be shown is that a public official either: • an assessment report prepared by an environmental consultant confirming that • exercised power for the specific purpose the development would not cause HADD. of injuring the plaintiff – that is, to have acted in bad faith in the sense of the The Township argued it had the ability to require this infor- exercise of public power for an improper mation on the basis of its building by-law, which authorized or ulterior motive, or it to issue a building permit where, among other matters, the proposed construction conforms with “all requirements

SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 33 CASE COMMENT CONT'D

• acted unlawfully with a mind of reckless those requirements were met the building permit was is- indifference to the illegality of his or her sued almost immediately. act and to the probability of injury to the plaintiff. 6 As a result, the Court found that any delay attributable to the imposition of the Fisheries Act related requirements Under the first branch, it is enough to show that the spe- did not cause damages to Mr. Scory.11 cific reason the public official acted the way they did was to harm the individual. Other Remedies

CASE COMMENT CASE While the Court is clear that the Township’s conduct did not Under the second branch, the plaintiff must show that the amount to an abuse of process, it did note that Mr. Scory public official deliberately acted in an unlawful way, and may have had other legal avenues to challenge the Town- knew or should have known that their actions were illegal ship’s requirements related to compliance with the Fisher- and would probably result in harm to the individual - that is ies Act. the official acts knowing that he or she has no power to do so, and knowing that the plaintiff will probably be harmed In particular it referred to the possibility for an application by the action. under the British Columbia Judicial Review Procedure Act to challenge the Township’s refusal to issue the permit. It A plaintiff must also demonstrate that they suffered dam- noted that if a judicial review been sought, it would have ages as a result of the official’s actions. been necessary for the Court to answer the question of whether or not the Fisheries Act related requirements im- Did the Township’s Conduct Amount posed by the Township were valid as “other applicable en- to Abuse of Public Office? actments” under the Township’s building by-law. The Court in Scory did not determine the question of whether or not the Township had authority to enforce the Similarly, in Ontario there are other avenues to challenge federal Fisheries Act as an “other applicable enactment”.7 It a building official’s decision aside from a lawsuit claiming noted that all elements of the tort must be proven and that abuse of public office. Without canvassing all potential Mr. Scory had not proven all required elements. remedies, it is worth noting that the Building Code Act, 1992 provides opportunities for individuals to challenge Specifically, the Court found Mr. Scory had not demon- a building official’s decision to the Ontario Superior Court strated that the Township acted with the express purpose (under s. 25 of the BCA) or the Building Code Commission of causing him injury, nor had he demonstrated that the (under s. 24 of the BCA).12 Township officials knew they had no power to enforce the Fisheries Act.8 Conclusion While arising in B.C., the Scory decision highlights that a The Court noted that the Township produced a compre- delay in issuing a building permit will not necessarily be hensive record of its correspondence with Mr. Scory. It enough to find wrongful conduct on behalf of a building found that the Township’s correspondence demonstrated official. “a dogged but patently good faith attempt to have Mr. Scory provide information…that they believed they required”.9 In particular, with a claim of abuse of public office, an individual will need to show that they suffered harm as a result It concluded that, while Mr. Scory had established at most a of a public official’s actions and that the harm was intended delay in receiving his building permit, the facts of the case or a result of unlawful behaviour that was known to be un- did not support a finding that the Township officials had a lawful and likely to cause the harm. specific intention to harm Mr. Scory or a finding that the officials acted knowing that they had no power to do what The Court’s decision indicates that acting in good faith (and they did.10 have recorded evidence of good faith) may be one way to avoid a finding of abuse of public office. The Court also noted that the delay in issuing the building permit was not only a result of the Township imposing However, the decision also highlights good faith decisions the Fisheries Act related requirements. It found that there are not immune from review, and there may be other ways were other requirements that had not been met related to aside from the tort of abuse of process that individuals storm water assessment and site inspection, and that when could use to challenge decisions of building officials.

