Why the 2024 Building Code Compendium Is Not a Reliable Consolidated Version of the 2024 Ontario Building Code Document

A Legal 2024 Ontario Building Code Document Does Not Exist

In its infinite wisdom, the Ontario government has decided that the legal version of the Ontario Building Code, will consist of TWO SEPARATE DOCUMENTS:

• CCBFC NRCC-CONST-56435E, “National Building Code of Canada 2020”
• “Ontario Amendments to the National Building Code of Canada 2020”, dated October 8, 2024 and issued by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

You may think that the 2024 Building Code Compendium published last year by the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing contains a consolidated 2024 legal Ontario Building Code document.

I have reviewed the various editions of the 2024 Building Code Compendium and I have noted numerous inconsistencies between  the purportedly "consolidated" Building Code in the Compendium and the official NBC and Ontario Amendment documents.  I certainly would not rely on the Compendium document in addressing any code interpretation issues.  I suspect that the 2024 Building Code Compendium would not be accepted as an official, legal version of the Ontario Building Code is a law court or any legal proceedings. 

Code users, including designers, building officials, contractors, architects, and engineers cannot rely on the 2024 Building Code Compendium for a reliable consolidation of the official NBC and Ontario Amendment documents. 

For example, the NBC contains Notes at the end of Part 3, which are not included in the 2024 Building Code Compendium.  These Notes are a part of the Building Code, yet they are not reproduced in the "compendium".  Instead of the Notes, advisory "Appendix Notes", which have no legal status, have been included in the "compendium".   This misleads and confuses code users, who are led to ignore the Notes.  There are many other examples.

                "This Compendium is not an official copy of the Act and Code.  Official copies of the legislation can be accessed from www.ontario.ca/laws."

Why is this important for Ontario code users?  For the past 50 years, the ENTIRE official, legal Ontario Building Code was available to code users as ONE document, in regulation format.  

Beginning this year, A SINGLE LEGAL ONTARIO BUILDING CODE DOCUMENT DOES NOT EXIST.

It is like me giving you some water, salt, yeast, and flour and then telling you that you have a loaf of bread.

The NBC and the Ontario Amendment Document are like the ingredients to make a legal OBC.

Since a single document that reliably consolidates the official NBC and Ontario Amendment documents does not exist, code users who need to comply with the Building Code will have to individually create a reliable consolidated Ontario Building Code Document.  I have begun to draft such a document and I estimate that it will take hundreds of hours of work to complete, even with my 23 years of experience in drafting and maintaining previous versions of the Ontario Building Code.  Do code users have the time to "reconstruct" a building code from the NBC and the Ontario Amendment Document every time they refer to it?  What effect will this new OBC format have on errors?  No other Canadian province with significant construction and design volumes (such as Alberta) has adopted this legal code format.  It would have been so much easier to follow Alberta's example and produce an Ontario version of the NBC in one official, legal document.

The Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's arbitrary policy decision to "just provide the ingredients for the Ontario Building Code, without actually producing an Ontario Building Code". will create a huge risk to Ontario designers and the entire building construction industry.

© 2025 - Alek Antoniuk, CodeNews Consulting Corp. Consulting Architect - www.codenews.ca

Ontario Guide to Kneecapping a Municipal Chief Building Official

Kneecapping is defined in the Collins English Dictionary as the act of shooting a person in the kneecap, especially as an act of retaliation. 

History has shown that many politicians, citizens, and developers have exhibited great displeasure in the way chief building officials have run their municipal building departments.  Most of the chief building officials that I know are competent, honest, incorruptible, law-abiding people who rigorously abide by the Building Code Act, which regulates building construction in Ontario.  It is this incorruptible nature of chief building officials that makes them a target.

This  guide will assist you in either getting the chief building official fired from office or, as a minimum, instilling a healthy amount of fear in the chief building official, so that the building department treats a particular project with “kid gloves”.

You may think that a chief building official is independent of a municipal council, especially after the Elliot Lake Inquiry recommended that “the Building Code Act should be amended to provide that building officials and inspectors are public office holders who are independent of the municipal council”.  (see Recommendation 1.18)  You may even point out that Subsection 1(6) of the Building Code Act was, indeed, amended by the Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017 to specifically state that the role of the chief building official is to: “to exercise powers and perform duties in an independent manner”.

