Commitment to general review by BCIN

[NLaf]

Can a BCIN holder sign and do the commitment to general review? The Ontario building code says it has to be an "Architect". If a BCIN can prepare, stamp and submit the plans, shouldn't they also be able to do the commitment to general review? Or does an Architect have to be hired to do it for every project that required the commitment to general review?

 

[tmurray]

This is my understanding as someone outside of Ontario.

If an architect is required to be the designer of the building (under the Architects Act), then an architect must complete the commitment to general review.

For the most part, anything that only requires a BCIN for design would not require a commitment to general review form.

 

[NLaf]

This is my understanding as someone outside of Ontario.

If an architect is required to be the designer of the building (under the Architects Act), then an architect must complete the commitment to general review.

For the most part, anything that only requires a BCIN for design would not require a commitment to general review form.

Thanks for the reply, I guess it's different in other provinces. In Ontario a BCIN can design any building so long as they have the correct class of registration. So in no case is an "Architect" required for the design, either one can do the design. However commitment to general review is required for certain buildings and is written that it has to be by an "architect". As example any building with "assembly" occupancy is required to have commitment to general review by an architect but a Large buildings BCIN can do the design and take responsibility for the design. Hopefully some Ontario folks can shed some light.

 

[TheCommish]

For us down south of the Great lakes what is BCIN

 

[NLaf]

For us down south of the Great lakes what is BCIN

Building Code Identification Number. It is a license alternative to an "Architect".

 

[tmurray]

Thanks for the reply, I guess it's different in other provinces. In Ontario a BCIN can design any building so long as they have the correct class of registration. So in no case is an "Architect" required for the design, either one can do the design. However commitment to general review is required for certain buildings and is written that it has to be by an "architect". As example any building with "assembly" occupancy is required to have commitment to general review by an architect but a Large buildings BCIN can do the design and take responsibility for the design. Hopefully some Ontario folks can shed some light.

In that case you might want to reach out to MMAH for an official interpretation on it. My understanding is that an architect is one of the classes of people who can apply for a BCIN, so potentially this is how MMAH manages who can get that class of BCIN.

Your Architect's Act is very similar to ours here in NB where an architect is required for Part 3 design and inspections with exceptions carved out for engineers and building officials. It would make sense for MMAH's BCIN program to be consistent with other provincial acts, otherwise I would have expected the architect's association to challenge the requirements in court as they have done previously.

 

[tmurray]

I had a meeting with some MMAH staff on something yesterday and asked them the question.

Basically, nothing in the Building Code Act requires a commitment to field review form.

Architects are required on all Part 3 buildings in accordance with the Architects Act. Someone who only has a BCIN should not be doing a design to Part 3.

The commitment to field review is generally a requirement of the local jurisdiction, so they could theoretically have a similar form for a BCIN holder.

 

[NLaf]

I had a meeting with some MMAH staff on something yesterday and asked them the question.

Basically, nothing in the Building Code Act requires a commitment to field review form.

Architects are required on all Part 3 buildings in accordance with the Architects Act. Someone who only has a BCIN should not be doing a design to Part 3.

The commitment to field review is generally a requirement of the local jurisdiction, so they could theoretically have a similar form for a BCIN holder.

That's odd. BCIN can absolutely do design for part 3. That's the entire purpose of the additional test and class of license. Large buildings and complex buildings allow for the design and to take responsibility for the permit application of part 3 buildings.

I was talking to some examiners at Markham yesterday and they said that a BCIN can do the design and file the permit but can't do the general review. For buildings that require the general review, the designer has to hire an architect to sign for the commitment to general review. This is insane in my mind, so someone who is qualified to design in accordance to the OBC isn't qualified to verify that the construction is per their own approved drawings?

Apparently it's to avoid lawsuits from the OAA... can't confirm that but it checks. It seems I have my answer and I hope it changes in the future.

 

[tmurray]

That's odd. BCIN can absolutely do design for part 3. That's the entire purpose of the additional test and class of license. Large buildings and complex buildings allow for the design and to take responsibility for the permit application of part 3 buildings.

I was talking to some examiners at Markham yesterday and they said that a BCIN can do the design and file the permit but can't do the general review. For buildings that require the general review, the designer has to hire an architect to sign for the commitment to general review. This is insane in my mind, so someone who is qualified to design in accordance to the OBC isn't qualified to verify that the construction is per their own approved drawings?

Apparently it's to avoid lawsuits from the OAA... can't confirm that but it checks. It seems I have my answer and I hope it changes in the future.

The feeling I have is that some of this is related to a kind of turf war between registered design professionals and MMAH that goes back decades. Architects are responsible for regulating the practice of architecture through their association and have taken legal action against MMAH when they tried to impose some requirements of their own. It seems like MMAH then set up their own licensing regime and exempted architects.

