AITA? Storage building exits

[tmurray]

What the crap is this junk?

Not you. I think he is referring to other departments that did not perform a plan review and just issue the permit because of who submitted the application or it is stamped by an engineer.

 

[Ask Bing Code]

Not you. I think he is referring to other departments that did not perform a plan review and just issue the permit because of who submitted the application or it is stamped by an engineer.

Exactly. Based on my experience in building code enforcement and consulting, I’ve observed that certain building departments or agencies collect permit fees without ever reviewing the plans. In some cases, I was even instructed to issue building permits with nothing more than a project title—no actual construction documents. These departments prioritize profit over public safety, exploiting the fact that liability exemptions under the Act shield them from accountability.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

What bothers me is the number of times I get the "we've never had to do that before" statement, and I don't get the feeling that other AHJ's have, in fact, done appropriate due diligence. I'm still relatively new to this biz .... I shouldn't be the one making these discoveries.

I get that a lot, and I used to get it at my previous job. The former job was in a small town just to the west of what passes for a city around here -- the newer job is in a town just to the east of the same city. I know a little bit about how that city's building department operates, so when I get "But they never made me do that in {____}, I'm inclined to believe it.

However, when I get that from architects who I know are working in towns that do enforce the code, I am forced to conclude that they're flat out lying to me.

 

[steveray]

The Building Department accepted fees from applicants but failed to review their plans. This misuse of the system as a revenue-generating scheme is unacceptable and must be strictly prohibited. There is no justification for neglecting plan reviews.

Code section or relevant law?

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Code section or relevant law?

In Canada, provinces empower the code and establish legislative structures guiding the requirements of a building official to conduct reviews.

In New Brunswick, the Legislation is the Building Code Administration Act, which is empowered by a provincial regulation that states, in part;
"8(1) In addition to the requirements of the Act, a constructor shall construct a building in accordance with
...
(c) any plans approved by the building inspector. "

the Act states,
"16 A building inspector may refuse to issue a building or demolition permit if [...]
(c) the information provided is not sufficient to determine compliance with the Code.

Both of these imply a requirement to evaluate plans for compliance with Code.

However, a number of common-law cases in Canada that drive the requirement to conduct appropriate reviews. The most prescient I think is Breen vs. Township of Lake Of Bays. (https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/d...09:42:03:808/0a9718e2e1e74c46a3fb3973b948505b)
In this case, a permit was issued without a plans review, and without a framing inspection. The municipality had its butt handed to them in the judgment.

Relevant quotes:

"The Township granted the Permit with no plans or specifications contrary to the By-Law and granted the said Permit in less than one day. I conclude that the Township building department did not review the Application for Permit in any meaningful manner, to ascertain whether the information provided allowed it to conclude that the Application complied with the Act or Code. The information in the Application is so sparse, I fail to understand how the Township could determine the scope and complexity of the three-storey building that was intended to be constructed. The Township had the authority to demand a set of Plans, more information on the scope and complexity of the construction before granting a building permit. The Township could have rejected the Application. It did neither.
"At minimum, the Township was entrusted to take reasonable and prudent steps to review the Application for Building Permit to enforce the Act, Code and the By-Law for the health and safety of the public, which includes subsequent owners of the Cottage. The Township had no plans or specifications to do so. The granting of the Permit the same day indicates that it did no review, which corresponds to there being no plans or specifications to review.
" I conclude that at this first stage, the conduct of the Township fell well below the required standard of care."

Another key file that is closer to home - Nadeau Poultry farms. A third-party fire engineer stated bluntly that an expansion in the plant, issued under a permit, required that fire-rated assemblies, as well as a standpipe/fire suppression systems be installed - but they were neither installed, nor were they part of the submitted plans.

This goes back to the original matter: how building officials relate to engineers/architects, and when we rely on their knowledge. If we have reason to believe an error has been made, it is incumbent upon us to resolve that.

Real-world issue: I had a plan for a building that came before my desk where a professional engineer had signed off on a building. The structure had been designed with a seismic Sa 0.2 loading of 0.45g .... for an area with a documented and verifiable seismic Sa 0.2 loading of 0.76g. The engineer screwed up.

I now check seismic input data on every engineer-designed building in my region, and I would argue I now have the obligation to do so - I have demonstrated the capacity to understand and evaluate seismic inputs. Failure to do so down the road would be incompetence.

 

[steveray]

In Canada, provinces empower the code and establish legislative structures guiding the requirements of a building official to conduct reviews.

In New Brunswick, the Legislation is the Building Code Administration Act, which is empowered by a provincial regulation that states, in part;
"8(1) In addition to the requirements of the Act, a constructor shall construct a building in accordance with
...
(c) any plans approved by the building inspector. "

the Act states,
"16 A building inspector may refuse to issue a building or demolition permit if [...]
(c) the information provided is not sufficient to determine compliance with the Code.

