2021–2022: Building Code Commission annual report
Letter to the Minister
May 25, 2022
The Honourable Steve Clark
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
777 Bay Street, 17th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 2J3
Dear Minister Clark:
Re: Building Code Commission Annual Report 2021–2022 fiscal year
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, 2022.
The enclosed Annual Report highlights the Building Code Commission’s accomplishments and challenges over the 2021–2022 fiscal year. Overall, the Building Code Commission had a productive year, having received 31 new applications, and conducted 18 remote 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 secretariat, administrative, technical and legal assistance, the Building Code Commission simply could not function.
Sincerely,
Stephen Wong, Chair
Building Code Commission
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
- 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 9, 1976, and was made possible by the Legislature passing the first Building Code Act 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 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 (the “ministry”) 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
- 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 building design and construction sector.
About the Building Code Commission
Building Code Commission process and procedure
The process leading to a Commission hearing begins with the receipt of an application for a 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, and building owners as applicants, and municipal chief building officials, plan reviewers, building inspectors, and registered code agencies as respondents.
The applicant submits a completed Application for Hearing Form together with supporting documents and the application fee. At the same time, the applicant is required to also provide a copy of the completed Application for Hearing Form and the supporting documentation directly to the respondent. Once an application is received, the Commission requests confirmation of the dispute from the respondent by sending a Confirmation of Dispute Form for the respondent to complete and return. The respondent is required to provide a copy of the completed Confirmation of Dispute Form and supporting documentation directly to the applicant. The Confirmation of Dispute Form is similar to the Application for Hearing Form. The purpose is twofold:
- to verify that there is a dispute involving the technical requirements or the prescribed time frame requirements of the Building Code
- 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 confirmation of dispute is received, the Commission, under the 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 technical considerations, and proposed amendments (if any) regarding the pertinent Building Code provision(s).
For disputes related to the prescribed time frames, a Technical Background Information Memo is not requested, as no technical matters are involved in the dispute.
In addition to the three types of disputes noted above in Section A Mandate, under subsection 25(5) of the Building Code Act, 1992, a judge may refer question(s) respecting the interpretation of the technical requirements of the Building Code or the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code to the Building Code Commission for a hearing and report to the judge. The Commission’s procedure for hearing a court referred matter is the same as an application made under section 24 of the Act.
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 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, engineer, lawyer, or specialized consultant.
Once a hearing has concluded, the members of the panel deliberate on the evidence and render their ruling. This decision is then communicated to the parties to the hearing and the full written decision is subsequently issued to the parties and posted online to a legal reporting website, CanLII, which can be found at CanLII.
Commission members and ministry staff
As of March 31, 2022, the Commission had 14 part-time members, which includes the Chair and two Vice Chairs. 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 10 years. Commission members preside over hearings and render decisions on disputes. The Chair and Vice-Chairs also make administrative decisions regarding operations and relations with the ministry.
The Commission believes it is appropriate to seek staggered terms of appointment for Commission members as part of its succession plan strategy. This staggering of terms of appointment allows for newly appointed members to be mentored by experienced members and ensures that large numbers of members do not have terms that expire all at the same time.
To ensure adequate membership, the Commission Chair and ministry staff work with the Public Appointments Secretariat to advertise positions for new members with relevant expertise in the construction sector.
In addition to ensuring an adequate number of members, the Commission also works 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 relevant technical disciplines represented in the Building Code.
The following branches of the ministry and technology cluster support the Commission in fulfilling the requirements of the Agencies and Appointments Directive:
- the Planning and Growth Division’s Building and Development Branch
- the Business Management Division’s Corporate Services Branch, and Controllership and Financial Planning Branch
- Legal Services Branch
- Community Services I&IT Cluster
The Commission receives all of its staffing and financial resources from the Building and Development Branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Although the Commission has no staff of its own, the Policy/Program Analyst-Building Code Commission is the ministry staff person assigned to support the Commission. The Policy/Program Analyst is responsible for the overall administration of the Commission. This involves managing the appointments process, issues management, business planning, performance measurement, monitoring of expenditures, managing the application and hearing process, communicating and publishing rulings, and ensuring compliance with agency sector requirements and Management Board of Cabinet directives.
2021–2022 caseload
The Commission can hold up to six 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 31 new applications, no court referral applications and conducted 18 remote hearings.
The Commission received the following numbers of applications over the previous five years:
Fiscal year |
Building | On-site sewage system | Permit processing prescribed time frame | Site inspection prescribed time frame | Total applications | Court referrals | Total hearings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017–2018 | 26 |
4 | 3 | 0 | 33 | 0 | 31 |
2018–2019 | 17 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 29 |
2019–2020 | 37 |
7 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 1 | 35 |
2020–2021 | 17 |
6 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 1 | 31 |
2021–2022 | 27 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 18 |
It should be noted that the complexity of applications continues to increase. With the increase in the complexity of the applications and the number of applications that contain multiple disputes, the Commission notes that the length of time it takes to fully hear the matter has also increased. 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.
Analysis of Building Code Commission performance
Performance measures and targets
The Commission has long-standing established performance measures and targets, which include the following:
- fairness
- timeliness
- quality and consistency
- transparency
- expertise
- courtesy
These performance measures were adopted as a result of the recommendations established in 2000 by the Agency Reform (Guzzo) Commission.
Several steps have been taken to enhance the Commission’s performance and accountability over the years, including continued monitoring of Commission-specific performance measures and continued surveying of its clients to provide feedback on the Commission’s performance. Overall, the Commission has surpassed its targets for fiscal year 2021–2022. The results of the Commission’s performance can be found in Appendix 1.
Fairness
- The stated target of not more than 10% of hearings resulting in judicial review was again met in the 2021–2022 fiscal year. The Commission is aware of one application being issued for a judicial review of a decision of the Commission. Survey results for the 2021– 2022 fiscal year indicate that 100% of clients that responded to the survey agreed that they were treated fairly.
Timeliness
- The Commission met and exceeded its target for timely communication of its decisions to parties within 15 working days of completion of hearing for 100% of all hearings.
- Due to the continuing COVID‑19 pandemic, the Commission continued to make modifications to its process in order to continue to offer its services, including accepting electronic applications, holding remote hearings, and offering flexible timelines to parties. Therefore, the Commission temporarily suspended its practice of offering a hearing date within 40 working days from receipt of a complete application from the applicant as responses from the other party to the dispute were frequently delayed under the pandemic working conditions. The Commission notes that during this past fiscal year, timing from application to hearing and timing from receipt of the respondent’s confirmation of dispute to hearing was, on average, twice the target timeline.
- As a result, at its December 2021 General Meeting, the Commission resolved to modify its target to offer a hearing date within 30 working days from receipt of a complete application for 85% of all hearings where a complete application includes receipt of all required documents from both parties to a dispute. This measure was modified to better reflect time frames that are within the Commission’s administrative control.
- As mentioned in the 2021–2024 Business Plan, the Commission introduced a pilot project in the fall of 2020 to meet its performance target of providing timely written decisions. The Commission’s target of preparing and finalizing full written decisions within six months of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings was met during this fiscal cycle.
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 parties will be satisfied that Commission members demonstrated an appropriate level of expertise regarding the technical matters under consideration. Survey results indicate that 100% 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 100% of clients that responded to the survey agreed that they were treated with courtesy by ministry staff throughout the application process, and 100% felt that they were treated with courtesy by Commission members.
Strategic direction
The Commission’s strategic direction is consistent with its mandate as well as government priorities for the agency sector. As part of the Government of Ontario, agencies are expected to act in the best interests of Ontarians by being efficient, effective, and providing value for money to taxpayers. In alignment with this expectation, the Commission’s direction and objectives are consistent with the following government priorities that were outlined in the Commission’s 2021–2024 Business Plan and reflected in the work done during the 2021–2022 fiscal year:
Transparency and Accountability
- Abiding by applicable government directives and policies and ensuring transparency and accountability in reporting.
- Adhering to requirements of the Agencies and Appointments Directive, and responding to audit findings, where applicable.
- Identifying appropriate skills, knowledge and experience needed to effectively support the board’s role in agency governance and accountability.
Risk Management
- Developing and implementing an effective process for the identification, assessment and mitigation of risks, including planning for and responding to emergency situations such as member shortages and COVID‑19.
Digital Delivery and Customer Service
- Exploring and implementing digitization or digital modernization strategies for the provision of services online and continuing to meet and exceed customer service standards through transition.
- Using a variety of approaches or tools to ensure service delivery in all situations, including COVID‑19.
Operational performance
The Commission believes that in order to provide quality service to the public and to the building design and construction sector, the Commission as an agency must operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. This means more than having performance measurements and strategic direction 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 2021–2022:
- The Commission quickly and efficiently responded to the COVID‑19 outbreak. It continued to deliver the same level of service as under normal conditions by accepting electronic applications and conducting all hearings electronically. These measures are in keeping with the government’s aforementioned priority to enhance digital delivery and customer service.
- During the COVID‑19 pandemic, the Commission continued to maintain its compliance with the Management Board of Cabinet’s Agencies and Appointments Directive:
- The three-year Business Plan for 2022–2025 was prepared, finalized and submitted within the specified time frame.
- The Annual Report for 2020–2021 was completed, approved by the Commission and submitted within the specified time frame.
- Both the Commission’s Business Plan and Annual Report were publicly posted as required by the Agencies and Appointments Directive.
- The Commission continued to maintain compliance with the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009.
- In December 2021, the Commission held a General Meeting with the full Commission members by video conference in order to complete the review and approval of its accountability requirements, assess risks, and consider proposed operational improvements such as improving the timeliness for issuance of written decisions and digitizing its applications.
- Consistent with the government’s priority of risk management, the Commission continues to monitor risks, including identifying and assessing the risks and proposing mitigation strategies which are reported in the business plan each year.
- In July 2021, the Commission posted a job advertisement for new members, as part of its succession plan for staggering appointments and maintaining the technical expertise of its membership. As a result of the competition, two new members were appointed to the Commission.
- The Commission continued its practice of surveying clients and received an overall satisfaction rating of 100% from clients that responded to the survey.
- 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.
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, ministry staff and administrative support, and operational costs, are borne by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
This chart provides details of the costs associated with the Commission:
Expenses | 2022–2023 estimates $ |
2021–2022 estimates $ |
2021–2022 actuals $ |
2020–2021 actuals $ |
---|---|---|---|---|
Members’ per diems | 58,000 | 58,000 | 50,898 | 38,006 |
Members’ travel and hearing/meeting expenses | 13,500 | 13,100 | 0 |
0 |
Other administration | 9,000 | 8,800 | 18,046 | 6,988 |
Total expenses | 80,500 | 79,900 | 68,944 |
44,994 |
Revenues
Revenues received from the application fee are recorded as part of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing non-tax revenues.
The fee for filing an application to the Commission is set to increase annually up to the rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Accordingly, the application fee in 2021 was $194.00; and, effective January 1, 2022, the fee is $198.00.
This provides details of the revenues associated with applications to the Commission:
Revenues | 2022–2023 estimates $ |
2021–2022 estimates $ |
2021–2022 actuals $ |
2020–2021 actuals $ |
---|---|---|---|---|
Application fees | 6,930 | 6,790 | 3,879 | 3,648 |
Total revenues | 6,930 | 6,790 | 3,879 | 3,648 |
Remuneration of commission members
As part-time appointees, Commission members receive remuneration in the form of a per diem at rates established by the Management Board of Cabinet Agencies and Appointments Directive. 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 Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expenses Directive. The list of Commission members’ renumeration for this fiscal year 2021-2022 can be found in Appendix 2.
Costs associated with Commission activities, including operating costs and member per diems, form part of the overall budget of 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
Outcomes | Measures | Targets | 2021–2022 status | 2022–2023 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 | Not more than 10% of hearings should result in judicial review on an annual basis 10% |
Timeliness (timely resolution of disputes related to technical Code requirements) |
a) Number of working days from application to offer hearing date b) Number of working days from receipt of Respondent’s confirmation of dispute to offer hearing date c) Timely communication of decision d) Timely preparation and finalization of full written decision e) Timely posting of final written decisions online 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 15 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 online within ten business days of completion of the French translation |
a) Not applicable
Due to the COVID‑19 pandemic the Commission resolved to suspend this measure and to not offer hearing dates within 40 working days from receipt of application in order to provide parties to a dispute and ministry staff flexibility during the pandemic b) Not applicable Due to the COVID‑19 pandemic the Commission resolved to suspend this measure and to not offer hearing dates within 40 working days from receipt of application in order to provide parties to a dispute and ministry staff flexibility during the pandemic c) Target met and exceeded at 100% d) Target met e) Target met |
a) Updated: Offer a date for hearing within 30 working days from receipt of a complete application for 85% of all hearings. A complete application includes receipt of all required documents from both parties to a dispute. b) Updated: Offer a date for hearing within 30 working days from receipt of a complete application for 85% of all hearings. A complete application includes receipt of all required documents from both parties to a dispute. c) Communicate decisions to parties within 15 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 online within ten working days of completion of the French translation. |
Timeliness (timely resolution of disputes related to prescribed time frames) | a) Timely acknowledgement of application 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 online within ten business days of completion of the French translation |
a) Acknowledge receipt of complete application submission and provide date for hearing within two business days b) Hear disputes 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 online within ten business days of completion of the French translation |
a) No applications received in this fiscal year
b) No applications received in this fiscal year c) No applications received in this fiscal year d) No applications received in this fiscal year e) No applications received in this fiscal year |
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 online 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 and exceeded at 92% | 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 and exceeded at 92% | 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 members’ appointments expiring |
a) Target met and exceeded at 100% b) Target met |
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 members’ appointments expiring |
Courtesy (polite and courteous treatment of all parties) | Parties are satisfied that they were treated with courtesy throughout the application process and at a hearing | 85% of parties surveyed feel that they were treated with courtesy throughout the application process and the hearing | Target met and exceeded at 100% | 85% of parties surveyed feel that they are treated with courtesy throughout the application process and the hearing |
Appendix 2: Building Code Commission appointees list
The following Table shows the Commission’s Appointments from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. New appointments and re-appointments that occur after the end of the reporting period are not shown. See the Public Appointments Secretariat website for current Appointees List.
Commission members | Original appointment date | Expiry date of current appointment | Location | Total annual remuneration 2021–2022 $ |
---|---|---|---|---|
Stephen Wong, Chair | December 31, 2018 | December 30, 2024 | Toronto | 13,950 |
Alison Orr, Vice Chair | October 17, 2018 | December 8, 2024 | Hamilton | 2,478 |
Matthew Graham, Vice Chair | April 11, 2019 | June 23, 2024 | Ottawa | 3,644 |
Judith Beauchamp | September 13, 2017 | December 8, 2024 | Kitchener | 5,546 |
Christina Kalt | November 2, 2016 | June 23, 2023 | Toronto | 3,186 |
Lisa Miller-Way |
November 2, 2016 | April 28, 2021 | Toronto | 354 |
Leszek Muniak | November 2, 2016 | June 23, 2023 | Toronto | 3,894 |
Andrew Steen |
November 2, 2016 | April 28, 2021 | Toronto | 0 |
Carolyn Bilson |
November 30, 2016 | May 29, 2021 | Fergus | 0 |
Rick Mori |
November 30, 2016 | May 29, 2021 | Markham | 826 |
Alexandra Chow | February 2, 2017 | September 1, 2024 | Toronto | 4,130 |
Katherine Rentsch |
August 31, 2017 | August 30, 2021 | Hillsburgh | 0 |
Elektra Vrachas | February 14, 2019 | February 13, 2024 | Toronto | 4,012 |
David Annable | February 14, 2019 | February 13, 2024 | Brockville | 1,180 |
Michael Egberts | February 14, 2019 | February 13, 2024 | Toronto | 1,888 |
Michael Gooch | February 14, 2020 | February 16, 2025 | Bracebridge | 3,756 |
Fred Barkhouse |
March 5, 2020 | March 4, 2022 | Kanata | 403 |
Alex Campbell | September 16, 2021 | September 23, 2023 | Bradford/ West Gwillimbury | 1,652 |
Albert Schepers | March 4, 2022 | March 3, 2024 | Windsor | 0 |
James Eduful | March 4, 2022 | March 3, 2024 | Ottawa | 0 |
Total annual remuneration for Commission | N/A | N/A | N/A | 50,898 |
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Remuneration represents the per diems and does not include expenses.
Footnotes
- footnote[1] Back to paragraph The Commission’s fiscal year runs from April 1 – March 31.
- footnote[3] Back to paragraph In 2017–2018, one court referral resulted in four additional hearing days. In 2019–2020, in addition to the 44 applications received from April 1, one more application was referred to the Commission by Superior Court of Justice resulting in one additional hearing day. In addition to the 23 applications received in 2020–2021, one more application was referred to the Commission by Superior Court of Justice resulting in one additional hearing day in fiscal 2021–2022.
- footnote[2] Back to paragraph Differences in application vs. hearing totals may be attributed in part to matters being resolved between the parties before a hearing is held as well as having some hearings involving files from previous fiscal years.
- footnote[4] Back to paragraph The number of hearings is determined by the application rate. Member per diem remuneration rates are established by the Management Board of Cabinet Agencies and Appointments Directive applying to part-time Order in Council appointed members. The expenditure estimates are based on typical application rates (using historical data and projecting forward), member per diem remuneration rates and other operating expenses noted above. Note that ministry staff support costs are not reflected in the chart. See footnote (6) for information on the staff costs.
- footnote[5] Back to paragraph Due to COVID‑19 and work from home policies, no travel expenses were incurred from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. This also applied to 2020–2021.
- footnote[6] Back to paragraph The operating expenses cover costs associated with Commission hearings; per diems for Commission members; and reimbursement for out-of-pocket travel expenses related to hearings/meetings, including hotel accommodations, meal allowances, parking and public transit in accordance with the Management Board of Cabinet Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expenses Directive. Note that ministry staff support costs are not reflected in the chart. The Policy/Program Analyst-BCC is the ministry staff person (1.0 Full Time Equivalent) assigned to support the Commission and is responsible for its overall administration. The actual salaries and employee benefits in 2021–2022 were $110,865 and the estimates were $91,000. The estimates in the next business plan will be updated as necessary.
- footnote[7] Back to paragraph Estimated revenues are based on an average of 35 applications per year and the fee effective at the start of the fiscal year.
- footnote[8] Back to paragraph The total revenues include twenty applications received in the 2021–2022 fiscal year. Eleven applications received in 2021–2022 were processed in 2022–2023 and therefore not included in the 2021–2022 Actuals (five applications at $194.00 each and six applications at $198.00 each).
- footnote[9] Back to paragraph These members are no longer with the Commission as of the expiry date of their appointment terms.