I’m so sorry to disappoint you, folks, but the above flowery legal language is just useless hog wash.  In the real world, the chief building official has absolutely no more protection than the municipal arena janitor (with apologies to arena janitors). 

Now let’s get into the details on how to cut that virtuous chief building official down to size:

Organization Chart

Make sure that the chief building official is not a commissioner or any high ranking position that reports directly to the municipal council.  We must ensure that the chief building official’s position is buried well down in the municipality’s organization.  Preferably, the chief building official should be, at most, a supervisor who reports to a manager, who, in turn report to a director, commissioner, etc., etc.  This will ensure that the chief building official will be a “nobody” in the organization and can be treated accordingly.

Also, ensure that the chief building official reports to a person who can be easily manipulated.  Preferably, the person should be of weak character or be known to be incompetent and fearful about keeping their job.  It will be easier to pressure the chief building official through the supervisor.

Reporting to Council

Do not, under any circumstances permit the chief building official to report directly to municipal council.  The chief building official will likely tell the truth and we cannot let that happen.  Reports from the chief building official must be routed through at least two levels of management before they see the light of day at a council meeting.  The two levels of management will ensure that any report is corrected to set the “right tone” and is politically correct.

Limit Staffing and Resources for the Building Department 

Building inspectors and plans examiners allow the chief building official to enforce the Ontario Building Code.  If we don’t provide enough staff for the chief building official, then that chief building official will be useless, right? 

The best way to cut the building department budget is to set across-the-board targets to reduce all department budgets.  Just ignore the fact that most of the building department budget is based on building permit fees (which are never cut) so that a reduction in staffing results in a surplus which likely goes into the municipality’s building permit stabilization reserve fund.  While we are on the subject of the building permit stabilization reserve fund, make sure the municipal treasurer milks the reserve fund for all it’s got to cover the “indirect costs” of running the building department.

Do Not Allow the Council to Hire or Fire the Chief Building Official 

Now comes the fun part.  We all know that Subsection 3(2) of the Building Code Act states that:

“The council of each municipality shall appoint a chief building official and such inspectors as are necessary for the enforcement of this Act in the areas in which the municipality has jurisdiction.”

On the face of it, only a municipal council can hire or fire a chief building official – but – this is not true.

Let me show you how to hire or fire a chief building official without the approval of the municipal council.  First of all, check out the provisions of Section 23.1 of the Municipal Act, which “authorize a municipality to delegate its powers and duties under this or any other Act to a person or body”.  That’s right folks, all you have to do is get the municipal council to pass a by-law to delegate the power to hire or fire the chief building official to anyone employed by the municipality, including the CAO or the dog catcher.  Council will never even need to know that there is a chief building official in the municipality.

Now that you have totally isolated the chief building official from council, start aiming at the kneecaps!

General Note: 

CodeNews Consulting Corp. does not advocate any of the above mentioned strategies and does not provide consulting services related to the above objectives.

© 2019 - Alek Antoniuk, CodeNews Consulting Corp. Consulting Architect - www.codenews.ca

What is Causing Buildings to Collapse in Northern Ontario?

The State of Oregon can't stop people from calling themselves engineers.

In spite of the total corporate media blackout, Faith Goldy finished in third place in the 2018 election for Mayor of Toronto.

This is an especially remarkable achievement because the deep state corporate media cabal made it impossible for her to run a campaign:

• Google shut down Faith Goldy’s online advertising campaign on Saturday, October 20, 2018, just 48 hours before polls opened.  Google informed Goldy that her entire online advertising campaign, which included video, search result, and banner advertisements, had been shut down.  This is prime example of American interference in Canadian politics. [source]

• In violation of a signed contract & CRTC guidelines, on Sunday night, October 14, 2018, Rogers Media banned Faith Goldy Campaign radio ads set to begin Monday morning.  [source]

• Faith Goldy signed a contract with Bell Media in September, 2018 and paid for the broadcast of ads promoting her campaign but Bell refunded her money before her campaign ads ran. Bell offered no reasons.  [source]