34 | Ontario Building Officials Association CASE COMMENT OAPSO SEPT 2012 | ISSUE35 95 | An appeal to the Ontario Superior Court can be made under ss. 25(1) An appeal to the Ontario Act, 1992Building Code of the them- person who considers by a order or decision made under the BCAselves aggrieved by an by a a inspector or registered code agency (except building official, chief not to issue a conditional permit). decision under ss. 8(3) referred to the in the Township’s building by-law. However, it concluded it However, by-law. building the Township’s in the to referred and acted in good faith officials they were, the Township that even if believed that the information related to the Fisheries Act requirements the building permit. was necessary prior to issuing OAPSO is looking at including ADR (Alternate Dispute Develop- 4 Professional Resolution) as a part of its Part ment program next year. The Part 4 is offered in conjunc- Train- Training during its Annual tion with the Certification ing Session and Conference next year (2013) being held at Mohawk College in Hamilton. rationale that to suggest a training is not being offered This may be used to compromise the standards in the By-law, but more to provide members with a tool they can use to educate complainants, and possibly councillors, as to the validity of the standards, and the officer's interpretation of those standards. truly, Yours C.P.S.O. R. Perrin. Warwick. President O.A.P.S.O. 9. Scory, at para. 53. 9. Scory, at paras. 53 and 56. 10. Scory, at paras. 54-55. 11. Scory, 12. Code Commission to re- A party to a dispute may apply to the Building Code Act, 1992.solve a dispute described in ss. 24(1) of the Building OAPSO The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do and author the of those are article this in expressed views The Services or opinions of the Legal represent the views not necessarily is article Housing. This and Affairs of the Ministry of Municipal Branch information rather than legal advice aboutintended to convey general the matters discussed herein. Readers requiring legal advice about their solicitors. these matters should consult at paras. 46-48. of public leading case on the tort of abuse The Scory, office is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Odhavji Estate v. 263, S.C.J. No. 74. [2003] 3 S.C.R. Woodhouse, eries Act related requirements were other applicable enactments as Quite often especially in smaller municipalities the build- Quite often especially in smaller municipalities sometimes, of which, ing inspector wears many hats, one Both functions receive is that of property standards officer. Act; boththeir authority through the Building Code functions concern themselves with the built environment, so you might ask, what's the difference? but one of the elements Building In- there are many, Well, Standards Officers and Property spectors deal with rarely, is complainants. deal with daily, Standards Officer is Generally speaking the Property between two separate and distinct parties, the owner of the subject property and the neighbour who is complain- ing about have a history of conflict, and it, they may even if the complainant is not happy with the progress being made, he/she may even have enlisted the aid of the local Standards this means is that the Property What councillor. By-law, the in standards the satisfy to has only not Officer but also the personal standards of the person making the is not always possible and it's never easy? complaint. This 1. Notes: [2012] B.C.J. No. 1315 (B.C.S.C.). Langley (Township), 2. Scory v. at para 3. 3. Scory, 1985,4. Fisheries Act, R.S.C. c. F-14, section 35. at para. 45. 5. Scory, 6. at para. 52. Scory, 7. As noted, the Court 8. did not decide the question of whether the Fish- RADON families fromradon,shouldhigh radonlevelsbediscovered. an activedepressurizationsysteminordertoprotecttheir space. They makeiteasierforfuturehomeownerstoinstall a rough-inforthefutureprotectionofthatconditioned conditioned space from theground; and theyprovide apply tobasementwallandfloorassembliesthatseparate leakage ofsoilgases,includingradon,intobuildings,they to retrofitonceconstructioniscompleted.Addressing the The provisions arelowincostnewhousingbutdifficult now Code new houses,andnotjustthoseingeographichotspots. Building National the includes provisionsforradonremediationrough-ins all consequence, a As a specificbuilding. Radon mapsdonotguaranteethatradonispresentin buildings. in radonlevelsevenbetweenneighbouring of radon.These variables canresults in largedifferences that gravelbroughtinontothesitecanalsobeasource weather, season,andtimeofday. evidenceexists Some vary withstack effect, wind, radonconcentration,ventilation, pathways. The amountofsoilairdrawnintothebuildingcan differences inpressurethroughthosecracks andunsealed air containing radon is drawn into buildings by the soil. Soil pathways inthebasementwherevercontacts Radon entershomesthroughcracks andunsealed accumulate tohazardouslevels. radon leaksintobuildingsfromthesurroundingsoil,itcan low thattheyaregenerallynotaconcern.However, when types ofbuildings.Outdoorradonlevelsaregenerallyso through theair. Itisfoundoutdoorsandindoors,inall Radon is found in soil, rocks, and water, and diffuses lung cancer. absorbs thisenergy. Overtime,thedamagecaninduce occurs insidethelungs,lungtissueisdamagedasit and releasessmallburstsofenergy. When thedecay radioactive gas,radonbecomesharmfulwhenitdecays Radon isadecayproductofuranium.Asanunstable and isthefirstcauseoflungcanceramongnon-smokers. associated with10%ofthelungcancerdeathsinCanada, Radon is a colourless, odorless, radioactive gas. It is Homeowner Protection Centre BuildingOfficialNote:Radon 36 |OntarioBuilding Officials Association 36 RADON after thebuildingisclosedin. by HealthCanadaisnotnormallypossible few monthinthewinter)asrecommended tion ofabuilding.Long termtesting(overa indoor radonlevelspriortotheconstruc- There isgenerallynopracticalwaytotest its bottom endopen,nearthecentreofslab,to the its bottom in diameterthatgoesthrough thefloor. This pipemusthave 4mm sieve. It also requires a pipe that is larger than 100mm containing notmorethan10%ofmaterialthatwillpass a no lessthan100mmofcoarse,cleangranularmaterial also installed betweentheairbarrierandground.Itcan be material granular clean requires option second The the removalofradongasbelowslab. and itneedstobeclearlylabeledthatisintendedonlyfor to besealedmaintaintheairbarriersystemcontinuity, needs outlet This equipment. depressurization to connect as wellanoutletintheconditionedspacethatisable to allow forthedepressurizationofgaspermeablelayer, to bedepressurized.Aninletmustprovidedthatcan the air barrier and the ground that will allow that space layer between gaspermeable a requires option first The outlet, orcleangranularmaterialwithapipe. consist of either a gas permeable layer with an inlet and The subfloordepressurizationsystemrough-inneedsto perimeter inordertopreventairleakage. through theslab,withweatherstrippingaroundtheir installed when airtight, be to required also are pits Sump 5.4.1.1 and6.2.1.1). or totheappropriatesectionsinPart 5or6(seeArticle either conform to the Soil Gas Control subsections (9.13.4) building doesnothaveresidentialoccupancies,itshould a rough-inforsubfloordepressurizationsystem.If with residentialoccupanciesneedtobeprovided installation ofasubfloordepressurizationsystem,buildings ground isdesignedtobeaccessibleforthepotential Unless thespacebetweenairbarriersystemand downward flowofwater. to preventtheupwardflowofair, whilenotrestrictingthe the slabthataredesignedtodrainwaterneedbesealed in penetrations All sealant. flexible a using walls adjacent be sealed around the perimeter to the inner surfaces of the The to needs barrier air 300mm. than less no lapped be to over theslab.Ifairbarrierisaflexible material,itneeds the topofslab,providedthereisalsoaseparatefloor barrier mustbeeitherinstalledbelowtheslaborappliedto Building Construction”. in For floorsthatareconcrete,theair Use for Sheet Polyethylene Barrier, “Vapour 51.34-M CAN/CGSB- to conform to required are system barrier air minimizing theingressofsoilgas.Materialsusedin need tobeprotectedbyanairbarriersystemaimedat The wallandfloorassembliesoftheconditionedspace

granular material with no less than 100mm of the material Health Canada) and Guide for Radon Measurements in beyond its end. Its top end needs to be able to connect Residential Dwellings: Homes (Health Canada). to the depressurization equipment. And the pipe must be RADON clearly labeled near its end, and every 1.8m or at a change The Homeowner Protection Centre (HPC) is a national in direction if applicable, to indicate that it is intended only not-for-profit that advocates for homeowners, conducts for the removal of radon gas below the slab. An example of housing research, and hosts training seminars for the this is shown in Figure 2. housing industry. HPC recently released a report titled The Radon Challenge: Building Awareness and Encouraging Health Canada and the National Building Code recommend Action, which examined radon across Canada. More installing a depressurization rough-in for future radon information on HPC as well as The Radon Challenge can removal in buildings that are occupied for more than four be found on our website www.homeownerprotection.ca hours per day. If radon problems needs to be addressed in buildings occupied for less than four hours per day, Don’t miss HPC’s upcoming training seminar What You ventilation can be increased when the building is occupied. Need to Know About Radon, hosted by Bob Wood, of Mr. Radon and president of the Canadian Association If the OBC adopts the NBC radon of Radon Scientists and Technologists. Bob is one of provisions, it will be important for building Canada’s foremost leading experts on radon. September officials to inspect these new details 27, 9-12, Thornhill Golf and Country Club. Hot breakfast carefully. will be served. To register, visit Homeowner Protection Centre’s website above and follow the link. The radon rough-in can save home buyers

money and protect them from radon and Article written by Ceara Allen, Manager, Research,

lung cancer. Homeowner Protection Centre

For more information on radon and its ingress, please refer to Radon: A Guide for Canadian Homeowners (CMHC/

The 2010 National Building Code provisions include:

9.13.4 Soil Gas Control

9.13.4.1 Application and Scope 1) This subsection applies to: a. wall, roof, and floor assemblies separating conditioned space from the ground, and b. the rough-in to allow the future protection of conditioned space that is separated from the ground by a wall, roof, or floor assembly 2) This Subsection addresses the leakage of soil gas from the ground into the building

9.13.4.2 Protection from Soil Gas Ingress 1) All wall, roof, and floor assemblies separating conditioned space from the ground shall be protected by an air barrier system conforming to Subsection 9.25.3 2) Unless the space between the air barrier system and the ground is designed to be accessible for the future installation of a subfloor depressurization system, dwelling units and buildings containing residential occupancies shall be provided with the rough-in for a radon extraction system conforming to Article 9.13.4.3. 3) Where buildings are used for occupancies other than those described in Sentence (2), protection from radon ingress and the means to address high radon concentrations in the future shall conform to a. Article 9.13.4.3, or b. Parts 5 and 6 (see Article 5.4.1.1 and 6.2.1.1) (see Appendix A)

9.13.4.3.1-3 Providing for the Rough-in for a Subfloor Depressurization System: 1) Floor-on-ground shall be provided with a rough-in for subfloor depressurization consisting of

SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 37 RADON CONT'D

a. a gas permeable layer, an inlet and an outlet as described in Sentence (2), or b. clean granular material and a pipe as described in Sentence (3) 2) The rough-in referred to in Clause (1)(a) shall include a. A gas permeable layer installed in the space between the air barrier and the ground to allow the depressurization of that space b. An inlet that allows the effective depressurization of the gas-permeable layer (see A-9.13.4.3(2)(b) and

RADON (3)(b)(i) in Appendix A), and c. An outlet in the conditioned space that i. Permits connection to depressurization equipment, ii. Is sealed to maintain the integrity of the air barrier system, and iii. Is clearly labeled to indicate that it is intended only for the removal of radon from below the floor-on- ground 3) The rough-in referred to in Clause (1)(b) shall include a. Clean granular material installed below the floor-on-ground in accordance with Sentence 9.16.2.1.(1), and b. A pipe not less than 100mm in diameter installed through the floor, such that i. Its bottom end opens into the granular layer required Clause (a) at or near the centre of the floor and not less than 100mm of granular material projects beyond the terminus of the pipe measured along its axis (see A-9.13.4.3.(2)(b) and (3)(b)(i) in Appendix A), ii. Its top end permits connection to depressurization equipment and is provided with an airtight cap, and iii. The pipe is clearly labeled near the cap and, if applicable, every 1.8m and at every change in direction to indicate that it is intended only for the removal of radon from below the floor-on-ground

9.14.5.2 Sump Pits 1) Where a sump pit is provided it shall be a. Not less than 750mm deep b. Not less than 0.25m2 in area, and c. Provided with a cover 2) Covers for sump pits shall be designed a. To resist removal by children, and b. To be airtight in accordance with Sentence 9.25.3.3.(7) 3) Where gravity drainage is not practical, an automatic sump pump shall be provided to discharge the water from the sump pit described in Sentence (1) into a sewer, drainage ditch or dry well.

9.16.2.1 Required Installation of Granular Material 1) Except as provided in Sentence (2), not less than 100mm of coarse clean granular material containing not more than 10% of material that will pass a 4mm sieve shall be placed beneath floors-on-ground (See also Subsection 9.13.4 and related Appendix Notes in Appendix A). 2) Granular material not be installed under a. Slabs in garages, carports or accessory buildings, or b. Buildings of industrial occupancy where the nature of the process contained therein permits ore requires the use of large openings in the buildings envelope even during the winter.

9.25.3.1 Required Barrier to Air Leakage: 1) Wall, ceiling and floor assemblies separating conditioned space from unconditioned space or from the ground shall be constructed as to include an air barrier system that will provide a continuous barrier to air leakage a) From the interior of the building into wall, floor, attic or roof spaces, sufficient to prevent excessive moisture condensation in such spaces during the winter, and b) from the exterior or the ground inward sufficient to i. prevent moisture condensation on the room side during winter, ii. ensure comfortable conditions for the occupants, and iii. minimize the ingress of soil gases

9.25.3.6 Air Barrier Systems in Floors-on-Ground (see A-9.25.3.4 and 9.25.3.6 in Appendix A)

38 | Ontario Building Officials Association 1) Materials used to provide a barrier to the ingress of air through floor-on-ground shall conform to CAN/CGSB-51.34- M, Ò Vapour Barrier, Polyethylene Sheet for Use in Building Construction.Ó 2) Where floor-on-ground is a concrete slab, the air barrier shall be a. Installed below the slab, or b. Applied to the top of the slab, provided a separate floor is installed over the slab

3) Where the air barrier installed below a floor-on-ground is flexible sheet material, joints in the barrier shall be lapped RADON not less than 300mm 4) Where installed in conjunction with a framed floor-on-ground or above a floor-on-ground, the air barrier shall be installed in accordance with Article 9.25.3.3 5) A floor-on-ground shall be sealed around its perimeter to the inner surfaces of adjacent walls using flexible sealant 6) All penetrations of a floor-on-ground that are required to drain water from the floor surface shall be sealed in a manner that prevents the upward flow of air without preventing the downward flow of liquid water.

A-9.13.4.2.(3) Exception for Buildings Occupied for a Few Hours a Day The criterion used by Health Canada to establish the guideline for acceptable radon concentration is the time that occupants spend inside buildings. Health Canada recommends installing a means for the future removal of radon in buildings that are occupied by persons for more than 4 hours per day. Sentence 9.13.4.2.(3) may therefore not apply to buildings or portions of buildings that are intended to be occupied for less than 4 hours a day. Addressing a radon problem in such buildings in the future, should that become necessary, can also be achieved by providing a means for increased ventilation at times when these buildings are occupied.

A-9.13.4.3 Providing Performance Criteria for the Depressurization of the Space Between the Air Barrier and the Ground Article 9.13.4.3 contains two sets of requirements: Sentence (2) describes the criteria for subfloor depressurization systems using performance-oriented language, while Sentence (3) describes one particular acceptable solution using more prescriptive language.

In some cases, subfloor depressurization system requires a solution other than the one described in Sentence (3), for example, where compactable fill is installed under slab-on-grade construction.

Completion of Subfloor Depressurization System The completion of a subfloor depressurization system may be necessary to reduce the radon concentration to a level below the guideline specified by Health Canada.

Further information on protection from radon ingress can be found in the following Health Canada publications: Radon: A Guide for Canadian Homeowners (CMHC/Health Canada) Guide for Radon Measurements in Residential Dwellings (Homes)

A-9.13.4.3.(2)(b) and (3)(b)(i) To allow effective depressurization of the space between the air barrier and the ground, the extraction opening (the pipe) should not be blocked and should be arranged such that air can be extracted form the entire space between the air barrier and the gound. This will ensure that the extraction system can maintain negative pressure underneath the entire floor (or in heated crawl spaces underneath the air barrier). The arrangement and location of the extraction system inlet)s_ may have design implications where the footing layout separates part of the space underneath the floor.

SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 39 Butterworths® Annotated Ontario Building Code Act, 2013 Edition John Mascarin, M.A., LL.B. & New Edition! Jeffrey L. Levitt, M.A., LL.B.

OBOA Member Price: $86 + tax (Regular Price: $95) Approx. 450 Pages | Softcover | September 2012 | Annual Standing Order Terms Apply* | ISBN: 9780433471899

Endorsed by the Ontario Building Ofﬁ cials Association – members receive a 10% discount.

Your One-Stop Resource on the Building Code Act, 1992 Well-received and highly recommended by building officials, Annotated Ontario Building Code Act, 2013 Edition is the only legal source you need for the Building Code Act, 1992 and the 2006 Ontario Building Code. With section-by-section commentary on the Act and numerous user-friendly and time-saving features, this comprehensive reference will noticeably speed up your research. Coverage includes unreported cases, giving you the full information that you need.

Order Today! Take advantage of the 30-Day Risk-Free† Examination. Visit store.lexisnexis.ca or call 1-800-668-6481

Prepay your order online and shipping & handling is free. Excludes shipping and handling for rush orders.

* Purchasers will be placed on standing order to receive future editions automatically on 30-day risk-free examination terms. † Pre-payment required for ﬁ rst-time purchasers. Price and other details are subject to change without notice. We pay shipping and handling if payment accompanies order. LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under licence. Butterworths is a registered trademark of Reed Elsevier (U.K.) Limited and its affiliated companies. Other products or services may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies. © 2012 LexisNexis Canada Inc. All rights reserved. Building, Selling, Installing, Surveying, InspecƟng, Enforcing, TesƟng, Learning... The Ontario Backow PrevenƟon AssociaƟon’s 10th Annual Conference and Workshop Wednesday, November 14th, 2012 At the VeneƟan Banquet & Hospitality Centre in Concord Visit hƩp://www.obpaonline.com for informa Ɵon and registraƟon forms Or email Claire Andrews, conference coordinator: [email protected]

Ten years of learning… for a lifeƟme of clean drinking water

Proud to be an award-winning chapter of the American Backow PrevenƟon AssociaƟon (ABPA). Visit us online: obpaonline.com

Building, Selling, Installing, Surveying, InspecƟng, Enforcing, TesƟng, Learning... The Ontario Backow PrevenƟon AssociaƟon’s 10th Annual Conference and Workshop Wednesday, November 14th, 2012 Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre Open House Come Help Us Celebrate 15 Years of At the VeneƟan Banquet & Hospitality Centre inEducation Concord in the On-Site Sewage Industry! Visit hƩp://www.obpaonline.com for informa Ɵon and registraƟon forms See New Tertiary Treatment Technologies Or email Claire Andrews, conference coordinator: [email protected] Other Innovative Equipment - Meet and Speak with a On-site Representative Ten years of learning… for a lifeƟme of clean drinking water Open 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm with refreshments 483 Arkell Road, Guelph Ontario

RSVP [email protected] www.orwc.uoguelph.ca

Proud to be an award-winning chapter of the American Backow PrevenƟon AssociaƟon (ABPA). Visit us online: obpaonline.com SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 41 We are the Ontario Building Officials Association. Like Architects, Engineers and others, our members are dedicated and trained professionals, ensuring public safety for the people who live, work, learn and play in Ontario. Building Knowledge. Growing Communities.

42 | Ontario Building Officials Association Sometimes it doesn’t fit...

... and sometimes it’s just right!

a partnership that serves you well with personalized coverage, attractive discounts and quality service. Get a quote 1-888-476-8737 The right fit. thepersonal.com/oboa Your exclusive group rate in as little as 10 minutes.

Certain conditions apply. Auto insurance is not available in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or British Columbia due to government-run plans.

G0391_1_A2_Q3-R-A_8,5X5,5-BW_12.indd 1 19/Jun/2012 11:46 AM

SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 43 OPIA of notlessthan; over alength of thesoilorwastepipemorethan450, soil orwastepipeswherethereisachange indirection forconnectingother by detergentsuds,mustnotserve one clotheswasher, wherepressurezonesarecreated morethan Therefore anysoilorwastepipethatserves just whenreceivingdischarge fromclotheswashers. identifying specific sudsinglocations,in Canadafor now tional Standard Plumbing Code in the UnitedStates by North America have adopted to follow the lead of the Na- Through experience, many oftheBuildingCodesacross check valveonthetrap armservingafixture. in fixturetailpieces(a.k.a.a“Robby”)orfullsizehorizontal included theinstallationofaneoprenecheck valvedirectly fixture. quickoverflowing Past fixes an be to appears what sure forcessudsback upthroughthetrapspillingoutwith fixtures areconnectednearthebaseofstacks, back pres- the drainageandventingsystems.Inmanycaseswhere cause anincreaseinthepressureandvacuumlevels tion over450inthestacks, thegreatersuds.This can systems. The moreturbulencecausedbychanges indirec- action and spread through the lower portions of drainage dishwashers. The sudscreateddisruptthenormalventing from fixturessuch astubandshowers,kitchen sinksand commercial laundries.Notethatsoapsudsarealsoformed clothes washingmachines inresidentialoccupanciesand We allknowthathigh-sudsingdetergentsareusedin Suds Pressure Zones 44 |OntarioBuilding Officials Association ii). timesthesizeofsoilorwaste 10 i). timesthesizeofsoilorwaste 40 OPIA pipe beforechange indirection,and pipe afterchanging indirection locations, in Canada for now just when for Canada in locations, America have North across Codes Building on the trap arm serving a fixture. valve check or a full size horizontal “Robby”) a (a.k.a. tailpieces pressure zones are created by detergent are zones pressure washer, where clothes one than more serves specific sudsing receiving discharge from clothes washers. by identifying in the United Code States Plumbing Standard the National of lead the follow to adopted directly in fixture valve of a check installation neoprene the included fixes quick fixture. Past out with what overflowing be an to spilling appears trap the through stacks, back pressure forces suds back up forces the base of pressure near back stacks, are connected fixtures more turbulence caused by changes in 45 over caused direction turbulence more systems. The drainage of portions lower the and spread through action venting normal and venting systems. In many cases where In systems. venting and in the drainage levels vacuum and pressure increase in the an cause can This suds. the and showers, kitchen sinks and kitchen disrupt the created suds The dishwashers. showers, and such as tub fixtures from formed also are that soap suds Note and laundries. commercial occupancies in residential in clothes washing used machines are detergents Through experience, many of the experience, Through Therefore any soil or waste pipe that or soil any Therefore We all know that high-‐sudsing know all We Inspectors Association President OntarioPlumbing Bratsch-Blundel, Rainier 0 in the stacks, the greater stacks, the in Suds Pressure Zones Pressure Suds using thefollowingtable; The length of theSudsPressure Zonecanbedetermined regarding whatisknownasthe“Area ofTurbulence”. stack or horizontal offset must conform to the requirements Note thattheconnectionsdownstreamofbase a either stack. that the point of connection is nota suds pressure zone in reconnected tothemainstack belowtheoffset,provided theoffsetmaybe separate stack forthethreefloorsabove arate “auxiliary” stack. In the case of a horizontal offset, the thebaseorhorizontaloffsettodischarge intoasep- above a horizontaloffsetinthestack, needthelowestthreefloors thebaseofstack orabove more thanonestoreyabove fixtures, havingsudspressurezones extending through Larger sizedsoilorwastestacks servingsuds-producing than 45 waste pipe of more or soil the of direction in there is a change where pipes waste or soil for connecting other serve not must suds, the to suds pressure 2.44m (8 feet). zone length of maximum the limited has Canada Code of Plumbing 2010 National The Note:

ii). i).

pipe before change in direction, and pipe before change in direction, the soil or waste of size the times 40 pipe after changing in direction. the soil or waste of size the times 10 0 , over a length of not less than ; , over a length of not -‐ 1 -‐ Fig.

SUDS PRESSURE ZONES

Upstream 40 X Dia. X 40 Upstream 40 X Dia. X 40 Downstream Downstream 10 X Dia. X 10 10 X Dia. X 10

OPIA SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 45

8” 3” 6” (1m) 1’ -‐ 3’ -‐ 2’ -‐ (750mm) (500mm) Downstream 10 Diameters Diameters 10

4” 0” 8” -‐ -‐ CBCO (2m) (4m) (3m) 6’ -‐ 13’ 13’ 10’ "The Step Above!" Upstream Length of Suds Pressure Zone Pressure Suds of Length 40 Diameters Diameters 40 The OBOAThe Bratsch- would like to congratulate Rainier of the Ontario being named President Blundel in recently a Association. Rainier has been Plumbing Inspectors again be Sessions and will Tech past presenter at AMTS for 2012. presenting in Sudbury

2” 4” 3” Size Pipe (50mm) (75mm) (100mm) separate “auxiliary” stack. In the case of a horizontal stack for the separate offset, the three offset may be reconnected to the main floors above the stack below the offset, provided that the point of connection is not a suds pressure zone in either stack. Note downstream of the base of a stack or horizontal offset must conform to the that requirements regarding what is known the connections as the “Area of Turbulence”. The Zone length can of be following table; Suds Pressure the determined using the Larger sized soil or waste stacks serving suds-‐producing fixtures, having suds pressure zones more extending than one storey through above the base of the stack offset in the or above a horizontal stack, three need the lowest floors horizontal offset above to discharge into a the base or

3” 6” 8”

(1m) 3’ -‐ 2’ -‐ 1’ -‐ Level: Each

(750mm) (500mm)

Downstream 10 Diameters Diameters 10 1st BSMT Kitchen Sink, Basin, Lavatory Closet Water Bathtub, Box, Washer Clothes inch inch

Typical on Typical 3-‐

− − − − − AND SEPARATE SEPARATE AND “Auxiliary” Connection inch inch 4” 0” 8” 3-‐ Separate “Auxiliary” Stack -‐ -‐ 2nd 3rd (4m) (3m) (2m) 4th 6’ -‐

13’ 13’ 10’ 10’ Upstream

Length of Suds Pressure Zone Pressure Suds of Length 40 Diameters Diameters 40

x10 = 1m = x10

Suds Zone Suds “AUXILIARY” STACK. “AUXILIARY” 4”(100mm) Downstream

x10 = 1m = x10 Suds Zone Suds

x40 = 4m = x40 Upstream Suds Zone Suds

4”(100mm) Downstream 4”(100mm) SUDS PRESSURE ZONES PRESSURE SUDS 2” 4” 3” x40 = 3m = x40 Upstream Suds Zone Suds Size 3”(75mm) -‐ Pipe inch Soil Soil Stack 3-‐ (50mm) (75mm) (100mm) x40 = 4m = x40

Upstream Suds Zone Suds 4”(100mm) Fig. 2

separate “auxiliary” stack. In the case of a horizontal stack for offset, the separate the three offset may be reconnected to the main floors above the stack below the offset, provided that the point of connection is not a suds stack. zone in either pressure Note downstream of the base of a stack or horizontal offset must to the conform that requirements regarding what is known the connections Turbulence”. of “Area the as The Zone length can of be table; following the Suds Pressure determined using the Larger sized soil or waste stacks serving suds-‐producing fixtures, having suds pressure zones more extending than one storey through above the base of the stack offset in the or above a horizontal stack, three need the lowest floors horizontal offset above to discharge into a the base or x40 = 3m = x40 Upstream Suds Zone Suds 3”(75mm)

Level: Each

1st

BSMT Closet Water Kitchen Sink, Basin, Lavatory

Bathtub, Box, Washer Clothes inch inch

Typical on Typical 3-‐ − − − − − AND SEPARATE SEPARATE AND “Auxiliary” Connection inch inch 3-‐ Separate “Auxiliary” Stack 2nd 3rd 4th

x10 = 1m = x10 Suds Zone Suds “AUXILIARY” STACK. “AUXILIARY” 4”(100mm) Downstream

x10 = 1m = x10 Suds Zone Suds

x40 = 4m = x40 Upstream Suds Zone Suds

4”(100mm) Downstream 4”(100mm) SUDS PRESSURE ZONES PRESSURE SUDS x40 = 3m = x40 Upstream Suds Zone Suds 3”(75mm) -‐ inch Soil Soil Stack 3-‐ x40 = 4m = x40

Upstream Zone Suds 4”(100mm) Fig. 2 x40 = 3m = x40 Upstream Suds Zone Suds 3”(75mm) EDITORIAL

Subject Matter Experts many Building Officials is, “where do I find the time to build knowledge in each new discipline while still performing the As mentioned in a previous Journal articles, one of my required duties of a municipally appointed Building Offi- tasks when taking on the editorial duties was to refocus the cial?” magazine to make it more of a technical resource for the If we had the answer to that question to that question it readers. Fortunately I was able to reach out to the network would be printed for you in these pages. What your Asso- EDITORIAL of building experts that the OBOA has built a relationship ciation can do is ensure you have access to the latest and with over the years and ask for their assistance. It wasn’t best quality training and professional development oppor- easy at times as concessions needed to be made in order tunities. We are committed to employing the Journal as a to secure submissions from these highly regarded individu- way to meet this objective. Let us know how we are doing. als (I had to promise one contributor free reign in abusing the Toronto Maple Leafs). There are two parts to “Building Knowledge, Growing Com- munities”. You need to advance in the first before the latter Also of difficulty was choosing the most current and rel- can be fulfilled. evant topics to focus on. As Building Officials, we are required to administer and enforce ever evolving standards Matt Farrell for construction of buildings. While the main purpose of the Ontario Building Code continues to be the promotion of [email protected] public health and safety, over the years the objectives have expanded to include fire protection, resource conservation, environmental integrity and accessibility. The question for

CHAPTER CORNER

opportunity. After a steak dinner, Todd provided the members with a few updates and allowed myself to provide an OBOA Board update. After a brief update, the Niagara Chapter was looking forward in hosting the energy conservation course in the near future to educate their members on the new code requirements. Is it rumor or real, Niagara Chapter the longest running OBOA Chapter?

Since Wellington Waterloo is my home Chapter, sitting back

CHAPTER CORNER to watch Chapter Chair Tammy Hogg (City of Guelph) wel- Wellington Waterloo/Niagara Chapters come and organize the golf was a pleasantry. Tammy is As a Regional Rep. (Region D), it is important to meet the a leader and clearly the spokesperson when announcing membership and answer questions regarding the OBOA. the scores, etc. Tammy and her team raised a few dollars Fortunately in the spring, I was able to attend two Chapter for breast cancer research through a putting contest. Con- meetings; Niagara and Wellington Waterloo. It just so hap- gratulations to the City of Guelph for placing 1st and 2nd. pens these two Chapters held their annual golf tournament Wonder where and how often they practice! The Chap- the same day! Now before anyone draws the conclusion of ter successfully offered the energy conservation course golf and Chapter meetings, you should know it was for a (SB 12) and is looking at another session in the fall. Good good cause. work WW executive!

Socializing and spending the afternoon with Chapter In summary, it’s not about the golf, but the golf is one good Chair Todd Rogers (City of St. Catherines) was a great reason for members to get out, support the Chapter and

46 | Ontario Building Officials Association CHAPTER CORNER SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 47 From left to right: Ron Kolbe; OBOA, Yvonne Hutchinson; Hutchinson; OBOA, Kolbe; left to right: Ron Yvonne From City of Kitchener, Mike Seiling, Beach, of Wasaga Town Vickers; Barrie Absent Newmarket. of Town Potter; Dave Beach of Wasaga Town OBOA the Build- local three to have was fortunate In May, to represent and ing Officials who unselfishly volunteered Expo. the CANSAVE promote building code knowledge at dealers are representatives from all across CANSAVE The South Barrie, Brockville, River & (Pembroke, the Province looking to gain product knowledge dealers are more). The In questions. code their answer to attending OBOA the with energy conservation code presented addition, David Potter, (eff. changes Jan. 1/12) to 35+ dealer reps including one industry lawyer. In Memory It is with great sadness the membership is advised that Mr. is a for- Rich Morris passed away in May of this year. Rich of the Canadian Fire Alarm Association and mer President he introduced smoke alarms in Canada some 50+ years CFSA was a larger than life ambassador and real ago. Rich those who did not have the good friend of the OBOA. For he was a warm, visionary and pleasure of meeting Rich, OBOAsmart man that will be missed. The will continue its working partnership with the CFSA proud and make Rich of future developments that benefit the membership and Associations. Central High School for his development of an Interactive of an Interactive for his development School Central High were winners of $100.00 runner-up The Display program. High Stratford Northwestern and his group from Mark Irons bursary was awarded for Bluewater Chapter The School. in developing the Interactive Display the students’ work in promoting the OBOAprogram to be used at various on display at this for this program to be public events. Look Sudbury. in year’s AMTS Month Expo & Building Safety 2012 CANSAVE Halton and Grand Erie Halton and I wonder if I wonder the building code. Ed Podniewicz, Chair of the Bluewater Chapter, presented Chapter, Chair of the Bluewater Ed Podniewicz, Stratford from Verhoeuve a $500.00 bursary to Trenton Trenton Verhoeuve receiving bursary from Bluewater Chair receiving bursary from Bluewater Verhoeuve Trenton Ed Podniewicz Kirk Livingston has accepted the position of Chief Building Kirk Livingston has accepted the position Official for the Municipality of South Bruce. Kirk is currently the Vice-Chair of the Bluewater Chapter. Wayne McFadden announced his retirement from the Town his retirement from the Town announced McFadden Wayne July 1st. Carol House effective of South Bruce Peninsula The Official. Building Chief new their appointed been has many for his thank Wayne like to would Chapter Bluewater Official com- years service to the Chapter and the Building munity and wish him a happy retirement. Bluewater Chapter Grand Erie Chapter Chair Fritz Enzlin displaying their new Enzlin Grand Erie Chapter Chair Fritz Cusumano banner with OBOA Leo President Grand Erie Chapter OBOA and not-so-good golfer Board member talk Seiling submitted by Mike Chapters are hosting a golf tournament, better place a call tournament, better are hosting a golf Chapters and Fritz! into Tom STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP

Inc.) NOW, failures in some Ontario condominiums and hotels that have inefficient glass walls and poorly designed building envelopes have resulted in recent OBC changes which this author believes do not go far enough with existing buildings.2 The legal fallout could well exceed its West Bob Marshall, Coast Condo counterpart-WOW. So what are the basic P.Eng., LEED AP, BDS strategies for protecting the public? STRATEGIC LEADERSHIPSTRATEGIC STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP BY CBO RESULTS IN SAFE & SUSTAINABLE BUILDING CODE ENVELOPE SOLUTIONS When it comes to Building Smart, Ontario has achieved great green leaps in building envelope durability and energy efficiency as per requirements in Parts 5 and 12 of the Ontario Building Code (OBC) respectively. Unfortu- nately, despite these smart and sustainable green leaps, it seems the basic lessons learned over the past decade or so still have not been applied to the majority of building envelopes. In other words, notwithstanding the Building Officials’ professional (often constrained) strategic efforts, we have structures designed to have service lives of 50 to Figure 1 100 years, with building envelopes which are intended to provide safety and energy conservation, that only last for For safer and sustainable buildings in Ontario, CBO’s 10 to 15 years or 2 years which is the only precedent set- should consider Façade ordinances for large buildings. To ting Part 5 OBC Case which was the subject of a Building ensure the safety of the public, inspectors that suspect or Code Commission (Ruling No. 03-32-930) for the exterior find unsafe conditions should consider issuing or having cladding on a building at Westney Road in Ajax.1 the CBO issue an order to remedy where the building is yet to be occupied or an unsafe order for occupied build- As a result of the strategic leadership by the Chief Build- ings. Toronto has already shown strategic leadership in this ing Official, his enforcement team and the author, the BCC area. I believe the responsibilities for risk management of ruled that the non-Code compliant as-installed face-sealed spontaneous falling glass due to nickel sulphide inclusions exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS) must be re- should be shared. placed. A new cladding system had to be installed (with no liability or cost to the Town of Ajax) to provide the OBC required Resistance to Deterioration & Sealing and Drain- age. (See Figure 1 showing the deteriorated condition of building substrate after less than 2 years Credit: Cedaridge Services Inc.)

Even though ‘at-minimum’ laws are in place to provide resistance to deterioration, sealing and drainage, there are still significant costly premature failures across Canada. In British Columbia, where this author was retained as an expert for the BC Ministry of Attorney General, less than 50

per cent of the leaky condominiums which were part of a $1.5-billion class action have been repaired. (See Figure 2 showing the similar deteriorated condition of building substrate in BC after about 5 years Credit: Cedaridge Services Figure 2

48 | Ontario Building Officials Association STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 49 CBCO Façade ordinances Façade OBC orders reporting and testing Building owner/developer by professionals International/National/Ontario and Codes Standards Development End to Throw- (See “An and Education Training Article Feature away Building Envelopes”3 National Green Building published for Canada’s Summit "The Step Above!" a a a a a Do Ontario’s Falling Glass Regulations Go Far Enough?”- Regulations Go Far Glass Do Ontario’s Falling July 2012 Link Link The OBOA is showing leadership as “Worth Every Nickel” Every Nickel” OBOAThe is showing leadership as “Worth and Training is the theme for your 2012 Annual Meeting thinking Every Nickel” I believe “Worth Sessions in Sudbury. sulphide inclusions in glass build- must be applied to nickel measures in this ar- ings. Implementing the Building Smart OBOAshow further will ticle safer a in ensuring leadership and more sustainable Ontario. another I trust you will have Session and please contact me if you successful Training require further information. Code Commission Ruling No. 03-32-930Building Link 1. http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Asset7647.aspx?method=1 2. http://www.constructioncanada.net/newsletters/100-july- 4-2012/735-do-ontarios-falling-glass-regulations-go-far- enough- End “An to Throwaway Building Envelopes”- April 2012 3. http://www.kenilworth.com/publications/cc/de/201204/ files/32.html BDS LEED is a Senior Building AP, Bob Marshall, P.Eng., Science Consultant with Stephenson Engineering. Bob can be contacted by e-mail at [email protected] or by cell: 905-868-4840 Photo: MTO Travel Center Travel Photo: MTO Training is critical. Last October, I had a session accepted I had a session accepted October, is critical. Last Training (out of 1200 abstracts) by USGBC for the Greenbuild the participants. At that had 22,000 in Toronto conference session it “Canadian Building Commissioning” educational believed participants of majority the that shown clearly was in the importance of this quality verification process. Since 5 of the OBC Part has mandated envelope January 2007, as practice such assemblies be in accordance with good Guideline S478, (CSA) Association Standards Canadian author is the LEEDon Durability in Buildings. This Build- that played a key role in facilitat- ing Science Professional ing the majority of the $300 million construction MTO’s of Centers. and durable Travel healthy world-class, safe, Building owners and developers should consider hav- should consider owners and developers Building is a author This testing implemented. ing non-destructive ISO on appointed expert Council of Canada Standards TC 163 which addresses international standards for the Built ISOEnvironment. By attending around the world meetings - from many countries, new innova and meeting delegates in example, are uncovered. For tive sustainable solutions has testing system approach Australia a non-destructive identify glass panels at risk of failure been developed to and the cost of can be increased so that the public safety be reduced or eliminated (eliminated litigation & liability can of Ajax). is SMART as was the case in the Town I provided guidance on durable building science engineering, LEED and OBC vision compliance to bring the MTO’s to fruition. All buildings should be OBC compliant including 5 and 12. Nevertheless, non-durable and energy-in- Parts efficient, predominately (some failing) glass buildings con- prevent durability failures, it is essential tinue to be built. To to apply the smart measures in this article including; MMAH QuARTS

A few “QuARTS” of Registration • The Plumbing All Buildings qualification examination includes Plumbing House qualification. The Building and Development Branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the Ministry) receives ques- In cases where the “stacking effect” exists, the Ministry tions on a regular basis about the Building Code qualifica- does not know whether an individual wishes to be recog- tion process. Many questions relate to the Building Code nized in all potential categories. Therefore, individuals must requirements for building officials to become qualified in check off the appropriate box(es) when completing and

MMAH QuARTS specific categories, and how to access training and exami- submitting their filing forms. nations. Updating Information with the Ministry What is often overlooked by building officials is the require- Information posted on QuARTS is only as accurate and cur- ment for practitioners who have passed examinations to rent as the information provided by individuals in their fil- file their information with the Ministry. Filing is required ings to the Ministry. for information to be posted on the public registry known as the Qualification and Registration Tracking System Part 3 – Division C of the Building Code Sentence (QuARTS). Not filing information or keeping information 3.1.6.1.(2) states that a person who files information under up-to-date can result in problems. For example, questions Sentence (1) with the director shall advise the director of may be raised as to whether or not a building official who is any change of information not later than 15 days after the not listed on QuARTS has the authority to review plans or change. conduct construction inspections. Therefore, individuals are responsible for informing the The Building Code Examination Program Ministry of any changes made to their information no later The qualification of building officials involves a “two-step” than 15 days after the change has been made. process: Municipalities often advise Ministry staff of outdated infor- 1) Successful completion of the examination program ad- mation that is posted on QuARTS. In these instances, an ministered by the MMAH (the relevant legal examina- individual from the municipality with the appropriate author- tion, and if required, technical examinations); and ity provides the names of individuals who are no longer with that municipality in writing on official letterhead and sends 2) Filing of information with the Director of the Building it to the Ministry. Before updating the records, MMAH will and Development Branch. follow up with the individuals listed in the letter to confirm Information provided in the filing is verified by Ministry staff their current status and inform them that changes will be prior to posting on QuARTS. reflected on QuARTS. A filing submitted by a building official lists the various cat- Chief Building Officials Filings egories of qualification. There appears to be some questions about who should file Certain categories of qualification for which a building of- as a CBO. Currently, the Building Code Act, 1992 and the ficial is filing, have a “stacking effect”. This means that the Building Code do not contain any provisions for the filing of successful completion of one examination entitles a build- information for Acting CBOs. Many municipal staff working ing practitioner to qualification in more than one category as inspectors, supervisor/managers or Deputy CBOs often or “subsets” of other categories. act as the CBO due to vacations or sick leaves. These individuals sometimes submit CBO filings. This causes For example: confusion, as more than one individual is listed on QuARTS • The Complex Buildings qualification examination as the CBO for a municipality. includes Large Buildings qualification. Only those individuals that have been officially appointed • The Small Buildings qualification examination by a municipal council as the CBO for a municipality may includes House qualification. submit a CBO filing.

• The Building Services qualification examination If you have any further questions related to these or other includes both HVAC House and Detection, Light- qualification and registration requirements, please contact ing and Power (DLP) qualifications. the Ministry’s Registration and Qualification Section at 416-585-6666.

50 | Ontario Building Officials Association CAO UPDATE SEPT 2012 | ISSUE 95 | 51 - Rohit Wallia; Technical Jason Radley; Golf - Ed Picco; Radley; Golf - Jason Technical - Rohit Wallia; - Angela Entertainment - Andre Guillot; Transportation Meredith Armstrong; Companion Program- Lanteigne; Corrie-Jo Delwo; & Breast Cancer - Charity Fundraising non-stop - Markku Makitalo have been working Hospitality to ensure that you the delegates for over the past year+ enjoy the hospitality of Sudbury and enjoy what Sudbury has to offer. OBOA hotel The at each Shuttle information will be posted is the conference the Holiday Inn which located 1.6 km from for hotel each near Tim’s is a there that note Please hotel. the shuttles and walk. Once exercise those that want to stop for the night just go to the Holiday Inn front desk and there addition In hotel. your to ride the for coupon taxi a get to go and Street Regent cross to opportunity the always is RIPEEddie’s and relax. The restaurant located 4-5 doors martini chocolate great has a Inn Holiday of the south to investigate these & dessert “oblivion” . It was my duty establishments have locations for you, the delegates. Both ads in this Journal. held be will Sessions Training & Meeting Annual 2013 The in Hamilton, ON, Sunday October 6th 2013 – Wednesday October 9th 2013 under the leadership Dio Ortiz. HOTEL INFORMATION of will be handed out 2013 Chair on the OBOAseparately to all delegates and also posted delegate website, NEWSBYTES and update e-mails. Your the information necessary to book will contain all package at available be also will Information Hotel. AMTS 2013 your the OBOA registration Desk in Sudbury on the lower floor. NO HOTEL BOOKINGS can be made until October 6th 2012. ONE IN YEAR ADVANCE. OBOA BoardPlease note: The is also reviewing the possibility of adding a possible fourth day to the AMTS training. TBA. for additional technical schedule CBCO Ronald M. Kolbe, Ronald M. Kolbe, Officer Chief Administrative “Building Code Experts are Building Officials” CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER UPDATE OFFICER CHIEFADMINISTRATIVE 2012 AMTS Chair Guido Mazza and the Host Committee Chair Guido Mazza 2012 AMTS Co-Chairof consisting Sponsorship Budgell; Sherri - The City boasts- institutions The three post-secondary and Collège Cambrian College, Laurentian University, de Sudbury Regional Hospital Boréal. Hôpital régional dollar expansion. multi-million is currently undergoing a Regional Cancer Combined with the Northeastern Ontario bothCentre, the as role Sudbury's support institutions Ontario. main provider of health services in northeastern science centre and Science North, our popular interactive IMAXtrade tourism vibrant a anchors successfully theatre, Dynamic Earth, a new attraction that continues to expand. opened in April 2003. focused on earth sciences, officially It is incredible to think that this Edition of the OBOAIt is incredible to on the highway to the City of Greater Journal will lead us amazing city spread out over an Sudbury is an Sudbury. area of 1,236 sq miles (3,200 km²). has evolved into Since those early pioneer days, Sudbury functions as capital that diverse regional a dynamic and Ontario - a market the service hub for all of northeastern major a remains mining While people. 550,000 at estimated has diversified the City influence on the local economy, significantly in recent years to establish itself as a major tourism, health centre of financial and business services, and government. education care and research, Hello OBOA Members, Leo J. Cusumano, CBCO, President Pier De Simone, CBCO, Director City of Mississauga City of Windsor Tel: 905-615-3200 Ext: 5699 Fax: 905-896-5686 Tel: 519-255-6611 Ext. 6185 Fax: 519-255-7170 E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]

Michael Seiling, CBCO, Vice President Esa Saarela, CBCO, Director City of Kitchener City of Timmins Tel: 519-741-2669 Fax: 519-741-2775 Tel: 705-360-2600 Fax: 705-360-2678 E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]

Alan Shaw, CBCO, Vice President Matt Farrell, Director City of Sarnia Township of Huron-Kinloss Tel: 519-332-0330 Ext: 270 Fax: 519-332-0776 Tel: 519-395-3735 Fax: 519-395-4107 E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected] Issue 95 / September 2012 Ken Andrus, CBCO, Secretary/Treasurer Norm Allen, CBCO, Director Municipality of Port Hope City of Ottawa Tel: 905-885-2431 Ext: 2508 Fax: 905- 885-5521 Tel: 613-580-2424 Ext. 41365 OBOA Strategic Plan 2012+ CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIALS AND E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 613-580-2687 E-Mail: [email protected] “…our association now has a strategic plan to RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS Dean Findlay, CBCO, C.Tech, Immediate Past President See Chris Williams, p.5-9 City of Peterborough Ronald M. Kolbe, CBCO, Chief Administrative Officer guide it’s decision-making and operations Tel: 705-742-7777 Ext: 1791 Fax: 705-742-1294 OBOA Provincial Office over the coming years…” E-Mail: [email protected] Tel: 905-264-1662 Fax: 905-264-8696 E-Mail: [email protected] President Leo Cusumano Chris Peck, CBCO, Director City of Brantford Tel: 519-759-4150 Ext: 2217 Fax: 519-752-1874 E-Mail: [email protected] 2012 OBOA BOARD2012 OBOA OF DIRECTORS

56th ANNUAL “Good Faith and MEETING & TRAINING SESSIONS Abuse of Public Office” “CASE COMMENT” p.33 Any advertising that appears in the OBOA Journal does not in anyway constitute CITY OF GREATER SUDBURY, ON an endorsement by the OBOA, the Editor or the Board Members. The opinions Stephen Lockwood, Counsel th th contained in Articles and Features are those of the Authors. Sunday September 9 to Wednesday September 12 2012 Legal Services Branch - Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing “WORTH EVERY NICKEL!” OBOA Featured Articles Tel: (905) 264-1662 200 Marycroft Ave. Unit #8 Woodbridge, Ontario L4L 5X4 President’s Message Legal Corner Case Comment 2012 AMTS Sudbury Editor In Chief www.oboa.on.ca Leo Cusumano - pg 2 Chris Williams - pg 5-8 Stephen Lockwood - pg 33 Guido Mazza - pg 18 Matt Farrell - pg 46