Letter to the Minister

Building Code Commission
12th Floor, 777 Bay Street
Toronto, ON  M7A 2J3

ontario.ca/buildingcode

June 12, 2019

The Honourable Steve Clark
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
17th Floor, 777 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 2J3

Dear Minister Clark:

Re:Building Code Commission
Annual Report – Fiscal year – 2018 - 2019

It is my pleasure, as Chair of the Building Code Commission, to present to you the Building Code Commission’s Annual Report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019.

The enclosed Annual Report highlights the Building Code Commission’s accomplishments over the 2018 - 2019 fiscal year and outlines challenges that have been identified for the future. Overall, the Building Code Commission had a productive year, having received 24 new applications and conducted 29 hearings.

I would like to thank my fellow Commission members whose knowledge and dedication have earned the Building Code Commission an excellent reputation as a valuable service provider in the building and construction industry. On behalf of all members of the Commission, I would also like to express our thanks to the staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for their exemplary expert support to the Building Code Commission. Without their excellent administrative, technical and legal assistance, the Building Code Commission simply could not function.

Sincerely,

Stephen Wong, Chair
Building Code Commission

A. Mandate

The Building Code Commission (the “Commission”) is an adjudicative agency whose legislative authority is set out in sections 23 and 24 of the Building Code Act, 1992 (the “Act”).

The Commission has a mandate to resolve disputes between proponents of construction projects and local enforcement officials. The Act sets out three types of disputes that can be heard by the Commission:

  • those relating to the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code;
  • those related to compliance with the prescribed time frames for permit processing; and
  • those related to compliance with the prescribed time frames for site inspections.

Commitment to Service and Guiding Principles

The inaugural meeting of the Commission was held on February 9th, 1976, shortly after the first Building Code Act came into effect in 1974. Since then the Commission has endeavoured to provide a timely, cost effective and non-adversarial process for resolving Building Code disputes through a streamlined and accessible appeals system. In doing so, the Commission has earned a reputation within the construction industry of being an effective, useful and high quality adjudicative body.

The Commission has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in respect of the administration of the Commission. The Memorandum of Understanding sets out the relationship between the Chair of the Commission, the Minister and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing with respect to the Building Code Commission and the service it provides. The purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding is to establish the responsibilities of these parties and to ensure that accountability is a fundamental principle that is observed in the management, administration and operations of the Commission.

As an agency of government, the Commission conducts itself according to the management principles of the Government of Ontario. The Commission’s proceedings are governed by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Building Code Act, 1992, the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, the Building Code Commission’s Guidelines, Policies and Procedures Handbook, Management Board of Cabinet Directives and the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006. The principles and governance elements required of the Commission by these statutes and documents include ethical behavior, accountability, excellence in management, wise use of public funds, and high-quality service to the public by contributing to the health, safety, accessibility and energy efficiency of buildings in Ontario, and by playing a positive role within Ontario’s design and construction sector.

B. About the Building Code Commission

Building Code Commission Process and Procedures

The process leading to a Commission hearing begins with the receipt of an application for hearing. Section 24 of the Act provides that the Commission may determine disputes between a chief building official, inspector or registered code agency and an applicant for a permit, a holder of a permit, or a person to whom an order is given. Parties to an application to the Commission are typically builders, developers, architects, engineers, building owners as applicants, and municipal chief building officials, plan reviewers, building inspectors, registered code agencies and health officials as respondents.

Once an application is submitted, the Commission requests confirmation of the dispute from the respondent by sending them a Confirmation of Dispute form for completion and return. The Confirmation of Dispute is similar to the application form. Its purpose is twofold: 1) to verify that there is a dispute involving the technical requirements of the Building Code, and 2) to allow the Respondent to explain their position on the issue.

For disputes related to sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code: once the Confirmation of Dispute is received, the Commission under their authority in subsection 24(6) of the Act, requests a technical report from the Building and Development Branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This report, known as the Technical Background Information memo, analyzes the matters raised by the parties with regard to the provisions of the Building Code identified by the parties as being relevant to the disputed matter. The Technical Background Information memo examines the history, technical considerations, and proposed amendments (if any) regarding the pertinent Building Code provision(s).

For disputes related to the legislated time frames: a Technical Background Information memo is not requested, as no technical matters are involved in the dispute.

Hearing Procedures

Once all of the required information is received and has been provided to all parties to the hearing, a hearing is scheduled.

Commission hearings, while generally informal, are conducted in accordance with procedural rules established under the Building Code Act, 1992 and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Commission Chair, Vice-Chair, or Chair-Designate for the day conducts the hearing. Hearings begin with introductions of the parties and preliminary matters, such as identification of exhibits. Parties can represent themselves, but Applicants often choose a designated agent such as a contractor, architect, building code and fire protection consultants, or lawyer.

Once the hearing has concluded, the members of the panel deliberate on the evidence and render their decision. This decision is then provided to the parties to the hearing and is eventually posted on the ministry’s website.

Members and Staff

Commission members preside over hearings and render decisions on disputes. The Chair and Vice-Chair also make administrative decisions regarding operations and relations with the ministry.

Commission members are provided with learning opportunities throughout the year, such as attendance at the conference for The Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators or in-house training provided by the Building and Development Branch on changes to the Building Code.

The Commission is provided with administrative, technical and secretarial support by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The following divisions of the ministry support the Commission:

  • Municipal Services Division’s Building Services Transformation Branch and Building and Development Branch;
  • Business Management Division’s Corporate Services Branch and Controllership and Financial Planning Branch;
  • Legal Services Branch; and
  • Community Services I&IT Cluster.

The direct support staff assigned by the ministry to the Commission consist of a 1.0 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Commission Secretary, a 0.4 FTE Coordinator, Building Innovation, and a 0.4 FTE administrative assistant.

As of March 31, 2019, the Commission has a total of 17 part-time members, including the Chair and one Vice-Chair.  All Commission members are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council through an Order in Council.  Current Management Board of Cabinet Directives permit individuals appointed to the Commission to serve a combined term of appointment of up to ten years.

Succession planning continues to be an appointments-related issue. With 14 members having been appointed during the 2016-2017 fiscal year, the Commission was able to continue to operate. However, the Commission was once again in a situation where the ten year maximum tenure of the majority of its membership was set to occur at the same time.

The Commission believes it is appropriate to try and stagger the terms of appointment for Commission members. This staggering of terms of appointment can be achieved by appointing members in smaller groups so that Orders in Council will not expire all at once. This staggering will also allow for newly appointed members to be mentored by experienced members.

In trying to address the succession planning issue noted, the Commission Chair carefully considered what recommendations to make regarding reappointment of current members. As noted above, the terms of appointment of 14 of the Commission’s members expire at almost the same time. Accordingly, in making recommendations on reappointment, the Commission Chair did not recommend all 14 members for reappointment which created some vacancies.

Through the Public Appointments Secretariat website, the Commission advertised for candidates for the position of member and four new members were appointed in February 2019.  The Commission will also be advertising for three additional new members and anticipates new appointments in mid to late 2019.

These appointments and the anticipated new appointments will help the Commission to improve succession planning and achieve appointment overlaps, allowing for knowledge transfer from existing members to newly appointed members.

In addition to ensuring an adequate number of members, the Commission must also work at maintaining the knowledge base of its membership. It is important for the Commission to continue to solicit new members with expertise that reflects the full spectrum of technical disciplines represented in the Building Code. As described in the Memorandum of Understanding, the role of the Chair includes keeping the Minister informed of upcoming appointment vacancies and providing recommendations for appointments and/or reappointments to the Commission.

2018 - 2019 Caseload

The Commission can hold from six to 10 hearings in a month; however, the number of applications received determines the number of hearings the Commission needs to schedule. For the current reporting cycle, the Commission received 24 new applications and held 29 hearings.

The Commission received the following number of applications and held the following number of hearings over the last five years:

 Fiscal Year

 Building  On-site Sewage
System 		 Permit Processing
Prescribed Time Framed 		  Site Inspection
Prescribed Time Frame 		 Total
Applications

Total
Hearings

2014-2015

 30 4 1 0 35 26

2015-2016

 42* 3 2 0 47 47*

2016-2017

 30 4 1 0 35 33*

2017-2018

 26 4 3 0 33 31*

2018-2019

 17 5 2 0 24 29


Note: Difference in application vs. hearing totals may be attributed, in part, to matters being resolved between the parties before a hearing is held.

* In addition to the 42 building applications in 2015-2016, two more applications were referred to the Commission by the Superior Court of Justice under Section 25 of the Building Code Act, 1992. One of the court referred applications was heard over one hearing day. However, the other court reference has required the Commission to hold the hearing over multiple days and multiple fiscal years. There were 10 hearing days held during the 2015-2016 fiscal year, seven hearing days were held during the 2016-2017 fiscal year and a further four hearing days were held during the 2017-2018 fiscal year.

In the current reporting cycle, the number of applications has remained relatively consistent with previous years. It should be noted that while the number of applications has been maintained, the complexity of applications continue to increase. In addition, the Commission has also seen an increase in the number of applications requiring it to examine and determine its jurisdiction and mandate, because of disputes that may extend beyond the technical requirements of the Building Code.

C. Analysis Of Building Code Commission Performance

Performance Measures and Targets

The Commission has adopted the recommendations for performance measurement established by the Agency Reform (Guzzo) Commission. These are: fairness, accessibility, timeliness, quality and consistency, transparency, expertise, optimum cost, and courtesy. While not all of the goals were rated as “high” by the Commission, there are processes in place to ensure that all goals are integrated into the Commission’s operations and are, therefore, adequately addressed. The chart below indicates how the Commission ranked the goals.

Goals

Ranking 

Fairness

High 

Accessibility*

Low 

Timeliness

High 

Quality and Consistency

Medium 

Transparency

High 

Expertise

High 

Optimum Cost

Low 

Courtesy

High 

Measured Performance Results* It should be noted that the term “Accessibility” for the purposes of the performance measurement recommendations of the Agency Reform Commission was related to providing seamless and simple access to dispute resolution so that the public can receive quality and timely services regardless of their familiarity with the system.

Several steps have been taken to enhance the Commission’s performance and accountability over the past several years, including incorporating performance measurement in the ministry’s Estimates Briefing Book and introducing Commission-specific performance measures (Guzzo Report recommendations). Overall, the Commission has surpassed its targets for high rated goals. Performance measures based on these goals are found in Appendix 1.

Fairness

  • The stated target of not more than 10% of hearings resulting in judicial review was again met in the 2018 - 2019 fiscal year. The Commission did not receive any judicial reviews. Survey results for the 2018 - 2019 fiscal year indicate that 92% of clients that responded to the survey agreed that they were treated fairly.

Timeliness

  • In past general meetings, the Commission reviewed the wording of its performance measure related to timeliness of hearings. The Commission decided that the performance measure should track what the Commission is responsible for, which is providing hearing dates, and filter out matters beyond the control of the Commission, such as delayed return of documents or parties being unavailable for hearing dates.
  • The Commission decided that the performance measure will read “Offer a date for a hearing to be held within 40 working days from receipt of a complete application for 85% of all hearings” and “Offer a date for a hearing to be held within 20 working days from receipt of the Respondent’s confirmation of dispute for 85% of all hearings”. The Commission’s process includes input from the parties; therefore the Commission’s ability to hold a hearing within a certain number of working days is based on the responses from the parties being received by the Commission within a specific time frame.
  • The Commission met its target for these performance measures. The Commission offered a hearing date within 40 working days from receipt of a complete application in 100% of its cases. The Commission was able to offer a hearing date within 20 working days from receipt of the Respondent’s confirmation of dispute in 85% of its cases.
  • The above figures do not include the wait time associated with prescribed time frame appeals, for which the hearing must be held by the Commission not more than 5 business days after receipt of an application for hearing. In this regard, the Commission met the stated target 100% of the time.
  • The Commission’s performance in meeting its target for preparation and finalization of full written decisions has declined during this fiscal year. The Commission’s target of preparing and finalizing full written decisions within six months of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings was not met during this fiscal cycle. Written decisions for 55% of the technical disputes and for 100% of the time frame disputes have been completed within six months of completion of the hearing. Although the Commission did not meet its target for this fiscal cycle, it is noted that there is a 10% increase in its performance over last fiscal year. The Commission will be looking at ways to improve its performance by striking a task group of members and ministry staff to review and report back to the full Commission

Quality and Consistency

  • The Commission has set a target that 85% of parties will feel that the process had a high degree of quality and consistency. Survey results indicate that 92% of clients that responded to the survey agreed that the processes and procedures had a high degree of quality and consistency.

Transparency

  • The Commission has set a target that 85% of parties will feel that the process and procedures were clear and understandable. Survey results indicate that 92% of clients that responded to the survey agreed that the processes and procedures were clear and understandable.

Expertise

  • The Commission has set a target that 85% of clients will be satisfied that Commission members demonstrated an appropriate level of expertise regarding the technical matters under consideration. Survey results indicate that 92% of clients that responded to the survey agreed that members demonstrated an appropriate level of expertise regarding the technical matters under consideration.