• Patreon, a major source of raising campaign contributions shut down Faith Goldy's account in May, 2018 and PayPal closed her account in July, 2018.  This is another prime example of American interference in Canadian politics.  [source]

Ontario Building E-permitting – 2018 Update © by Alek Antoniuk, OAA          July 9, 2018

In 2017, Ontario municipalities received over 180,000 building permit applications.  The vast majority of these applications were made in person, where the permit applicant traveled to the building department, waited in line to be served, waited for the counter clerk to review the application, paid the permit fee, and then traveled back to the office or home.

If it took an average of 2 hours for an applicant to travel to the building department and apply for a building permit, at a minimum wage salary of $15/hr., the lost productivity for Ontario is $5 million every single year.  Many people have told me that $15/hr. is an unrealistically low salary for the design and construction industry: agreed! – let’s double the salary! – then Ontario’s lost productivity becomes over $10 million a year.

That $10 million a year will buy more than 20 brand new detached houses in Belleville this year, next year, and thereafter.  What would you rather choose:  drive to the building department and wait in line to apply for a permit; OR enable the Ontario economy to provide those 20 brand new detached houses in Belleville for young families next year and thereafter?

How do we make this happen?

In its report, titled "Streamlining the Development and Building Approvals Process in Ontario", released on July 4, 2018, the Residential Construction Council of Ontario (RESCON) proposed a building e-permitting pilot project to transition the current antiquated Ontario system to a state-of-the-art system.

Some Ontario municipalities have attempted to build their own building e-permitting systems and the results have not been pretty:

• users have complained about a lack of technical support because municipalities have not budgeted for it
•   technical support response times are measured in weeks
• each municipality has designed its own user interface and permit applicants have to learn a new interface for each municipality
• where a municipality offers user interface training, it takes applicants weeks to complete the training

From the user’s point of view, it is preferable to have one, uniform user e-permitting interface for the entire province.  After all, Ontario already has one, common permit application form, as well as one Building Code for the entire province.

Municipal building departments have invested millions of dollars in their individual data bases (such as Amanda) and processes.  They would resist any changes that would render their current systems obsolete.  Therefore, it would be prudent to design a building e-permitting system that has a common user interface but the system would have “back-end” connections to the existing “legacy” municipal systems.

 An e-permitting interface for Ontario has to be capable of handling enormous data files, process financial payments, and maintain security for users and municipalities.  The information technology component of the project would likely be outsourced.

Who would administer the Ontario Building E-permitting Interface?

In view of the new Ontario government's need to contain costs, this may be a good time to move the Building and Development Branch's code development, production, and regulatory functions into a designated administrative authority, in order to eliminate these costs from the government's financial books.  The Building and Development Branch would become a 3 person policy shop funded by the taxpayer whereas the Building Code Designated Administrative Authority would manage the Ontario Building E-permitting Interface and the code development, production, and administrative functions.

Since annual building permit fees in Ontario are about $200 million, a 1% - 3% surcharge on building permit fees would support a streamlined designated administrative authority and free up some cash for the provincial government that is currently being spent to fund the Building and Development Branch.  A 3% permit surcharge would enable the Building Code Designated Administrative Authority to produce and distribute the electronic version of the entire 2-volume Ontario Building Code for FREE to all college and university students, designers, builders, and anyone else who wants one. 

Richard Lyall, RESCON President, provided some useful insights about the e-permitting recommendations as follows:

"This is low-hanging fruit for Premier Doug Ford and the new Ontario government. One of their platform planks was to cut red tape to help industry thrive – we recommend they start here."

What will the Ontario Building Code require for electric vehicle charging stations, beginning on January 1, 2018 .......? by    Alek Antoniuk, OAA         www.CodeNews.ca         November 15, 2017

In 1984, the Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) and the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) essentially divided up the professional design “pie” so that PEO licence holders and architects gained the exclusive right to design and conduct general reviews of significant buildings in Ontario. This exclusivity is shared in a carefully negotiated arrangement between professional engineers and architects that is set out in complementary provisions of the Professional Engineers Act, 1984 and the Architects Act, 1984.  Both statutes were enacted in 1984. A Joint Practice Board of the two professions is supposed to help avoid confusion and conflicts between them.