Both of these imply a requirement to evaluate plans for compliance with Code.

However, a number of common-law cases in Canada that drive the requirement to conduct appropriate reviews. The most prescient I think is Breen vs. Township of Lake Of Bays. (https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/d...09:42:03:808/0a9718e2e1e74c46a3fb3973b948505b)
In this case, a permit was issued without a plans review, and without a framing inspection. The municipality had its butt handed to them in the judgment.

Relevant quotes:

"The Township granted the Permit with no plans or specifications contrary to the By-Law and granted the said Permit in less than one day. I conclude that the Township building department did not review the Application for Permit in any meaningful manner, to ascertain whether the information provided allowed it to conclude that the Application complied with the Act or Code. The information in the Application is so sparse, I fail to understand how the Township could determine the scope and complexity of the three-storey building that was intended to be constructed. The Township had the authority to demand a set of Plans, more information on the scope and complexity of the construction before granting a building permit. The Township could have rejected the Application. It did neither.
"At minimum, the Township was entrusted to take reasonable and prudent steps to review the Application for Building Permit to enforce the Act, Code and the By-Law for the health and safety of the public, which includes subsequent owners of the Cottage. The Township had no plans or specifications to do so. The granting of the Permit the same day indicates that it did no review, which corresponds to there being no plans or specifications to review.
" I conclude that at this first stage, the conduct of the Township fell well below the required standard of care."

Another key file that is closer to home - Nadeau Poultry farms. A third-party fire engineer stated bluntly that an expansion in the plant, issued under a permit, required that fire-rated assemblies, as well as a standpipe/fire suppression systems be installed - but they were neither installed, nor were they part of the submitted plans.

This goes back to the original matter: how building officials relate to engineers/architects, and when we rely on their knowledge. If we have reason to believe an error has been made, it is incumbent upon us to resolve that.

Real-world issue: I had a plan for a building that came before my desk where a professional engineer had signed off on a building. The structure had been designed with a seismic Sa 0.2 loading of 0.45g .... for an area with a documented and verifiable seismic Sa 0.2 loading of 0.76g. The engineer screwed up.

I now check seismic input data on every engineer-designed building in my region, and I would argue I now have the obligation to do so - I have demonstrated the capacity to understand and evaluate seismic inputs. Failure to do so down the road would be incompetence.

I was asking Bing...

 

[Ask Bing Code]

I was asking Bing...

This pertains to the legislation regulating building officials and accredited municipalities and agencies. In my province, it is known as the Safety Codes Act. The Act includes a liability exemption clause, which states that building officials and agencies are not held accountable for their actions as long as they act in good faith.

While this provision is intended to protect officials from undue legal consequences, it has been misused, enabling some agencies to neglect proper plan reviews while still collecting fees. As a result, there are cases of poorly trained building officials and irresponsible agencies operating without sufficient oversight.

For example, I’ve worked alongside officials who issued permits for 15 single-family homes in a single day—far beyond what proper review would allow. In some cases, they likely didn’t even open the files. In another instance, an agency asked me to issue permits based solely on a project title, with no further documentation.

Such practices highlight how the misuse of this exemption clause

Liability exemption
12(1) No action lies against the Crown, the Council, members of the Council, employees or officers of the Council, safety codes officers, accredited municipalities or their employees or officers, accredited regional services commissions or their employees or officers, accredited agencies or their employees or officers or Administrators for anything done or not done by any of them in good faith while exercising their powers and performing their duties under this Act.

 

[steveray]

This pertains to the legislation regulating building officials and accredited municipalities and agencies. In my province, it is known as the Safety Codes Act. The Act includes a liability exemption clause, which states that building officials and agencies are not held accountable for their actions as long as they act in good faith.

While this provision is intended to protect officials from undue legal consequences, it has been misused, enabling some agencies to neglect proper plan reviews while still collecting fees. As a result, there are cases of poorly trained building officials and irresponsible agencies operating without sufficient oversight.

For example, I’ve worked alongside officials who issued permits for 15 single-family homes in a single day—far beyond what proper review would allow. In some cases, they likely didn’t even open the files. In another instance, an agency asked me to issue permits based solely on a project title, with no further documentation.

Such practices highlight how the misuse of this exemption clause

Liability exemption
12(1) No action lies against the Crown, the Council, members of the Council, employees or officers of the Council, safety codes officers, accredited municipalities or their employees or officers, accredited regional services commissions or their employees or officers, accredited agencies or their employees or officers or Administrators for anything done or not done by any of them in good faith while exercising their powers and performing their duties under this Act.

Ahhhh....metric law....