It sounds as if from the building departments perspective the laws are fluid but that let us look at it from the perspective of the owner of the project and the owner's consultants. And while reference was made to the laws of Canada how does that relate to the laws of the United States.
If an engineer were to ignore a code provision the plan checker could require that it be complied with. How does the Owner and engineer benefit from this fluidity? It is fluid for the building official but not for the project owner and his consultants.
In my experience plan checkers work diligently to point out violations
If the building official imposes a requirement not in the adopted laws this creates a lot of disruption and likely additional costs so the consultants do not know what is the code. While this fluidity may be attractive to building officials it creates problems for the owner of the project. The owner sees this fluidity not as an advantage but as chaos. I suspect that this chaos creates conditions that might foster corruption.
Compliance with the codes is also important for engineers because of concerns regarding professional liability. There is a concept called negligence per say, that says that if the design professional violated the code and there is a problem with the building the design professional is negligent and liable for the loss. On the other hand, if there was a problem but the design professional had complied with the code the design professional had some defenses that would likely
reduce or eliminate the liability.
Why is this flexibility and compassion a one-way street?
If an engineer were to ignore a code provision the plan checker could require that it be complied with. How does the Owner and engineer benefit from this fluidity? It is fluid for the building official but not for the project owner and his consultants.
In my experience plan checkers work diligently to point out violations
If the building official imposes a requirement not in the adopted laws this creates a lot of disruption and likely additional costs so the consultants do not know what is the code. While this fluidity may be attractive to building officials it creates problems for the owner of the project. The owner sees this fluidity not as an advantage but as chaos. I suspect that this chaos creates conditions that might foster corruption.
Compliance with the codes is also important for engineers because of concerns regarding professional liability. There is a concept called negligence per say, that says that if the design professional violated the code and there is a problem with the building the design professional is negligent and liable for the loss. On the other hand, if there was a problem but the design professional had complied with the code the design professional had some defenses that would likely
reduce or eliminate the liability.
Why is this flexibility and compassion a one-way street?