However, the inconsistency in the field review requirements is solely because local jurisdiction required a field review form that MMAH does not endorse/use, so it is kind of logical that it is inconsistent with their licensing regime.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

For us down south of the Great lakes what is BCIN

It's registered designer for buildings that under Code, do not require a qualified designer (engineer/architect/interior designer in some areas.)

In Canada, only Part 3 buildings (large buildings, assembly and other complex occupancies) require engineers/architects. Small things, like little apartment buildings, stores, offices, etc, do not. But enter the pretty picture drawer who hasn't a clue what fire separations are and things get messy.

I'm sure you get folks who draw "pretty pictures" that are full of garbage, and miss a bunch of basic requirements. Folks that learned Autocad or some other program and put out a shingle to design things when they haven't a clue what they're doing.

Ontario has put the "pretty picture" creator out of business by requiring they gain some modicum of training.

I can only hope our province does the same.

 

[cworks]

In Ontario - Commitment to General reviews can only be provided by Architects or Engineers, where required. OBC Div. C Table 1.2.2.1 General Review indicates where a commitment certificate is required by code.

 

[NLaf]

In Ontario - Commitment to General reviews can only be provided by Architects or Engineers, where required. OBC Div. C Table 1.2.2.1 General Review indicates where a commitment certificate is required by code.

That is not correct. Although that is essentially how some municipalities interpret it as it seems they don't want to deal with lawsuits from the OAA. Under division C where it talks about general review, under the requirements for when general review is required there is 1.2.2.2 "Restrictions for general review". This is where it clarifies that general review is only required to be done by an architect IF the drawings were prepared by an architect or an architect was involved with that process. Logically this make sense because when we go back to the ACT under role of the Designer it clearly states that designers not only can do general review, they are required to do so where general review is required by the code. And nowhere is the building code is there any requirement that any class of building needs to be stamped by an architect. Yet some municipalities will enforce anything outside of part 9 requiring an architect stamp as that's how the Architects act outlines it. What's frustrating about this is that each CBO can make up their own rules which is allowed under the act as well but as a Designer I can't offer a service to "large buildings" because it's a coin toss if I can even submit the plans. Why even have different classifications of BCIN license like large or complex buildings and require active liability insurance if it can be denied and we can't even take on the liability. As an example, one of my projects is a 3 storey residential however they wanted a roof terrace which caused it to be a technical 4 storey building because of the stairwell to the roof. That municipality will not accept permit plans from a large buildings BCIN. Because it is "4 storeys" they require an architect which is ridiculous because that is well within the license of a large buildings BCIN. When I pushed for clarifications I was given the blanket statement that "as per the requirements of the building code, a large building has to be designed by an architect". They straight up lied. That is not in the building code at all. So I asked them to show me what section of the code says that and they just ignored it. It would have been fine if they answered truthfully and said they follow the architects act to avoid lawsuits.... but no they chose to just make up **** and lie.

Anyways that's my rant, it's frustrating and I wish the province would just pick a stance and enforce it. This grey area of rolling the dice is very difficult to quote and secure projects.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

And nowhere is the building code is there any requirement that any class of building needs to be stamped by an architect. Yet some municipalities will enforce anything outside of part 9 requiring an architect stamp as that's how the Architects act outlines it.

Based on the Architects Act, as it stands in Ontario (as just skim-read), the requirements are very similar as that of other jurisdictions.

Hence, any Ontario building official that accepts a Part 3 plan that doesn't have an architect's stamp (engineer's stamp) where one is required by the Act, is breaking the law.

While not explicit within the building code, the requirement is nonetheless quite clear, meaning a CBO cannot "make up their own rules." Any building official ignoring the requirements for stamped drawings as required by the Architects Act and Engineers Act would expose themselves to major liabilities and legal hassles.

So no, it's not Code.

It's law.

 

[NLaf]

Based on the Architects Act, as it stands in Ontario (as just skim-read), the requirements are very similar as that of other jurisdictions.

Hence, any Ontario building official that accepts a Part 3 plan that doesn't have an architect's stamp (engineer's stamp) where one is required by the Act, is breaking the law.

While not explicit within the building code, the requirement is nonetheless quite clear, meaning a CBO cannot "make up their own rules." Any building official ignoring the requirements for stamped drawings as required by the Architects Act and Engineers Act would expose themselves to major liabilities and legal hassles.

So no, it's not Code.

It's law.

Then why create the BCIN license at all? It's not old law grandfathered in, it came after the architects act. Why have the building code act outline that a BCIN (aka designer) can do those plans. Yes, the architects act is law but so is the building code act and they contradict each other. The building code act says a designer can do it and says they can and are required to do the general review. I have made "large buildings" applications with a BCIN, some municipalities do accept it. This is my point, the province needs to make a firm stance either way and enforce it. This wishy washy nonsense is ridiculous. If we follow the architects act then there can be BCIN above small buildings. If that's the route they want to take, fine then cancel all large and complex buildings BCIN and stop offering it. But that's not the case. So why does it exist? Why did the the MMAH create and enforce the licensing if it's against the law? Why am I required to get liability insurance and to prove it every year if I can't take liability? And yes the Building code act does say that the CBO has authority to decide what they deem required to take liability for permit applications.

Keep in mind it is the building code ACT that empowered CBO's and code review agencies and sets out their requirements and abilities, not the architects act. So you can't say they have to only follow the architects act as that would eliminate their own powers set out in the building code act. Some smaller municipalities even outsource their plans reviews to firms. Tiny Ont. does that...

I'm sorry if I come across aggressive this is just a frustrating topic and situation. There needs to be a clear line drawn. I want to be able to take on projects and know 100% if I am legally allowed to do it. Not have to reach out to every building department and ask what laws they choose to follow before I can even answer a client. As you can image it can sometime take weeks to get an answer on something like that. Picture how that makes me look when approached if I can take on or quote a project... Oh sorry give me a few weeks to see if I can even do it? No, that's insane. So far I keep a list of which do and don't but I do work all over Ontario so I am working in new municipaities all the time.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Yes, the architects act is law but so is the building code act and they contradict each other. The building code act says a designer can do it and says they can and are required to do the general review.

They do not contradict each other; there is simply an added layer of competence required for certain buildings.
The Code requires construction to have a designated designer; The Architect's Act/Engineer's Act requires the designer(s) of Part 3 buildings to also be licenced engineers/architects.

Example: I foster kittens for an animal shelter. They are building a new shelter. It is a part 9 D-occupancy building of about 900 square feet (so well below the 300m2 threshold that requires architects/engineers by law). I declared a conflict, and created the plans for the structure. I am the designer (by Code). I am not an architect, and don't need to be.

Under no circumstances can I design Part 3 buildings, because our laws state that Part 3 buildings require engineers and/or architects, and I am neither.

IIRC, Ontario also requires some part 9 buildings to have a certified part 9 designer ...

I have made "large buildings" applications with a BCIN, some municipalities do accept it. This is my point, the province needs to make a firm stance either way and enforce it.

If you are not an architect, you have just admitted to breaking Ontario law in a public forum. We had someone submit a part 3 design to our office - and they weren't an architect. The individual's plans were sent to the provincial architect's association, who sent a cease-and-desist letter. I believe a $50,000 fine is written into our province's act, but I may be remembering wrong.

If some CBOs accept plans for part 3 buildings from people who are not registered architects and/or engineers, they are exposing themselves to acute liability. The law is exceptionally clear on this.

Some light reading: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2021/2021bcca261/2021bcca261.html

I'm sorry if I come across aggressive this is just a frustrating topic and situation. There needs to be a clear line drawn.

If you are not a registered/licenced engineer/architect, you cannot design Part 3 buildings of any kind, nature or occupancy.

This is not complicated.

 

[NLaf]

They do not contradict each other; there is simply an added layer of competence required for certain buildings.
The Code requires construction to have a designated designer; The Architect's Act/Engineer's Act requires the designer(s) of Part 3 buildings to also be licenced engineers/architects.

Example: I foster kittens for an animal shelter. They are building a new shelter. It is a part 9 D-occupancy building of about 900 square feet (so well below the 300m2 threshold that requires architects/engineers by law). I declared a conflict, and created the plans for the structure. I am the designer (by Code). I am not an architect, and don't need to be.

Under no circumstances can I design Part 3 buildings, because our laws state that Part 3 buildings require engineers and/or architects, and I am neither.

IIRC, Ontario also requires some part 9 buildings to have a certified part 9 designer ...



If you are not an architect, you have just admitted to breaking Ontario law in a public forum. We had someone submit a part 3 design to our office - and they weren't an architect. The individual's plans were sent to the provincial architect's association, who sent a cease-and-desist letter. I believe a $50,000 fine is written into our province's act, but I may be remembering wrong.

If some CBOs accept plans for part 3 buildings from people who are not registered architects and/or engineers, they are exposing themselves to acute liability. The law is exceptionally clear on this.

Some light reading: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2021/2021bcca261/2021bcca261.html



If you are not a registered/licenced engineer/architect, you cannot design Part 3 buildings of any kind, nature or occupancy.

This is not complicated.

Part C 3.5 outlines the required qualifications for person performing design activities which is defined as preparing and submitting permit plans. That section provides the class of BCIN needed for part 3 buildings. This entire section is then contradicted by the architects act. I don't know if this was created with the intent to revise the architects act and then it never happened? If that was the intent why not remove it if that is no longer the intent? I don't know but it is there in the code. It makes no sense to even have those class of license if they are not accepted. Why require liability insurance if it's not legal to take liability?

Anyways it is what it is. I will continue to rely on each municipality as to what they will accept. I hope the Architect Act gets revised in my lifetime but I won't hold my breath.

 

[tmurray]

Ontario (MMAH) got sued by the architects association for infringing on their rights to regulate the practice of architecture. It takes time for administrative law to catch up to civil law.