Welcome to WordPress.com.
Here we go again!
It will take a little bit to get familiar with this new blog and time is so short that I’m starting to wonder if the decision to bring my space to this dedicated blog site was correct. This is all that I want to express at this time, it could be the last time as well.
It’s been a long time since I published something in my blog, but I have a good excuse, I just published a web site, with the hope that it will facilitate my efforts in better marketing my services, in area of building design, to which I had added the potentially lucrative energy auditing and simulations. The address for my web-site which, I should mention that 98% of the work was done by me is: www.aih-buildingdesign.ca I hope that you will find some time and visit it.
Now regarding the stories about the two projects that went wrong under the direction of two architects, they are in the work and I hope that in two more weeks they will be published in this blog, which will be dedicated to juicy stories about construction projects that went wrong, in which the architects or engineers play the major role.
And to steer your curiosity I should mention that the two stories are about properties on the same street, within one block of each other (to have a better feeling about space, let me say one of the projects in on Street “X” at number 600 and the second one is on Street “X” at number 629. Now just extrapolate this with the number of streets in a city like Toronto, and have an idea of the magnitude of the problems in the construction industry.
You will have to conclude that the Building Code has to be made more powerful in areas of overseeing and enforcement. Now refer to the preceding story evidentiating the fight between the PEO allied with the OAA, to fight the new Building Code requirements.
How could the MMAH loose that fight? I wander… and wander and could not come up with a reasonable answer. Well I have few suppositions but at the present time I can not have them on a piece of paper, or even to verbalize them.
The Great Refrigerator Roundup Continues!
This is the title screaming on their web[i] page, going down the page I found out that this program of which they are so proud started on July 16, 2007, and the reasons for their pride are:
· eliminating in an “environmentally responsible manner” old, secondary, inefficient fridges/freezers
· saving you money on your hydro,
· saving you money in disposing of it.
Organizations that set up this program are: Hydro One and Ontario Power Authority.
In their web page everything is begging for congratulations for their concern for environment, but getting to qualifications set for you to benefit of this free program, you will realize that this is only a game..
I’m referring to the requirement that these devices have to be older than 10 or 15 years and in working conditions.
I’m wondering; aren’t they aware of the fact that devices that are not in working condition contain chemicals (CFCs) which have to be disposed in responsible way? Since this program is active since 2007, no one brought to their attention this elementary fact? Didn’t they review it? Added to that, without any analyses I could say that they are dealing with only 10 to 15 percent of the problem, (I think that I’m too generous in this estimate) and in doing so they declare them-self “environmentally responsible”?
What a jock!
I would’ve think that if they would’ve manifest the same interest to those devices that are not in working condition, they would’ve been entitled to declare themselves champions of environmentally concerned organization, a responsible organization and deserving all of the congratulations that they try to extract from you and me.
I decided to research and document this little history of our province, to better understand the process and the people whose actions, thoughts are so important to our lives. Deliberately I won’t draw any conclusion, but I will insert few questions, comments and I’ll be waiting for your comments.
The principals in this story are:
About BRRAG, in spring of year 2000, the previous government ,”Harris government”, (37.3) sets up an advisory group called “Building Regulatory Reform Advisory Group”, to study the building industry, and their recommendations will be the substance of the Bill 124. (A Bill is a proposed Act that is before the Legislative Assembly for consideration)
Members of that group were as follows:
Ontario Association of Architects (OAA)
Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO)
Government Officials
Residential and Commercial Developers
Contractors
Building Officials
Municipalities
The members of the group form 3 working groups, and on a span of 3 months met 5 times, and among many other issues, concluded that the Engineers and Architects were not performing consistently in terms of Building Code Compliance, in permit submissions and in the provisions of General Review during the construction. Some of the members expressed their dissatisfaction with the performance in special of Architects. Recommending the creation of a public registry, containing: “Knowledgeable Practitioners”, run by the MMAH, for those practitioners which passed the examination with regard to Building Code. (Report released in July, 2000)
The MMAH is the Ministry responsible of administering the Building Code Act, among many other duties.
Bill 124, Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act, Amendment Act, 2002 (Legislative Assembly of Ontario | Bills & Lawmaking | Past & Present | 37:3 Bill 124, Bu…)
Current Status: Royal Assent received Chapter Number: S.O.2002. C. 9, came in force in July 1, 2005
June 27, 2002 Royal Assent received, Coming into force: Proclamation; its history is as follows:
November 01, 2001 First Reading
June 03, 2002 Second Reading
June 19, 2002 Third Reading
[Bill 124, 2002 is an Act to increase efficiency and expediency regarding permit resolution, creates a new entity RCA, (registered code agency) and to increase efficiency in Building Code Enforcement]
Bellow I’ll be reproducing few extracts from the explanatory note to the text of Bill.
“This Bill amends the Building Code Act, 1992 and the Planning Act. The major amendments are described bellow.
The Act will require chief building officials and inspectors to have the qualifications set out in the building code. An amendment to the Act also provides that designers must also have the qualifications set out in the building code, in order to engage in certain activities. The requirements for qualifications are consolidated in the new section 15.11 of the Act.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is given the authority to issue written interpretations of the building code, which are binding. This is set out in the new section 28.1 of the Act.”
The two main professions directly affected by this Act, engineers and architects are acting differently at the beginning, but two years later they are in the same bed. PEO takes the MMAH to court (March, 26, 2006) and OAA is an intervener, allied with PEO. (October, 2006).
The PEO initially does not see any infringement of their authority. The offer by MMAH to introduce a similar system as OAA is rejected, and the PEO responds:
Letter to the Honorable John Gerretsen
30 June, 2004
The Honorable John Gerretsen
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
777 Bay Street, 17th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5G-2E5
Re: Administration and Registration of Ontario Building Code examination for professional engineers,
Dear Minister,
I wish to inform you that on June 18, 2004, at its 423rd meeting, the Council of Professional Engineers Ontario approved a motion to withdraw PEO’s participation in the administration of Ontario Building Code (OBC) examinations and registry of qualifications under the Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 124) and Regulation 305/03, when those provisions come into effect on July 1, 2005.
Notwithstanding our earlier agreement to participate in this endeavor, it is Council’s position that our administering OBC examinations and registration of successful participants would duplicate the administrative bureaucracy of the Ministry, and would add little value to the role of Professional Engineers Ontario as the regulator of the practice of professional engineering in Ontario.
Inasmuch as the Ministry’s examination test for knowledge of the OBC, Ontario’s engineers would not be tasted on their knowledge of engineering principles[A.I.H.1] .
We remain confident that Ontario’s professional engineers will be able to pass the required OBC examinations, at the centers established by the Ministry. PEO will continue to inform our licensees of their requirement to pass the OBC examination if they are to be involved in preparing building designs.
Sincerely,
Kim Allen, P.Eng.
CEO/Registrar
Copies: The Honorable Michael Bryant, LL.B., LL.M., Attorney General David Zimmer, LL.B., Parliamentary Assistant to the Attorney General George Comrie, P.Eng. President Professional Engineers Ontario.
This letter would make any engineer proud of their association! But everything will be so different in only few years!!!
In this time, the OAA took up an offer from the government to develop a “parallel system” so that the architects would not have to qualify and register with the MMAH and be subject to their administration.
The OAA amended Regulation 27 of the Architects Act, in order to implement OAA’s BCDS. (Building Code Designation System) and the assessment program.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with MMAH was signed on January 20, 2005[A.I.H.2] .
All good so far the BCA will be observed. It does prevail, as it should.
Here I have to note that the date of July 1, 2005 (the date of implementation of the Act) was delayed by O.Reg. 236 / 05, Made: May 18, 2005 and filed: May 19, 2005, to January 1, 2006
Months before the implementation date, it was realized that the other system (probably OAA BCDS was not functional) and OAA explains the delay: “The government attributed that delay to the fact that too many rural and northern municipalities were not ready to implement the qualification requirements for building officials”, so the date of July 1, 2005 was pushed to January 1, 2006[A.I.H.3] .
At the beginning of 2007, to be more precise in February 7, 2007, I started to analyze the passing rate of the examination taken through MMAH, my analyzes was very minimal, I researched only 1800 registered numbers, initially I tried to get this numbers from MMAH, but they could not provide this information since they do not keep records of this data. (Strange to say the least, I thought that probably the language barrier is the reason for which I am not able to get the information, so I started to analyze it myself). The figures obtained suggested that 92% and with some adjustments 94% of the individuals taking the exam, failed, that’s when I concluded that Bill 124 is excellent for the society. The incompetent designers were not able to practice anymore.
It took me by surprise to see that others have reached different conclusions; I’m refereeing particularly to PEO which took the government to court (March, 20, 2006) for “infringement in their authority”. And these almost 2 years after that letter sent to MMAH. (June, 30, 2004)?
Only 85 days after the implementation date of January 1, 2006. Why took so long for PEO to realize that the Act “is an infringement on authority”? Or possibly some other reasons such as: not enough engineers were able to pass the exam? Did they take a look over my analyses? I’m just kidding.]
March 21, 2006 – On Monday, March 20, Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) filed a Notice of Application for Judicial Review with Divisional Court[A.I.H.5] . As the regulator of professional engineering in the province, PEO felt it had no other option than to take this action to maintain the integrity of its exclusive jurisdiction over regulation of engineers under the Professional Engineers Act. (PEA)
“Amendments to the Ontario Building Code (OBC) became effective on January 1, 2006,” said Richard Steinecke, counsel for PEO. “These amendments appear to prohibit anyone who has not met qualification and registration requirements in OBC from engaging in certain building design activities or preparing reports on general review of construction. Our argument will be that these amendments duplicate, contradict and otherwise interfere with the important statutory role of PEO to license, discipline and regulate its members[A.I.H.6] .”
PEO Council, including its 12 government appointees, unanimously agreed on March 3 to ask the court to interpret the application of the OBC amendments.
“This action is simply about good regulatory practice,” says Catherine Redden, a government appointee to PEO Council. “To properly exercise the exclusive delegated authority devolved to it in the public interest by the legislature over 80 years ago; PEO must do whatever is necessary to protect the integrity of its licensing and authorization instruments under the PEO”
“This course of action follows two years of discussions with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing,” says Kim Allen, P.Eng. CEO & Registrar, PEO. “Unfortunately, all our proposals were rebuffed in favor of those that would create a system paralleling the new legislative requirements. As a regulator, PEO cannot support overlapping legislative responsibility for, and requirements imposed upon, the same license holders.”
Professional Engineers of Ontario (www.peo.on.ca) administers the Professional Engineers Act by licensing professional engineers, and setting standards for and regulating engineering in Ontario so that the public interest is served and protected. Rigorously educated, experienced, and committed to a Code of Ethics that puts the public interest first, licensed professional engineers can be identified by the “P. Eng.” after their names[A.I.H.7] .
For additional information or interviews, please contact[A.I.H.8] :
David Smith, Media Specialist, (416) 840-1068, dsmith@peo.on.ca
(This Public Release was reproduced from “peo” web-site)
To this point on the other side the OAA was hard at work in amending their Act, (Regulation 27), it should be noted that the time for examination (MMAH is 3 hours), for OAA is: 3 hours, with the option for an additional 1 hour and 30 minutes upon request of the candidate. I have to mention that the assessment program is quite different than that of MMAH[A.I.H.9] , whose input is 30 questions, from their “pull”, with the difference of 45 being prepared by OAA, preparing study materials and creating their Registry system to be integrated with “Find an architect” page.
On June 8, 2006, the OAA Council voted to join the PEO’s legal challenge and it was granted intervener status and was represented by legal counsel David Moore and Kenneth Jones, working along Richard Steinecke and Lisa Braverman, representing PEO. (In their press release OAA, wrongly is referring that the PEO’s legal action was launched in the Fall of 2005, they were too ecstatic, probably)
Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Renders its decision in the PEO’s legal action on May 17, 2007.
Superior Court Justices Smith, Chapnik and Lane issued Reasons for Judgment in PEO legal challenge against the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing indicating a win for PEO.
Surprising there is no mention to BRRAG report, the substance of all this, was it worth?
It appears that the developments that follow at the PEO and OAA are validating the merits of BRRAG report.
Months later the PEO introduces a new class of engineers “Building Specialist”.
June 11, 2007 OAA gives notice of termination of the Memorandum of Understanding to the Attorney General.
OAA creates “Practice Tips 1 to 11, Building Code Matrix, and all of them advices to consult the Building Code, their BCDS is scraped.
Probably that I’ll follow up later on, but at this time I don’t have too much time, or may be that I want to see if the story is as interesting for you as it is for me.
If you are interested to see part of my analyses regarding the passing rate of the MMAH examination, they are in my Sky Drive storage which requires permission to be accessed, so write me, to set the permission for you.
I am preparing 2 stores about what 2 architects were doing in this period, professionally of course.
[A.I.H.1]Mostly correct with exception of the technical qualification “Structural”
[A.I.H.2]Lengthily negotiations and not to much time left for all the issues to be solved, such as assessment, registration, functional Database. I wonder it was deliberate?
[A.I.H.3]I remember receiving an e-mail informing about the delay, stipulating that not enough practitioners took the examination. Should look for that e-mail.
[A.I.H.4]Wouldn’t been much better to amend their Act, to integrate the recommendations of the BRRAG commission? As done by OAA.
[A.I.H.5]Action applauded and later joined by OAA, probably their “rigorously trained” members run in the same problems as the engineers, regarding passing the examination?
[A.I.H.6]What a change? Didn’t he read the BRRAG report?
[A.I.H.7]Are the conclusions of the BRRAG group (Building Regulatory Reform Advisory Group) wrong?
· Or (some/most?) of the “rigorously educated” engineers are not able to pass the examination??
· It will be interesting to have the rate of engineers who passed the examination in the two years, from the first press release (30 June, 2004) and connect that with the delay from 1 July 2005 to 1 January 2006.
[A.I.H.8]Why don’t they even mention the BRRAG report, constituted of engineers and architects, mostly, recommendations on which the Act was based?
[A.I.H.9]A little bit watered down.
This entry is a response to a question (received in my e-mail) regarding my previous entry, and a discussion about that entry.
The essence of the question was “Why didn’t you start your list of recommendations of persons to be consulted regarding building permits with 1) Architect".(I know that architecture is a prestigious profession, at least, this is the opinion of most people, and probably is the result of successful marketing of their association)
The answer is very simple:
Even for simple residential occupancy, for example for “reinforced concrete”, drawings and specifications, for an application for a building permit, an architect is required to have those drawings and specifications prepared by a "Civil Engineer".
A Building Designer with the qualifications of “Structural” is not required to have the drawings and specifications prepared by a “Civil Engineer” (his/her qualifications are sufficient).
Therefore my list of professionals, to be consulted should’ve been as follows:
Few words about BCA and OBC (Ontario Building Code):
OBC is essentially a set of minimum provisions regarding the safety of buildings, accentuating public health, fire protection and structural sufficiency. Recent amendments to BCA and OBC, in special by Bill 124, improves public safety through the requirements of certification of practitioners of construction industry, (inspectors, designers and others), and increases efficiency in Building Code enforcement.
The next entry is going to be very interesting, said, and dramatic. Look for it!!. It will be published soon.
Yesterday 30 September 2008 I was doing my regular “work” for the week or possibly the two weeks the most:
Drawings on Visio for some case studies to reflect the importance of Structural Analyses, related to residential buildings, for my blog.
DNS configuration for the e-mail program for “building-permits-designers-hub.ca”
Testing of the e-mail program to be utilized for “building-permits-designers-hub.ca”
Logo on Visio for “building-permits-designers-hub.ca”
When suddenly an idea came into my mind, why don’t I look into “building permits status” for buildings with problems regarding building permits? (Future opportunities), I was surprised when the first search entered for Brunswick Ave. produced the following: (I have to assure you that all this information is public domain, and later I might provide links for this). Farther observations at the site, suggests that “262 Brunswick Ave.” It should’ve been listed first. (It is an omission of the web designer?)
268 Brunswick Ave
|
08 149987 BLD 00 |
Small Residential Projects |
Apr 22, 2008 |
Inspection |
|
08 149987 HVA 00 |
Mechanical (MS) |
Apr 22, 2008 |
Inspection |
|
08 149987 PLB 00 |
Plumbing (PS) |
Apr 22, 2008 |
Inspection |
Strange, today is 30 of September and they (the owners) did not pass that stage?
It could be an opportunity for my services, I should see them. (Knowing that is not so easy to find a qualified designer, I certainly thought that this is an opportunity for my services)
But before that, I better look for some more details, and sow the following:
Application #: 08 149987 BLD 00 SR Issued May 12, 2008[A.I.H.1]
Project: SFD-Townhouse Multiple Projects,
Description: Interior alterations and rear deck. Remove existing 1 Storey illegally built rear addition. See PAL
The same things for the remaining two files:
The next day I passed by, to see for my self,… the addition was gone, and new ground was placed over what used to be that addition[A.I.H.3]
The moral of the story: Do not start building, renovating, altering the structure without making sure that you comply with all the requirements of the Building Code Act, Ontario Building Code, Municipal regulations, and all other applicable laws, and regulations. Make sure that the advice received is complet , I suggest you check the credentials of the professional advising you:
for the last category, I provide a link to the public registry, the instructions for using the link are pelntiful in my blog under Qualification and Registration module.
The inspector responsible for this project, is V.P. (I’ll name him by his initials at this time), we will meet him again in one of the next cases discused.
[A.I.H.1]It is a little bit confusing, this sould be red as "Order subsquent to the inspection of the site effectuated on Apr, 22,2008" in responce to owner’s application # 08 149987 BLD 00/ Small Residential Projects, submited sometime after the inspection descoved that the addition was built without a building permit. The good part in this is that the owners did not have to apply for a "Demolition Permit" the information in the web site suggests. This started a chein of events which went up to Sep. 4, 2008. I wonder how many lawers were involved. How much was the final bill? We should be able to find out later.
[A.I.H.2]BCA 22.-(1), BCA 23.-(1), BCA 24 and BCA 25.-(1). Dispute Resolution, Reviews and Appeals. At the present time I won’t elaborate those will be in my web site.
[A.I.H.3]It is a very expensive process, not to mention the aggravations going through all this.
As you can see my name is indicating that I came here, from somewhare, but analyzing the facts, you will see I’m just like any Canadian born here. (in the sense that I had no choise) It was the destiny?. If it was destiny; It sent me here.
Before enumerating the arguments, let me assure you, that if it was by my choice, I would be somewhare else. In this order:
And here comes the destiny, you see,… I and my good friend Benjamin, stole away from a communist country, Benjamin loved Canada so much that we delayed our arrival to the promised land with one year. Initially we applied to Canada, (in the night of our departure, a maple leaf, fell in Benjamin’s shoulder, that is one of the reason among some more practical and important ones, of his love for Canada).
The Canadian emigration office was very slow in their processes, that people in the administration of the camp suggested that we better apply for any other country. The situation in the camp were we had to wait for all the papers, approvals, or rejection was not so comfortable, so in waiting for the result of our first interview with the Canadian officer, I was able to convince my friend to apply to other country.
He opposed the application for USA, so from my list, Australia was more attractive, and we applied to the Australian embassy, their form for medical examination was sent to us in probably 3 weeks.
At the same time the Canadian embassy, set the second interview for us, interview in which they stipulated that within 2 to 3 weeks we will receive our medical form which should be filled in and shortly after that and if everything is O.K. we should be in our way to Canada.
Everything would suggest that our departure to Canada will happen shortly.
Not so, 2.5 months later we still did not receive our form to be filled in, from the Canadian office.
I again was restful and suggested to leave for Australia since we already had received our visa. My friend still hesitated; he changed his mind about Australia. To shorten the story, it ended up that we had visas from:
Finally, one year later, my visa for Canada had arrived, but my friend still was waiting for his visa. Since our biographies were similar and we were approved by three other countries, we concluded that his visa will arrive shortly. In this situation we waited for 2.5 months more, with no follow-up, no other communication, from the Canadian office.
Our situation in camp was not so great and we decided that I should leave right away to Canada and he will follow up as soon as his visa arrives. Three months after my arrival in Canada, Benjamin was still waiting for some response from the Canadian office. In one of our telephone conversations I was able to convince him to leave for USA, and later to come to Canada. He went to Mobile, Alabama and shortly to L.A. and loved it, as for me I started to love Canada, even though my first choice was U.S.A. and to be more precise, Los Angeles. At this point I should say that we were very good friends, I will elaborate later.
That’s why rightfully; I think that I could say that our choices were played with, by, probably destiny.
And yes the destiny is sarcastic, or should I look for some other adjective which could better describe its ironic side.