In 1984, the Ontario Building Code, a regulation made pursuant to the Building Code Act, was amended to reflect the division of the design and general review “pie” between professional engineers and architects.  The Ontario Building Code contained a Design and General Review Table, which reflected the design and general review divisions embedded in the Professional Engineers Act, 1984 and the Architects Act, 1984.  Where an application was made for a building permit, a municipal building official would check the drawings to ensure that the design was prepared in accordance with the Ontario Building Code’s Design and General Review Table.  For 22 years, between 1984 and 2007, this arrangement worked very well because municipal building officials would not issue building permits if the design drawings contravened the Design and General Review Table.

Bill 124, the Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002, proclaimed on July 25, 2003, amended the Building Code Act to require all building officials and all designers submitting designs for the purpose of obtaining a building permit to be qualified and registered by the government, effective January 1, 2006.  Needless to say, this upset a lot of professional engineers and architects, since they already considered themselves to be qualified to design buildings and they did not appreciate more government red tape.

The PEO, supported by the OAA, challenged the Ontario government’s authority to regulate the practice of the province’s professional engineers under the Building Code Act.  The PEO) applied for a judicial review of Bill 124 to clarify the exclusive jurisdiction of self-regulating professions.  In 2007, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice confirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the PEO and the OAA to regulate the practice of engineering and architecture, respectively.  The Court declared that the professional qualification and registration requirements of the Building Code Act and Ontario Building Code do not apply to any holder of any licence or certificate issued under the Professional Engineers Act.  That was the good news.

Unfortunately, the Court also found that the Building Code Act did not provide sufficient authority to allocate responsibility for the design of buildings between members of the professional engineering and architectural professions in the Ontario Building Code.  The effect of this decision was to invalidate the Ontario Building Code’s Design and General Review Table.  In other words, the proverbial “baby was thrown out with the bath water”.

In December, 2007, the PEO and the OAA recognized the mess that was created and issued a joint bulletin, entitled “Design and General Review Requirements for Buildings in the Province of Ontario”, which encapsulated the scopes of practice contained in their legislation.  This joint bulletin was sent to all Ontario chief building officials on January 3, 2008 to be used as a guide.  Although the joint bulletin was useful because it contained a table that could be easily referenced to determine whether professional design was required for a building permit application, it was unenforceable by municipal building officials. 

After the 2007 Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, municipal building officials could no longer demand that certain buildings had to be designed by professional engineers and architects.  Indeed, a building official could not refuse to issue a permit for a 20 storey residential condominium building where a non-professional designer, who was qualified and registered under Bill 124, prepared the design. 

The simple solution to this absurdity would have been to amend the Building Code Act to reinstate the Ontario Building Code’s Design and General Review Table.    The OAA and the building officials’ organizations supported this simple solution.  Of course, the PEO would not permit this.  The PEO had won the court case and there was no way they would back off on this point.

Although municipal building officials continued to have the authority to refer plans to the PEO and the OAA for enforcement of the Professional Engineers Act and the Architects Act, municipal building officials had no authority to enforce those statutes.

Neither of the two main Ontario associations representing building officials took part in the2007 judicial review.  The Ontario Superior Court judges had to rely only on the arguments presented by the PEO, the OAA, and the Ontario government.  Had the Ontario Building Officials Association or the Large Municipalities Chief Building Officials been involved, one can only speculate that the outcome of the case would have been different.

In response to the Court’s decisions, the 2012 Ontario Building Code (O. Reg. 332/12), which came into effect on January 1, 2014, deleted the “professional design table” from Section 1.2.1., “Design”, of Division C.  A version of this table was relocated to Section 1.2.2., “General Review”, of Division C of the 2012 Ontario Building Code to apply only to general review requirements, since the 2007 Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision did not address general review.   

The 2012 Ontario Building Code is silent on when professional design is required for a building.  All references to an “architect” or a “professional engineer” have been replaced by a “suitably qualified and experienced person”.

