DOCUMENT 1

April 11, 2012

Mr. Ernie Hardeman

MPP Oxford

Chair

Standing Committee on Social Policy

99 Wellesley Street West

Room 1405, Whitney Block

Toronto, On M7A 1A2

Dear Mr. Hardeman:

Re: Draft Bill 20, An Act to Amend the Building Code, 1992

It is our understanding that the Standing Committee of Social Policy is considering the above noted draft Bill. It is also our understanding that many stakeholders were not notified of the proposed deliberations and thus were unable to provide comments as to the potential impacts of the proposed amendment to the Building Code Act.

The proposed Bill raises a number of concerns both from a policy and practical standpoint. Since the adoption of the Building Code Act and Ontario Building Code in 1974 and 1975 respectively, the building regulatory regime has focused on new construction with building officials reviewing proposed construction plans and then inspecting actual construction at various stages of completed construction and taking action to ensure compliance before occupancy.  To date, the Code has been enforced on a going forward basis only as there is no retroactivity in the application of the Building Code standards. 

The draft Bill is proposing that municipalities commence to enforce maintenance and rehabilitation standards, a significant deviation from the present regulatory regime’s approach to ensuring minimum building standards are incorporated into new construction province-wide. The specialized resources, permit review and inspections processes, support and record systems, processes, by-laws, etc., developed and introduced to effectively meet the legislative mandate has been entirely focused on new construction. To introduce the proposed change in direction, that of imposing minimum standards retroactively, would require an in depth review and determination of impacts and resource requirements, etc.

The proposed draft Bill would have this municipality, undertaking activities that

· would tax our limited resources

• would require building owners to repeatedly upgrade building systems at their cost, despite having obtained a final occupancy permit when the building was originally built (which confirmed the construction to have been in general compliance with the Building Code and releasing the owner from the obligations related to the permit). It is further noted that there are other significant safety regulations that were introduced post 1975 in the Building Code where retroactivity was not mandated. Examples are seismic standards, fire alarms, sprinklers, exiting, fire compartmentalization and backflow prevention.

· would increase our exposure to risk liability (if an inspector is inspecting the installation of the detector, how will he/she proceed through the building without noting other conditions considered to be unsafe?  How will the City be able to avoid liability because an unsafe condition was not observed and acted upon when the Inspector reviewed the installation of the detector – to what extent should the Inspector inspect in order to ensure the City would not be exposed to liability should there be other deficiencies or hazards?)

· Would not be cost recoverable – the City would expend at least $200 in costs per dwelling unit to enforce the installation of a $10 - 20 detector.  A fee of at least $200 will be considered disproportionate to the cost of the detector and thus unacceptable by the building owner.

There are other opportunities that should be explored before mandating the installation of these detectors in older buildings, such as incentive programs the Province could introduce that reward prudent and responsible building owners. Public education, voluntary compliance and incentives would burden municipalities and the Province to a lesser degree than a mandatory decree and enforcement activities to ensure compliance.

We urge the Provincial Standing Committee to consider seeking input from various stakeholders, such as municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Large Municipalities Chief Building Officials group, the Ontario Building Officials Association, building owners, etc prior to finalizing the review of the draft Bill. While we support any initiative that improves public safety, we recommend that such initiative be pursued with the involvement of stakeholders.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Peter E. Hume

Chair, Planning Committee of Council

City of Ottawa

cc: The Honourable Kathleen Wynne, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Katch Koch, Clerk, Standing Committee on Social Policy

Arlene Grégoire, Chief Building Official, City of Ottawa

George Kotsifas, Chair of the Large Municipalities Chief Building Officials

Leo. J. Cusumano, President, Ontario Building Officials Association

Gary McNamara, President, Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)