Courtesy

  • The Commission has set a target that 85% of parties will feel that they are treated with courtesy throughout the application process and the hearing. Survey results indicate that 92% of clients that responded to the survey agreed that they were treated with courtesy by Commission staff throughout the application process, and 92% felt that they were treated with courtesy by Commission members.

The “Goals” ranked high and medium were surveyed by the Commission, and the results can be found in Appendix 1.

Operational Performance

The Commission believes that in order to provide quality service, to the public and the design and construction sector in particular, the Commission as an agency must operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. This means more than having performance measurements in place to strive for service excellence on a day-to-day basis. It also means pursuing excellence from an operational and administrative standpoint over the long term. To achieve this, the Commission also assesses itself on its operational performance. As with the above performance measures, operational excellence ensures accountability. The following are some of its operational achievements in 2018 - 2019:

  • The Commission continued to provide a cost effective and expeditious mechanism for resolution of disputes.
  • The Commission continued to maintain its compliance with the Management Board of Cabinet’s Agencies and Appointments Directive for agencies:
    • prepared, finalized and submitted its three year Business Plan for 2019-2022; and
    • its Annual Report for 2017-2018 fiscal year was completed and approved by the Commission within the specified time frame and submitted to the Minister.
    • publicly posted the Commission’s Business Plan and Annual Report as required by the Agencies and Appointments Directive.
  • The Commission continues to maintain compliance with the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009.
  • The Commission held two meetings of the full Commission, and will continue this practice as it accommodates the review and approval of accountability requirements such as the Annual Report and the Business Plan.
  • Seven new members were appointed to the Commission in November 2018.
  • The Commission Chair and staff worked with the Public Appointments Secretariat and the Minister’s Office to have two Vice Chairs appointed.
  • The Commission Chair and staff worked with the Public Appointments Secretariat and the Minister’s Office to advertise for a new Chair and a new Chair was successfully appointed on December 31, 2018.
  • As one of the new Vice Chairs appointed in October 2018 was subsequently appointed as the new Chair, the Commission needed to fill the second Vice Chair position again.  The new Chair reviewed the applications received in connection with the Vice Chair competition and made a recommendation for the Minister’s consideration.
  • The Commission Chair and staff worked with the ministry and the Public Appointments Secretariat to develop a job advertisement seeking an additional three new members.
  • The Commission continued its practice of surveying clients and received an overall satisfaction rating of 92% from clients that responded to the survey.
  • As a result of an amendment to the Building Code, the Commission began collecting application fees for its services as of January 1, 2014. In accordance with the Building Code amendment, the application fee increased on January 1, 2017, January 1, 2018 and January 1, 2019.
  • The Commission continues to be committed to providing services in accordance with the Accessibility Standards for Customer Service and the Integrated Accessibility Standards regulation made under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA).
  • The Commission staff continues to work with the ministry to ensure that its webpage and its public documents comply with the accessibility requirements under the AODA.

D. Financial Report

Budget

The Commission has no financial budget of its own, separate from that of the Ministry. All of the Commission’s costs, including Commission members’ per diem remuneration, staff and administrative support, and operational costs, are borne by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The chart below provides details on the costs associated with the Commission:

 Expense
 Type

 2019-2020
Estimates		 2018-2019
Estimates		 2018-2019
Actuals

2017-2018
Actuals

 Per diems

 $52,000 $50,000 $46,968

$74,085

Members’ travel and
 meeting expenses

 $12,360 $12,000 $5,022 

$15,598

Other
 administration

 $8,240 $8,000  $2,848

$9,197

Subtotal

 **$72,600 **$70,000  *$54,838

*$98,880

Full Time
 Equivalents - numbers

 1.8  1.8  1.8 

1.8 

Full Time
 Equivalents - costs
 (salary + benefits)

 $156,560  $152,000 $167,726

$137,716

Total Expenses

 $229,160 $222,000 $222,564

$236,596

 *The operating expenses cover costs associated with Commission hearings; per diems for Commission members; and reimbursement for out-of-pocket travel expenses related to meetings, including hotel accommodations, meal allowances (to the allowable maximum), parking and public transit.

**The number of hearings is determined by the application rate. Member per diem compensation rates are established by the Management Board of Cabinet’s Agencies and Appointments Directive. The expenditure estimates are based on typical application rates (using historical data and projecting forward), member per diem compensation rates and other operating expenses noted above.

Revenues

A fee for filing an application to the Building Code Commission was implemented starting January 1, 2014 ($170 per application) and is set to increase annually up to the rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Accordingly, the application fee increased to $189, effective January 1, 2019. For the purposes of determining the estimated revenues for 2019-2020, a CPI increase of 2% was assumed resulting in a fee of $193.00 effective January 1, 2020.

Revenues received from the application fee are recorded as part of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing non-tax revenues.

The chart below provides details of the revenues associated with applications to the Commission:

Revenues

 2019-2020
Estimates		 2018-2019
Estimates		 2018-2019
Actuals

2017-2018
Actuals

Application Fees

 $6,600 $6,500  $4,242 

$6,184 

Total Revenues

 $6,600 $6,500 $4,242 

$6,184 

Remuneration of Commission Members

As part-time appointees, Commission members receive remuneration in the form of a per diem at rates established by Treasury Board/Management Board of Cabinet. Effective January 1, 2018, this per diem ranged from $472 for members to $583 for the Vice-Chair and $744 for the Chair. Commission members are also reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses associated with attending Commission hearings, in accordance with the Management Board of Cabinet’s Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expenses Directive.

Costs associated with Commission activities, including operating costs and member per diems, form part of the overall budget for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The number of applications to the Commission and/or the complexity of issues raised in the applications directly impact the budget requirement in support of Commission activities.

Appendix 1: Performance Measures Table

Building Code Commission: Performance Measures

Outcomes 

 Measures  Targets  2018 - 2019 Status 

2019 - 2020 Commitments

Fairness
(processes and procedures that are fair and are seen to be fair) 

 Parties* are satisfied that the process was implemented fairly and without bias Not more than 10% of hearings should result in judicial review on an annual basis Target met. There were no judicial reviews in 2018-2019.

Not more than 10% of hearings should result in judicial review on an annual basis

Timeliness
(quick resolution of technical construction disputes) 

 a) Number of working days from application to offered hearing date.

b) Number of working days from receipt of Respondent’s confirmation of dispute to offered hearing date.

c) Timely communication of decision.

d) Timely preparation and finalization of full written decision.

e) Timely posting of final written decisions on Building Code Commission internet site.		 a) Offer a date for hearing within 40 working days from receipt of complete application for 85% of all hearings.

b) Offer a date for hearing within 20 working days from receipt of Respondent’s confirmation of dispute for 85% of all hearings.

c) Communicate decisions to parties within 20 working days of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings.

d) Full written decision to be prepared and finalized within six months of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings.

e) Post 85% of final written decisions on the Building Code Commission internet site within ten working days of completion of the French translation.		 a) Target met. A hearing date was offered within 40 working days of receipt of complete application was offered for 100% of all hearings.

b) Target not met. A hearing date was offered within 20 working days of receipt of Respondent’s confirmation of dispute was offered for 85% of all hearings.

c) Target met. Communicated decisions to parties within 20 working days of completion of hearing for 55% of all hearings.

d) Target not met. Full written decisions were prepared and finalized within six months of completion of hearing for 55% of hearings.

e) Target met. 85% of full written decisions that were prepared and finalized were posted on the Building Code Commission internet site within ten working days of completion of the French translation.

a) Offer a date for hearing within 40 working days from receipt of complete application for 85% of all hearings.

b) Offer a date for hearing within 20 working days from receipt of Respondent’s confirmation of dispute, for 85% of all hearings.

c) Communicate decisions to parties within 20 working days of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings.

d) Prepare and finalize full written decision within six months of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings.

e) Post 85% of final written decisions on the Building Code Commission internet site within ten working days of completion of the French translation.

Timeliness 
(quick resolution of disputes related to municipal service levels) 

 a) Timely acknowledgement
and notification of hearing date.

b) Timely scheduling of hearing date.

c) Timely communication of decision.

d) Timely preparation and finalization of full written decision.

e) Timely posting of final written decisions on Building Code Commission internet site.		 a) Acknowledge receipt of complete submission and provide date for appeal hearing within two business days.

b) Hear appeals regarding the issuance of municipal building permits and inspection service levels within five business days of receiving the completed application.

c) Communicate decisions within 15 business days of receiving the completed application.

d) Full written decisions to be prepared and finalized within six months of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings.

e) Post 85% of final written decisions on the Building Code Commission internet site within ten working days of completion of the French translation.		 a) Target met. Receipt of complete submission acknowledged and provided date for appeal hearing within two business days in 100% of
the cases.

b) Target met. Appeals regarding the issuance of municipal building permits and inspection service levels were heard within five business days of receiving the completed application in 100% of the cases.

c) Target met. Communicated decisions within 15 business days of receiving the completed application in 100% of the cases.

d) Target met. Full written decisions were prepared and finalized within six months of completion of hearing for 100% of hearings.

e) Target met. 100% of full written decisions that were prepared and finalized were posted on the Building Code Commission internet site within ten working days of completion of the French translation.

a) Acknowledge receipt of complete submission and provide date for appeal hearing within two business days.

b) Hear appeals regarding the issuance of municipal building permits and inspection service levels within five business days of receiving the completed application.

c) Communicate decisions within 15 business days of receiving the completed application.

d) Prepare and finalize full written decisions within six months of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings.

e) Post 85% of final written decisions on the Building Code Commission internet site within ten working days of completion of the French translation.

Quality and Consistency
(process and procedures that have integrity and uniformity) 

 Parties are satisfied that the Commission process was conducted with a high degree of quality and consistency. 85% of parties feel that the process had a high degree of quality and consistency. Target met. 2018-2019 survey results indicate 92% of parties felt that the process had a high degree of quality and consistency.

85% of parties feel that the process had a high degree of quality and consistency.

Transparency
(clear and understandable process and procedures) 

 Parties are satisfied that the Commission’s process and procedures were clearly understood. 85% of parties feel that the process and procedures were clear and understandable. Target met. 2018-2019 survey results indicate 92% of parties felt that the process and procedures were clear and understandable.

85% of parties feel that the process and procedures were clear and understandable.

Expertise
(thoughtful and sound Building Code Commission decisions made due to technical competence of members) 

a) Parties are satisfied that the Commission members demonstrated an appropriate level of knowledge and technical competency.

b) Timely notice to the ministry regarding upcoming Building Code Commission member terms of appointment expiration.

a) 85% of parties feel that the members were experts in the subject matter of the hearing.

b) Provide four months’ notice to the ministry in advance of member’s appointments expiring.

a) Target met. 2018-2019 survey results indicate 92% of parties were satisfied that members were experts.

b) Target met. The ministry was provided with four months’ notice in advance of member appointments expiring in the fiscal year 2018-2019.

a) 85% of parties feel that the members were experts in the subject matter of the hearing.

b) Provide four months’ notice to the ministry in advance of member’s appointments expiring.

Courtesy
(polite and courteous treatment of all parties)

 b) Timely notice to the ministry regarding upcoming Building Code Commission member terms of appointment expiration. 85% of parties surveyed feel that they were treated with courtesy throughout the application process and the hearing. Target met. 2018-2019 survey results indicate that 92% of parties felt that they were treated with courtesy by Commission staff throughout the application process and 92% felt that they were treated with courtesy by the Commission members at the hearing.

85% of parties feel that they are treated with courtesy throughout the application process and the hearing.

* In this Table, “parties” are those recognized by the Building Code Act, 1992, namely BCC Applicants (i.e. applicants for building permits, holders of building permits or persons to whom an order has been issued) and Respondents (i.e. municipal enforcement officials and their designates).

Appendix 2: Members of the Building Code Commission

Building Code Commission Appointees List

As of March 31, 2019

Commission
 Members 

 Original
Appointment Date		 Expiry Date
of Current
Appointment 

Location 

Stephen Wong, Chair

 December 31, 2018 December 30, 2020

Toronto 

Alison Orr, Vice Chair

 October 17, 2018  October 16, 2020

Hamilton

 Judy Beauchamp

September 13, 2017 

September 12, 2019 

Kitchener 

 Christina Kalt

November 2, 2016 

May 1, 2020 

Toronto 

Lisa Miller-Way

November 2, 2016 

May 1, 2020 

Toronto 

 Leszek Muniak

November 2, 2016 

May 1, 2020 

Toronto 

 Andrew Steen

November 2, 2016 

May 1, 2020 

Toronto 

 Carolyn Bilson

November 30, 2016 

May 29, 2020 

Fergus 

 Rick Mori

November 30, 2016 

May 29, 2020 

Markham 

 Alexandra Chow

February 2, 2017 

August 1, 2020 

Toronto 

 Katherine Rentsch

August 31, 2017 

August 30, 2019 

Hillsburgh 

 Ahmed Sharaf

September 13, 2017 

September 12, 2019 

Mississauga 

David Annable

February 14, 2019

February 13, 2021

Brockville

Elektra Vrachas

February 14, 2019

February 13, 2021

Toronto

Michael Egberts

February 14, 2019

February 13, 2021

Toronto

George Christoff

February 14, 2019

February 13, 2021

Cornwall