Theme 1comments: A review of…

Theme 1comments:
A review of the examination process should be complete. Exams do not need to be “easier to pass” however the content should be relevant to the category and applicability. For example, the “General Legal” exam has a large section applicable to Part 10(Renovation) and 11(Change of Use) of the Ontario Building Code. General Legal may not be the most appropriate location for the technical content of Part 10/11 as General Legal is dealing with administrative provisions.
Composition of the questions should be reviewed. This includes having a large number of a series of questions, for very specialized types of building. For example, most designer and inspectors in Ontario will never deal with a “rapid transit building.” As such, is it appropriate to have 7 of the 75 questions dealing with the rapid transit in the Fire Protection exam when it is such a specialized? Course material should also be reviewed to ensure they are capturing the examination content.
The exams have primarily been the same since it started in 2005. As such the failure rate should also be analysed to see if the rate has been steadily increasing. If this is the case, the fails may be attributed to individuals without practical experience attempting to challenge the exam. For those who wrote pre-2006, these were likely experienced code practitioners who wrote the exam when it became a requirement. If so, mandatory pre-training should be considered prior to writing an exam.
The internship program should be reviewed to allow greater flexibility for a municipality to consider the specific limits of the candidate. For example, a footing inspection cannot be conducted by an intern regardless of the type of building and other qualifications of the individual. However, a framing inspection can be undertaken if designated as an intern. In most situations, a framing inspection is much more complex than a footing inspection but yet allowed as an intern. Some greater flexibility should be considered or perhaps a more comprehensive look at the provisional licensing approach stated in Florida.
The concept of having a prime consultant as recommended by the Elliott Lake Commission of Inquiry Report should be considered. With the complexity of buildings increasing, having an individual oversee the various designers responsibilities would be a benefit to ensure safe buildings and for any individual involved. The prime consultant may facilitate a more streamlined building permit process by acting as a liaison for all the design professionals involved in the project.
Staff has concern with utilizing “certified professionals” as described and being utilized in British Columbia. While the certified professional may undergo additional training and examination, this leaves a certain direct level of conflict of interest between a permit applicant and certified professional who is being paid by the permit applicant. There also leaves the question on who will be actually undertaking the review. Will it be the individual who is the “certified professional” or could it be delegated to an Engineer in Training for example of the same firm. Much more consideration and discussion needs to be provided on this subject matter. While it may appear that a certified professional may streamline the process, it may forego local or regional interest and expertise. Legal implications also need to be considered.

Theme 2: Comments:
The current QuARTS registration system could benefit from upgrades. The system needs to be more user friendly particularly for the casual user. More problematic than QuARTS however, the OneKEY system, used to pay, update and register, is even more cumbersome than QuARTS itself. As such, focusing on OneKEY is more highly recommended than QuARTS in staff’s opinion.
The building code is continually changing as are material, methods of construction and our understanding of building science. As such, a code practitioner cannot be static and must be able to develop their understanding of construction practice. This involves continual learning by way of professional development. Building Officials who are members of the Ontario Building Official Association (OBOA), already have a well-established CPD program. However incorporating a separate CPD program could be difficult, both financially and with time management issues for the municipality. As such, consideration to accept existing CPD programs within organizations such as AATO, OECETT or the OBOA need to be considered. Those who are not members of professional organization could be incorporated into a generic CPD that could be established by the MMAH. A CPD program should incorporate both formal training (in-class code related) as well as other relevant methods (presentations, Health and Safety training or volunteering in the building community). The OBOA current requirements for 60 credits over 3 years and split between both structured and independent learning seems reasonable.
The current practice on relying on the principal authority to provide registration compliance enforcement is difficult, non-uniform across the province and applicable to only that municipality. In many cases, the principal authority has become the “gate keeper” for registration and qualification issues. A lack of enforcement province wide for expired or non-qualified individuals leave little to no deterrent for individuals who work in many jurisdictions. A generic code of conduct could assist across the province as a condition to registration. However a review board would be required.

Theme 3 Comments:
A new administrative penalty would be a welcome tool for the principal authority for Orders to Comply, Orders to Remedy and Orders Not to Occupy. In order to be useful, it must:
1. Include fine amounts that are higher than typical Part 1 – Provincial Offence Tickets which are already permitted and
2. Must have a method to ensure collection such as linking to property tax collection
As with any other provincial offence charge, there must be an appeal mechanism for the applicant. This may be similar to the already established Building Code Commission.
The BCA already has a number of resource sharing opportunities for municipalities. As the paper indicates, 57% of municipalities in Ontario already have some sort of sharing agreement with another organization. Thus, there is already opportunities for municipalities to seek assistance.
Municipalities could use additional support to assist in a uniform approach on the applicability of code related matters or interpretation. While this uniform approach is attempted via various separate professional organizations, the Ministry needs to be the lead to send out the same message.
Staff support the construction of code compliant building everywhere in Ontario. However, the concept of having a new Administrative Authority to provide this service to smaller, rural or northern municipalities is difficult to understand at this point. If the Ministry is challenged by the ability to enforce the building code in remote areas, the Ministry should use the tools it created and seek assistance from shared agreements with another organization (closest municipality to unorganized territory for instance) or a RCA. Cost to administer is definitely a factor and needs to be considered. As such, a risked based approach needs to be considered with clear direction and understanding of the intent and potential issues.

Theme 4 Comments:
Staff are in complete support of enhancing any opportunity for the ministry to provide a uniform code interpretation across the province. In the past 15 years, this has been reduced to almost non-existent. Former “Branch Opinions” have been removed from the MMAH website but served as a fantastic former tool to assist in uniform code approach. During a regional session, it was perceived by MMAH staff that the MMAH was not mandated to be provided opinion. However other ministries do (see Ministry of the Solicitor General with Communiques/e-Bulletins with Ontario Fire Marshall Office). As such, staff has concern that additional support can only be provided by a new Administrative Authority when the MMAH provided this service years ago.
Additional digital services enhancement is well overdue. A beta version of a digital Ontario Building Code was released a number of year ago for testing. It worked well however staff are surprised that no further development occurred. This is long overdue.
Data is an important tool and understand why this would be a useful resource. However, the ministry has to be cognizant of any additional workload it could create to a municipality. As there are already a number of reports available (i.e. Tarion, MPAC, StatCAN, etc.…) review of these existing reports should be undertaken before increase the burden on municipal staff. Ministry also has to be aware that existing building permit software may not be able to create new reports without a significant cost implication to create for the municipality.

Theme 5 comments:
While municipal staff would be pleased at having additional support that an Administrative Authority could potentially provide, it does have some concern as well.
The governance model of the Administrative Authority is not known at this time. Thus, will the Board of Directors be composed of a balanced and fair demographic of the building sector in general (Building Officials, Designers, Contractors/Developers) or will the number create an unfair balance toward one sector versus another.
While the 0.016% fee appears to be relativity low initially, municipal staff has concern regarding this increasing over time. At this point, it is unknown if the surcharge is worth the cost of service it will receive. While it is not a building permit fee, it will be perceived as one to the public. It becomes even more difficult to sell if the fee is used to support activities in other communities such as enforcement of building code in unorganized territories.
Staff would accept any additional support that an Administrative Authority could provide. However, it also feels that much of what is being proposed should already be part of the directives of the existing Building Branch of the MMAH.