Finally, 7 years after the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, the Ontario Legislature passed the Building Opportunity and Securing Our Future Act (Budget Measures), 2014 and the Act received Royal Assent on July 24, 2014.  Schedule 3 of the Act amended the Building Code Act, 1992 to establish the requirement for professional design of buildings. 

Schedule 3 amended the Building Code Act to update the list of conditions under which chief building officials may refuse to issue building permits.  Schedule 3 of the amendment permits chief building officials to refuse to issue permits where “the Architects Act or the Professional Engineers Act requires that the proposed construction of the building be designed by an architect or a professional engineer or a combination of both and the proposed construction is not so designed.”

The effect of this amendment to the Building Code Act is that a municipal building official has to read the Architects Act or the Professional Engineers Act in order to determine whether to issue a building permit.  Plus ça change!  Now, instead of consulting the old Design and General Review Table, a municipal building official has to interpret the professional design Acts!

In the meantime, the PEO continues to maintain its long held view that building officials are not authorized to adjudicate between professional engineers and architects with respect to which professional designer is required to be involved in the design of a building.  Clearly, this is an unresolved issue that was not addressed by the 2014 amendments to the Building Code Act.

Green Energy Ain't Perfect.

Why an East London Bethnal Green Solar Panel Fire is just as likely in Ontario, Canada.

3.1.5.24.  Combustible Solar Collector Systems

(1) A combustible solar collector system is permitted to be installed above the roof of a building required to be of noncombustible construction.

Available: Amendment Package #6 for the OBC Compendium

• clarifications on Retirement Homes; and
• the creation of slum housing by allowing for a new building type, euphamistically called "houses", which encourages the construction of sub-standard housing by permitting the circulation of polluted air from kitchens, bedrooms, living rooms, and washrooms in one dwelling into another dwelling unit.  This is all done for the goal of achieving affordable housing.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Why a London Grenfell Tower fire is less likely in Ontario, Canada

When the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (CCBFC) published the 2005 edition of the National Building Code (NBC), one of the most significant changes was to permit combustible components in the cladding of tall sprinklered buildings of unlimited height.

Following the changes to the 2005 NBC, there was pressure on Ontario to follow the lead of the CCBFC.  Ontario’s Chief Building Official and Director of the Building and Development Branch, David Brezer, P. Eng. and the Branch’s Code Development Manager, Alek Antoniuk, OAA reviewed the NBC changes and were not convinced that the combustible cladding changes were proven to be safe.  Branch staff recommended that the Ontario government not proceed to change Ontario’s Building Code to permit combustible cladding in buildings of unlimited height.  It was deemed prudent to refrain from amending the Ontario Building Code for at least one code cycle in order to see the experience of other jurisdictions that had implemented the change.

Therefore, Ontario kept a height restriction of 6 storeys for sprinklered buildings and 3 storeys for unsprinklered buildings in Sentence 3.1.5.5.(1) of Div. B of the Ontario Building Code.  Ontario remained one of the few jurisdictions in North America with restrictions on the height of buildings with combustible cladding.

Ontario’s caution was justified as a significant number of buildings around the world have experienced cladding fires.  Although these buildings are protected by automatic sprinkler systems, standard sprinkler systems are ineffective against fires on the exterior of buildings.  Ontario’s 6 storey limit is based on the ability of emergency responders to use fire hoses on the exterior of the building to control cladding fires.

It will be interesting to see whether other jurisdictions will align their building codes to match Ontario’s wise choice made over a decade ago.

About this site:

This web site is developed by Alek Antoniuk, OAA, BCIN #14661 Toronto, Ontario, Canada cell: +1-416-856-0241 e-mail: The e-mail address is a graphic to ward off spam robots .....!   Note that there is a "." (dot) between "alek" and "antoniuk".!

• consultation on your building project (I provide consulting services to owners, architects, engineers, and other designers)
• assistance in resolving code interpretation issues (I provide consulting services to other Code Consultants)
• advice on the introduction of new construction materials (I provide consulting services to product manufacturers and developers)
• seminars on building code issues for your organization

Privacy:

Piracy:

Final words and images: