| Code Edition | Interpretation Number | Title | Date Approved | Keywords | File |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NEW 2024 | 24-0101 | Visible Signal Devices within Dwelling Unit | 20/05/2025 | File No: 24-0101 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-06-14 Interpretation Date: May 20, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Visible signal devices within dwelling unit Keywords: Visible signal Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.4.19.(1); 3.2.4.19.(7), 3.2.4.20.(7) & (8) Question: Are visible signal devices required within dwelling units? Interpretation: No (with exemptions). Generally, as per Sentence 3.2.4.19.(1) visible signals that are part of a fire alarm system are not required in suites of residential occupancies. Clause 3.2.4.19.(1)(g), Sentences 3.2.4.20.(7) and (8) require 10% of hotel and motel rooms to be equipped with visible signals, so if such rooms are equipped with kitchens, they would be defined as dwelling units. A rough in for future visible signals is required in adaptable dwelling units as per Sentence 3.2.4.19.(7). | Download |
| NEW 2024 | 24-0091 | Radon System Pipe Standard and Air Barrier Material | 20/05/2025 | File No: 24-0091 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-06-14 Interpretation Date: May 20, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Radon System Pipe Standard and Air Barrier Material Keywords: Radon, Pipe Standard, Polyethylene Air Barrier Building Code Reference(s): 9.13.4.3.(2)(e), CAN/CGSB-149.11, 9.25.3.6., 1.5.1.2.(1) File No: 24-0091 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-06-14 Interpretation Date: May 20, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Radon System Pipe Standard and Air Barrier Material Keywords: Radon, Pipe Standard, Polyethylene Air Barrier Building Code Reference(s): 9.13.4.3.(2)(e), CAN/CGSB-149.11, 9.25.3.6., 1.5.1.2.(1) Interpretation: 1. No. ABS cellular core pipe is permitted by the reference to the ASTM F628 Standard in 7.1.3.2.2 of the CAN/CGSB-149.11 Standard. ABS cellular core pipe conforms with this standard and is acceptable for use in an above grade radon vent system. It should be noted that 7.1.3.1.3 contains a note that states, in part “Where possible, radon pipe should have a different colour or identifying markings than DWV piping.” This means that, if possible, different material should be chosen for the DWV and radon system for ease of identification. 2. Yes. 7.1.4 (Sealing the soil gas collector) of CAN/CGSB-149.11 is not referenced by the 2024 BCBC in this regard. Since the 10 mil polyethylene comes from this Section of the Standard, a 6 mil polyethylene is in compliant in accordance with Article 9.25.3.6. j If 7.1.4 was directly referenced by the BCBC, Sentence 1.5.1.2.(1) of Division A states that “In case of conflict between the provisions of this Code and those of a referenced document, the provisions of this Code shall govern.”. However, no such conflict currently exists. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0087 | Sprinklers in Care Facilities for Residential Use | 15/04/2025 | File No: 24-0087 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-06-09 Interpretation Date: April 15, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Sprinklers in Care Facilities for Residential Use Keywords: Number of residents in care, sprinklers Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.2.2.(6), 9.10.1.3.(8), 3.2.5.12.(3)(b)(ii) Question: An existing Part 9 single dwelling unit is being converted to a care facility for residential use in accordance with provincial legislation. The facility will have five residents in care and two 24/7 on-site staff. Can this facility be sprinklered to NFPA 13D? Interpretation: Yes. Sentence 9.10.2.2.(6) permits a care facility to be classified as residential occupancy when the occupants live as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit with sleeping accommodation for not more than 10 persons. If the 24/7 on-site staff is provided with sleeping accommodation, their beds would be part of the 10 sleeping accommodations permitted. In this case, there are only 7 sleeping accommodations so it can be considered as residential occupancy within a single dwelling unit. Sentence 9.10.1.3.(8) requires sprinkler systems in Part 9 buildings to be designed to Articles 3.2.5.12. to 3.2.5.15. and 3.2.5.17. Subclause 3.2.5.12.(3)(b)(ii) limits the residents to 5 in order to use NFPA 13 D for the sprinkler system. The 5 residents only apply to the residents in care and not the 24/7 onsite staff. However, since this is not a care occupancy Clause 3.2.5.12.(3)(b) does not apply. Subclause 3.2.5.12.(3)(a) permits a sprinkler system in a residential occupancy to be designed to NFPA 13D when there are not more than 2 dwelling units. This project is a single dwelling unit, so it can be designed to NFPA 13D. This should be reviewed with the AHJ because it may be subjected to other provincial legislation related to care facilities. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0085 | Adaptable Dwellings Served by Exterior Doors Only | 15/04/2025 | File No: 24-0085 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-04-28 Interpretation Date: April 15, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Adaptable Dwellings Served by Exterior Doors only Keywords: Adapatable dwellings, exterior passageway, exterior door Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.2.1.(1)(a), 3.8.2.2., 3.8.2.3., 3.8.5.1.(1)(a). Question: Are one-storey dwelling units in a multi-family building served only by accessible exterior passageway or by exterior doors at grade required to be adaptable as per Clause 3.8.5.1.(1)(a)? Interpretation: No (with conditions). As per Clause 3.8.5.1.(1)(a) adaptability requirements only apply to one-storey dwelling units served by an accessible interior public corridor and an accessible common building entrance, as required to be accessible by Articles 3.8.2.2. and 3.8.2.3. Clause 3.8.2.1.(1)(a). exempts townhouses and row houses from accessibility requirements. Even though those dwelling units are served by accessible exterior exit passageway or exterior doors at grade, they are not required to be accessible or adaptable. Clause 3.8.2.1.(1)(a) does not exempt multi-family buildings such as apartments from accessibility requirements. Sentence 3.8.5.1.(1)(a) only requires those one storey dwelling units served by an accessible interior public corridor in apartments to be adaptable. Those units that served only by accessible exterior exit passageway or by exterior doors at grade are not required to be adaptable. Note that in the 2018 BCBC, Clause 3.8.5.1.(1)(a) requires those one-store dwelling units in multiple unit residential occupancy served by interior corridors or exterior passageways to be adaptable. Please refer to the Province of BC technical bulletins at https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/construction-industry/building-codes-standards/bc-codes/technical-bulletins for further clarification of the required number of adaptable units, and the timing of application of the requirements. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0084 | Power Door Operator Exemptions | 15/04/2025 | File No: 24-0084 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-04-28 Interpretation Date: April 15, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Power Door Operator Exemptions Keywords: Power, door, operator, hold-open Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.2.7.(1) Question: If a door that is required by Article 3.8.2.7. to have a power door operator, can this power door operator be eliminated if the door is equipped with a manual hold-open device such as an elephant foot? Interpretation: No. Sentence 3.8.2.7.(1) waives the requirement for power door operators on doors with self-closing devices when the door is equipped with a hold-open device. The intent of Sentence 3.8.2.7.(1) is that the waiver of power door operators only applies when electromagnetic hold-open devices are installed in accordance with Article 3.1.8.14. The elephant foot is not considered as a proper hold-open device because it can be released by anyone without knowing the reason behind its existence. If such doors do not have floor area clearances as described in Sentences 3.8.3.6.(11) & (15) when the doors are in the closed position, power door operators must be installed to avoid persons with mobility challenges from being trapped behind the door. | Download |
| NEW 2024 | 24-0083 | Resistance to Forced Entry for Doors Between Dwelling Units | 20/05/2025 | File No: 24-0083 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-06-09 Interpretation Date: May 20, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Resistance to Forced Entry for Doors Between Dwelling Units Keywords: Dwelling Unit, Door, Security Building Code Reference(s): 9.7.5.2 Questions: 1. Are the requirements for resistance to forced entry applicable to an interconnecting swing door between side-by-side dwelling units? 2. If the answer to question is yes, does the door require 2 separate deadbolts, with one on each side? Interpretation: 1. Yes. Article 9.7.5.2 is titled “Resistance to Forced Entry for Swinging Doors”. Sentence 9.7.5.2.(1) states that this Article is applicable to swinging entrance doors to dwelling units. Although an interconnecting door between side-by-side units would not be the main entrance to a dwelling unit, it is still a possible entrance to the unit, and the requirements of Article 9.7.5.2 are applicable to this door. 2. Yes, except as noted below. Sentence 9.7.5.2.(4) requires the applicable swing doors to have deadbolts, with characteristics as described in that Sentence. Deadbolts are typically installed to be secure from one side and removable from the other side. For this type of deadbolt, each side of the door requires a separate deadbolt to allow each unit to be secure from forced entry from the other unit. If it is possible for a deadbolt to be installed so that it is not removable by occupants from either side, a single deadbolt could be provided. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0081 | Wave Action Power Door Operator | 15/04/2025 | File No: 24-0081 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-04-28 Interpretation Date: April 15, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Wave Action Power Door Operator Keywords: Power Door Operator, wave action Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.3.6.(6)(a)(v) Question: If a single wave action operator is installed at a height between 900 mm and 1100 mm, is it still required to install another operator at 150 mm to 300 mm as per Subclause 3.8.3.6.(a)(v)? Interpretation: Yes. Clause 3.8.3.6.(6)(a) states that there are two acceptable methods for operating Power Door Operator (PDO): 1. Automatically 2. Using controls It is understood that automatic activation of the PDO is opening the door by using motion or temperature detection of a person approaching the door. Using this type of automatic device means that push buttons are not required. Controls, such as push plates or wave sensors require the person to be at a close distance to trigger the activation of the door opener. These controls are required to be installed in two levels as per Subclause 3.8.3.6.(a)(v). The lower control is used by persons in wheelchair by moving the wheelchair leg support to touch control or wave in close proximity. The lower control is also used by specially trained guide dogs to open the door for visually impaired persons. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0080 | Protection of Insulation in Crawl Spaces | 15/04/2025 | File No: 24-0080 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-04-17 Interpretation Date: April 15, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024, Book I: General Subject: Protection of Insulation in Crawl Spaces Keywords: Crawl Space, Insulation, Mechanical Damage Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.8.9., 9.25.2.3.(7). Question(s): When a crawl space is used for storage or for mechanical equipment, is the insulation required to be protected from mechanical damage? Answers: Yes – Protection with durable materials is generally required. The provisions of Sentence 9.25.2.3.(7) specifically require insulation to be protected in areas “where it may be subject to mechanical damage”. In the context of Subsection 9.25.2., which only addresses thermal performance, we interpret this to include locations where there is a reasonable probability that damage may occur due to its intended use. This may lead to the insulation being cut, pierced, abraded, torn, or otherwise degraded in a manner which could impact its ability to provide the level of thermal performance intended for the building. The Code lists examples of relatively durable materials such as gypsum board, plywood, etc. which could be used to protect the insulation from contact. This is not an exhaustive list, and other suitably durable materials may also be considered. Where storage is provided, materials and equipment are likely to be moved or repeatedly accessed, which could over time, lead to damage to the insulation if it is not protected. Likewise, where fixed equipment or appliances are installed, such equipment typically requires regular servicing, replacement of parts and consumables, or inspection, during which the insulation could be damaged. An exception to this might be where equipment is designed and installed in such a way that it may be accessed, serviced, and inspected without entry into the crawl space, and without risk of damage to any adjoining insulation. Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-04-17 Note that crawl spaces are included in the definition of Horizontal service space, which are generally intended to be inaccessible, but which may contain building service facilities for pipes, ducts, and wiring which do not require regular service or inspection. Areas including storage, appliances or other equipment (such as mechanical service equipment), are generally not appropriate for crawl spaces, noting exceptions in 9.10.8.9. for crawl spaces exceeding 1.8 m in height, used for an occupancy, or used as a plenum, which are considered as a basement for the purposes of fire-resistance. The increase in height promotes occupancy and frequent access of the crawl space; hence, insulation should be protected from mechanical damage as per Sentence 9.25.2.3.(7). Also note that additional requirements with respect to fire protection of foamed plastic insulation will apply as per Sentence 9.10.17.10.(1). | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0077 | Manual Signal Silencing of Audible Signal Devices | 18/02/2025 | File No: 24-0077 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 __________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-02-28 Interpretation Date: February 18, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Manual signal silencing of audible signal devices Keywords: Manual, silencing, audible signal device, fire alarm Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.4.18.(12) Question: Is manual signal silencing required for fire alarm audible signal devices within a dwelling unit if the devices are wired on separate signal circuits in accordance with Clause 3.2.4.18.(10)(b)? Interpretation: No. NRC has confirmed that there is a typo in Sentence 3.2.4.18.(12). This sentence waives the requirement for manual signal silencing if devices are wired on separate signal circuits in accordance with Clause 3.2.4.18.(9)(b). It should read “in accordance with Clause 3.2.4.18.(10)(b)”. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0075 | Area of Glazed Openings | 21/01/2025 | File No: 24-0075 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-05-01 Interpretation Date: Janurary 21, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Area of Glazed Openings Keywords: Glazed openings, Window, Spatial separation, dwelling units (with no dwelling above) Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.15.4. Question: Tale 9.10.15.4. limits the area of glazed openings based on the area of exposing building face and limiting distance. Are the window frames excluded from the calculation of the area of glazed openings? Interpretation: No. Prior to 2006 BCBC, Section 9.10.14. regulated the area of unprotected openings based on the area of exposing building face and limiting distance. Unprotected opening was defined as opening that did not have the required fire-resistance rating; therefore, the window frames were considered as part of the unprotected openings. In 2006 BCBC, Section 9.10.15 was added to regulate the area of glazed openings of dwelling units with no other dwelling unit above. Glazed opening was not defined. Interpretation 06-0072 interpreted that the window frames were excluded in the calculation of the area of glazed openings based on the Appendix Note A-9.10.15.4. which stated that the opaque portion of doors did not have to be counted as glazed openings. On Page 176 of the Illustrated User’s Gude – NBC 2020: Part 9 Housing and Small Buildings, it clarified that “the area of glazed opening is measured to the rough opening of the window or door, not just to the edge of the glazing”. The window frames are part of the glazed openings. Please note that for a solid door with window insert, the opague portion of the door still would not be counted as glazed opening. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0074 | Sloped Parking Garage Floor | 18/03/2025 | File No: 24-0074 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-04-04 Interpretation Date: March 18, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Sloped parking garage floor Keywords: Parking garage, Ramp Building Code Reference(s): 3.3.1.14.(1), Div A 1.4.1.2. (definition of ramp) Question: Are the parking stalls themselves and the drive aisle adjacent to parking stalls in a storage garage allowed to be steeper than 1 in 20? Interpretation: No. The parking stalls themselves and the drive aisle adjacent to parking stalls must be designed to maximum 1 in 20 slope and must provide all the required access to exit paths within the 1 in 20 slope to avoid the ramp requirements as defined in Div A 1.4.1.2. The vehicular ramps between different parking levels may have steeper slope, but these ramps are not acceptable for the pedestrian use. If there is a need for pedestrian traffic connection between the different parking levels, ramps with landings and stairs must be designed as required by the building code. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0072 | Width of Accessible Exterior Walk | 18/03/2025 | File No: 24-0072 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-04-04 Interpretation Date: March 18, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Width of Accessible Exterior Walk Keywords: Width, Accessible, Walk Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.3.2.(1), 3.8.3.3.(1), 3.8.3.6, CSA B651 Questions: What is the minimum required width of an accessible exterior walk? Interpretation: 1600 mm, with minor exceptions as described below. Sentence 3.8.3.2.(1) requires a minimum 1000 mm width for an accessible path of travel, with exceptions including “as otherwise required in this Part.” Sentence 3.8.3.3.(1) requires that exterior walks forming part of an accessible travel path must be not less than 1600 mm wide. The BCBC permits doorways to reduce the required width of an accessible path of travel as regulated in Article 3.8.3.6, but doors are not common on exterior walks. Clause 3.8.3.3.(1)(d) states that exterior walks must be designed in accordance with Clause 8.2.1 of CSA B651 “Accessible design for the built environment”. Clause 8.2.1 requires an accessible exterior pedestrian route to comply with the following Clauses of CSA B651: • 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.4 and 4.4, • 4.3.5, where the pedestrian route is adjacent to a vehicular route, • 8.3.9, if bollards are used to prevent vehicles from entering the pedestrian route, and • 8.3, where traversing a vehicular area. Most of these clauses relate to design criteria for exterior pedestrian routes, but there are some circumstances where different width requirements are applicable, including: • A curb ramp requires a minimum width of at least 1500 mm, excluding flared sides. • A minimum 1200 mm width is required between bollards or curbs. • A crosswalk, where a pedestrian route crosses a vehicular route, requires a minimum width of 1800 mm. • If an accessible pedestrian route is required to traverse a vehicular area that has speed bumps, a clear level space at least 1200 mm wide is required between the speed bump and the edge of the roadway. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0071 | Heavy Timber Roof Assembly and Sprinklers | 18/02/2025 | File No: 24-0071 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-02-28 Interpretation Date: February 18, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Heavy Timber Roof Assembly and Sprinklers Keywords: Heavy timber, roof assembly, sprinklers Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.2.16.(1) Question: If a heavy timber roof assembly is used in a 2-storey building that is permitted to be combustible construction by Subsection 3.2.2., must the building be sprinklered as stated in Sentence 3.2.2.16.(1)? Interpretation: No. Sentence 3.2.2.16.(1) states that “Unless otherwise permitted by Articles 3.2.2.20. to 3.2.2.92., a roof assembly in a building up to 2 storeys in building height is permitted to be heavy timber construction regardless of building area or type of construction required, provided the building is sprinklered throughout.” The “Unless otherwise permitted” means that if an Article in Subsection 3.2.2. permits a building to be combustible construction and unsprinklered, then a heavy timber roof assembly is permitted without the building being sprinklered. The “regardless of building area or type of construction required” refers to Articles in Subsection 3.2.2. that require the building to be noncombustible construction. In this case, Sentence 3.2.2.16.(1) permits a roof assembly to be heavy timber construction when the building is not more than 2 storeys in building height and is sprinklered throughout. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0070 | Protection of Steel Columns within a Fire-Rated Wall | 15/04/2025 | File No: 24-0070 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-04-15 Interpretation Date: April 15, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Protection of steel columns within a fire-rated wall Keywords: Fire-resistance rating, steel column Building Code Reference(s): Appendix D-2.6, Table D-2.6.1.- F Question: A loadbearing steel column is located within a wood or steel stud fire-rated wall with drywall on both sides of the studs. Does this steel column require any additional fire protection if the fire-rated stud wall assembly has the same fire-resistance rating as required for the steel column? Interpretation: No, with conditions. Fire protection of steel columns is described in Section D-2.6 of Appendix D. This section assumes that the column is free standing with exposure to fire on 4 sides of the column. If the steel column is embedded within a fire-rated stud wall, it would be exposed to a fire on only 2 sides of the column. Table D-2.6.1.- F of Appendix D provides the minimum thickness of Type X gypsum board for various M/D ratios of the steel column. Provided the thickness of Type X gypsum board on each side of the stud wall is equal to or greater than the thicknesses indicated in Table D-2.6.1.- F, the steel column would not require any additional fire protection. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0069 | Townhouse Roof Fire-Resistance Rating | 18/02/2025 | File No: 24-0069 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-02-27 Interpretation Date: February 18, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Townhouse roof fire-resistance rating Keywords: Floor fire-resistance rating, roof fire resistance-rating Building Code Reference(s): Div. A, 1.4.1.2.; Div. B, 3.2.2.13.(1); 3.2.2.54.(2) and (4) Question: Is fire-resistance rating required for a private occupied roof which serves the same dwelling unit below in an un-sprinklered three-storey townhouse building with no stacked units? Interpretation: No. Sentence 3.2.2.13.(1) states that an occupied roof must be constructed in conformance with the fire separation requirements for floor assemblies. Sentence 3.2.2.54.(2) requires floor assemblies to be 45 min fire-rated. This rating is waived as per Sentence 3.2.2.54.(4) for floor assemblies in building in which there is no dwelling unit above another dwelling unit. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0068 | Residential Air Conditioners | 18/02/2025 | File No: 24-0068 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-04-04 Interpretation Date: February 18, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Residential Air Conditioners Keywords: Dwelling Unit, Air Conditioner Building Code Reference(s): 9.33.3.1.(2), 9.33.4.1.(1), 9.31.1.1.(4), 9.33.2.1.(2) Questions: 1. Is a through-wall room air conditioner an acceptable means to provide required cooling for a room in a dwelling unit? 2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, can the air conditioner be supplied with power from a plug-in electrical outlet instead of a hard-wired connection? 3. Is a wheeled mobile air-conditioning unit an acceptable means of providing required cooling for a room in a dwelling unit? Interpretation: 1. Yes. Sentence 9.33.2.1.(2) requires dwelling units be equipped with cooling facilities unless it can be shown to be unnecessary. Sentence 9.33.3.1.(2) requires the cooling facilities shall be capable of maintaining an indoor air temperature of not more than 26°C in at least one living space in each dwelling unit. For most areas of BC, this requirement means that air-conditioning equipment must be provided for at least one living space in each dwelling unit. The entire dwelling unit does not require an air-conditioning system. The BCBC does not specify the type of cooling facilities to be provided. For heating and air-conditioning systems, Sentence 9.33.4.1.(1) refers to various standards for good practice, such as ASHRAE Handbooks. The ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Systems and Equipment describes various types of air-conditioning systems including room air conditioners, which are typically of the through-wall type, and are used for conditioning the air for one or more rooms. Therefore, as described in the referenced ASHRAE Handbook, through-wall room air conditioners are acceptable for providing the cooling required by Sentence 9.33.3.1.(2) provided such installations are permanent. Note that Sentence 9.31.1.1.(4) requires systems used for heating and air-conditioning to conform to the energy efficiency requirements of Subsection 9.36. This requirement also applies to room air conditioners. Also, there may be areas of BC with a low outside summer design temperature, where the requirement for at least one living area to maintain an indoor air temperature not more than 26 C could be met without air conditioners. This would require demonstration as part of the building design. 2. Yes. The BCBC does not regulate how to provide power to an air-conditioning unit. The requirement will be specific to the particular equipment. 3. No. Sentence 9.33.2.1.(2) requires dwelling units to be equipped with cooling facilities, except where the cooling can be shown to be unnecessary. A dwelling unit with a wheeled mobile air conditioner is not “equipped” with cooling facilities because the air conditioner could be removed or relocated relatively easily. Where cooling facilities are required, they must be accomplished by a permanent installation. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0067 | Private vs Public Showers | 18/02/2025 | File No: 24-0067 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-02-27 Interpretation Date: February 18, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Private vs Public Showers Keywords: Accessible shower, public, private Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.2.8.(12) Question: If a shower is proposed for private use in an office, does that shower need to meet accessibility requirements? Interpretation: Yes. Sentence 3.8.2.8.(12) requires where showers are provided in a building, at least one shower stall in each group of showers shall comply with Subsection 3.8.3. except within a suite of care occupancy or a suite of residential occupancy. The intent is to provide a minimum of one accessible shower among a group and not to require all showers to be accessible. That means if only one shower is provided, such shower has to be accessible. This part of the code does not distinguish between private or public uses. Such an intent to provide at least one accessible fixture is demonstrated throughout Article 3.8.2.8., such as Sentences 3.8.2.8.(6), (9), (10), (11) and (13). | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0066 | Separate Dwelling Unit Exposing Building Face | 20/01/2025 | File No: 24-0066 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-04-04 Interpretation Date: January 20, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Separate dwelling unit exposing building face Keywords: Demising wall, roof, unprotected openings, exposing Building face, spatial separation Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.8.1., 9.10.8.2. 9.10.12.2.(1), 9.10.14, 9.10.15. Question: A two-storey addition to an existing single-storey unsprinklered house has been proposed to create an additional dwelling unit with a 1 hr fire-rated suite separation. The exterior wall of the second level of the addition faces and overlooks the existing single storey dwelling unit, and contains a large window and deck (see sketch). 1. Is the second floor exterior wall considered an exposing building face? 2. Are the windows in the second floor exterior wall required to be protected? Interpretation: 1. Yes. The exterior wall of the new two storey addition meets the Building Code definition of an exposing building face. 2. No, with conditions. The windows are required to be protected if the unprotected window area exceeds the permitted area within the spatial separation and exposing building face calculations of Section 9.10.14 or 9.10.15. Sentence 9.10.12.2.(1) also requires the windows be protected if the adjacent dwelling unit is unsprinklered, and contains a skylight within 5m horizontally of the windows. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0065 | Radon Rough-In Vent Termination | 21/01/2025 | File No: 24-0065 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-01-31 Interpretation Date: Janurary 21, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Radon Rough-In Vent Termination Keywords: Radon, Rough-in, Radon Vent Termination Building Code Reference(s): 9.13.4.2., 9.13.4.3.(2)(f), Notes A-9.13.4.3.(2)(b) and 3(b) Question: Can a rough-in vent pipe for a radon system terminate in a cap just above the floor slab on ground inside the building (as shown in Figure A-9.13.4.3.(2)(b) and (3)(b))? Interpretation: No. Protection from soil gas ingress must be provided in a building in accordance with Article 9.13.4.2. As stated in Clause 9.13.4.3.(2)(f), the radon vent pipe required by Sentence (1) shall “terminate outside the building in a manner that does not constitute a hazard”. Clause 9.13.4.3.(3)(b) requires the vent pipe be terminated “outside the building, not less than 1.8 m from a property line….”. Figure A-9.13.4.3.(2)(b) and (3)(b) show the rough-in for a sub-floor depressurization system with a permanent cap on the vent above the floor slab on ground inside the building as allowed by the 2020 NBC; however, the 2024 BCBC was amended to require the vent pipe to terminate outside the building. The Building and Safety Standards Branch has confirmed in Bulletin B24-03-R that Figure A-9.13.4.3.(2)(b) and (3)(b) will be removed in the next errata. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0064 | Attachment of a Porch Roof | 21/01/2025 | File No: 24-0064 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-01-31 Interpretation Date: January 21, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Attachment of a Porch Roof Keywords: Attachment, porch, roof, projection Building Code Reference(s): 9.23.13.5.(1), 9.23.13.10.(2), A-9.23.13.10.(2) Question: Can braced wall panels be waived for a porch roof that projects not more than 3.5 m and not more than the full length of the porch roof, i.e. perpendicular plan dimension? Interpretation: Yes. The requirements of Sentence 9.23.13.5.(1) for braced wall panels can be waived for porch roof projections that comply with Sentences 9.23.12.10.(2) to (4). Clause 9.23.13.10.(2)(a) permits the braced wall panels to be waived if the porch roof projects not more than: (i) 3.5 m from the face of the framing of the nearest parallel braced wall panel, and (ii) half the perpendicular plan dimension. The Note A-9.23.13.10.(2) includes Figures A-9.23.13.10.(2)-A and B for the attachment of porch roofs to exterior wall framing. Both figures indicate that the length of the porch roof projection be “not more than 3.5 m or D (the perpendicular plan dimension), whichever is less”. This note on the figures is not consistent with the wording of Subclause 9.23.12.10.(2)(a)(ii). The 2020 NBC shows “the perpendicular plan dimension” in the body of the code and the figures in the Note. Building and Safety Standards Branch has confirmed that 2024 BCBC will be amended to harmonize with the 2020 NBC. The word “half” will be removed from Subclause 9.23.12.10.(2)(a)(ii) and it will read “the perpendicular plan dimension”. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0062 | Wet Venting a Water Closet With a Symmetrical Fitting | 10/12/2024 | File No: 24-0062 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-01-06 Interpretation Date: December 10, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) and BC Building Code Book I: General Subject: Wet Venting a Water Closet With a Symmetrical Fitting Keywords: Wet Vent, Double Y, Water Closet Building Code Reference(s): 2.5.2.1.(1)(c) and (d), Figure A-2.5.2.1.-C Question: Does the Code permit a water closet be connected to the centre of a 3” x 2” double y fitting with the wet vent connecting to one of the 2” connections and a tub, or shower, connecting to the other? (diagram provided below) Interpretation: Yes. A symmetrical fitting (double y) would permit the water closet to be connected to any of the three outlets of this fitting with the wet vent and tub, or shower, connecting to the other two (this is very common for a typical bathroom group). One such arrangement is shown in Figure A.2.5.2.1.-C. The symmetrical configuration of this fitting results in the connections occurring at the same level. Additionally, if there were two water closets being installed on a horizontal drainage pipe Clause 2.5.2.1.(1)(c), it would require this connection to be done with a double y fitting. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0061 | Seismic Restraint, Friction Forces and Playground Equipment | 10/12/2024 | File No: 24-0061 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-01-10 Interpretation Date: December 10, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Seismic Restraint, Friction Forces and Playground Equipment Keywords: Seismic, Restaint, Playground Equipment Building Code Reference(s): 4.1.8.18. Question: Is playground equipment on a roof deck subject to seismic restraint? Interpretation: Yes (in some instances). Except as provided in Sentences 2, 7 & 16, Article 4.1.8.18. requires elements of structures, non-structural components and equipment as described in Table 4.1.8.18. and their connections to the structure be designed for seismic restraint. Sentence 4.1.8.18.(2) waives seismic restraint in low seismic zones SC1 and SC2, Clause 4.1.8.18.(7)(a) does not permit friction due to gravity loads be considered to provide resistance to earthquake forces. Sentence 4.1.8.18.(16) permits reduced seismic loads on nonstructural elements where the base building structure is provided with supplemental energy dissipation such as base isolation systems. Furniture on roof decks is not listed in Table 4.1.8.18., so small play equipment components may be classified as furniture which would not be subject to seismic restraint. Waiver of seismic restraint of furniture-like small play equipment should be reviewed with the AHJ. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0057 | Accessible Counters | 21/01/2025 | File No: 24-0057 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-02-02 Interpretation Date: January 21, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Accessible Counters Keywords: Accessible, counter Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.2.9.(2), 3.8.2.11.(1), 3.8.2.12.(1), 3.8.3.20.(1), 3.8.3.21., A-3.8.2.3., A-3.8.2.11.(1) Question: Are all types of service counters required to have a section complying with Subsection 3.8.3. as per Sentence 3.8.2.11.(1)? Interpretation: No. Sentence 3.8.2.11.(1) notes that where a service counter is provided, at least one section is to comply with Subsection 3.8.3. Service counter is not defined in the code. Sentence 3.8.2.11.(1) of the 2018 BCBC required every counter “at which the public is served and intended as a work surface for extended business transactions” shall comply with Subsection 3.8.3. However, the phrase describing the service counter has been removed in the 2024 BCBC. Note A-3.8.2.11.(1) provides guidance that not all counters are to be accessible, and examples of counters that should be accessible include: “… check-in counters and those in financial institutions and reception areas as well as any counter at which processing and signing of documents takes place. The provision is not intended to apply to work surfaces in industrial occupancies.” Note A-3.8.2.3. also provides examples of service counters used by the general public that barrier-free access is required: “ticket counters, refreshment stands, drinking fountains, cafeteria counters, checkout counters and bank service counters” Sentence 3.8.2.9.(2) clarifies that “in each location where information, goods or services are provided to the public at service counters in buildings of assembly occupancy, at least one of the service counters” need to satisfy accessible requirements including an assistive listening system and may be an amplification system. The above examples provide guidance for those service counters used by the general public that are required to comply with Sentence 3.8.3.20.(1) as per Sentence 3.8.2.11.(1). Please note that Sentence 3.8.2.12.(1) requires in each location where one or more public telephones are installed, at least one telephone shall comply with Subsection 3.8.3. Article 3.8.3.21. requires certain spaces around the phone and the counter (if provided). | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0056 | Open area Beneath Mezzanine | 21/01/2025 | File No: 24-0056 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-02-02 Interpretation Date: January 21, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Open area beneath mezzanine Keywords: Mezzanine, open area Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.1.1.(3), 3.2.1.1.(4), 3.2.1.1.(7), A-3.2.1.1.(3)(a) Question: If the floor area below a mezzanine is enclosed, does this restrict the maximum size of a mezzanine that is not considered as a storey in building height when applying the exemption in Clause 3.2.1.1.(3)(a)? Interpretation: Yes. For many years the requirements in BCBC for mezzanine to not be considered as a storey were different that those in NBC. Clause 3.2.1.1.(3)(a) of the 2018 BCBC would require “not less than 60% of the horizontal plane separating the mezzanine from the room or floor space in which it is located is open”. The enclosing of space below the mezzanine did not affect the permitted area of the mezzanine. In order to harmonize with 2020 NBC, Clause 3.2.1.1.(3)(a) of 2024 BCBC was changed that “the space above a mezzanine need not be considered as a storey in calculating the building height, provided the aggregate area of mezzanines that are not superimposed does not exceed 40% of the “open area” of the room in which they are located. (see Note A-3.2.1.1.(3)(a))” Note A-3.2.1.1.(3)(a) clarifies that the permitted area of the mezzanine is to be based on the open area of the floor below. Any enclosed space directly below the mezzanine or withn the open area beyond the mezzanine must be deducted from the area of the overall space before applying the percentage allowance. Refer to the sketch on Page 2. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0055 | Curtains for Accessible Showers | 15/10/2024 | File No: 24-0055 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-10-29 Interpretation Date: October 15, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Curtains for Accessible Showers Keywords: Accessibility, Showers, Curtains, Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.3.17.(1)(c). Question: Are curtains allowed for accessible showers? Interpretation: Yes, with conditions. Clause 3.8.3.17.(1)(c) permits curtains for accessible showers provided they do not obstruct the shower entrance or the shower controls. Curtains are permitted, but they must be installed in such a way that a person with disabilities can use the facilities. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0054 | Bathroom Exhaust Fans | 10/12/2024 | File No: 24-0054 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-12-13 Interpretation Date: December 10, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Bathroom Exhaust Fans Keywords: Bathroom Exhaust; Fan; Ventilation Building Code Reference(s): 9.32.3.6.(1)(b), Book II : Plumbing Systems - 2.1.3.1.(1) Question(s): Is a fan providing the air-flow rate specified by Table 9.32.3.6. required to be installed in each room containing a bathtub/shower, water-closet, or both? Yes. The ventilation provision of Clause 9.32.3.6.(1)(b) is intended to remove air laden with moisture, vapour or pollutants, from any bathroom or water-closet room, regardless of whether they originate from a shower, bath, lavatory, water-closet, or other fixture generally intended for personal hygiene. The “OR” statement used in Clause (b) is used in the inclusive sense – meaning any bathrooms, water-closet rooms, or combination or rooms with fixtures for personal hygiene or grooming. The Code provides the following objective and functional statements associated with 9.32.3.6.(1): [F52,F62,F63-OH1.3] [F52,F62,F63,F80-OP2.3] These confirm the intent to limit the risk of harm or illness due to exposure to poor indoor air quality, or degradation of the building as result of the presence of excessive moisture. In addition, Book II: Plumbing Systems Sentence 2.1.3.1.(1) prohibits plumbing fixtures being installed in a room that is not lighted and ventilated in accordance with the BCBC. Further to this, the intent statements of the National Building Code also indicate that these risks include airborne pollutants, or high relative humidity, which could lead to condensation, which could lead to the generation of pollutants from biological growth or from materials that become unstable on wetting. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0052 | Sizing a Vent Stack | 10/12/2024 | File No: 24-0052 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-12-11 Interpretation Date: December 10, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) and BC Building Code Book I: General Subject: Sizing a Vent Stack Keywords: Vent Stack, Vent Stack Sizing Building Code Reference(s): 2.5.8.4.(1) & (2), Table 2.5.8.4., 2.4.9.1.(1)(a) Question: When sizing a vent stack in accordance with Table 2.5.8.4., which has a longer developed length than the maximum permitted in the table, can the vent stack be increased in size to accommodate this extra developed length? Interpretation: Yes (with conditions). For this example, we will assume we are sizing a vent stack to serve a NPS 3 stack with a load of 100 FUs at its’ base and a developed length of 200 m. See below for an excerpt from Table 2.5.8.4. Given the fixture unit load on the stack described above (100 FUs) and the developed length of the NPS 3 vent stack (200 m), it does not comply with Table 2.5.8.4. However, the designer, or installer, could choose to increase the vent stack to NPS 4. The maximum developed length for this vent stack is now noted as “NL” which the footnote to the Table says is “not limited” or unrestricted. To comply with Clause 2.4.9.1.(1)(a), the size of the stack below the vent stack connection must be increased to NPS 4 while the stack above this connection can remain NPS 3. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0051 | Small Residential Care Home | 15/10/2024 | File No: 24-0051 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-10-29 Interpretation Date: October 15, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Small Residential Care Home Keywords: Care Facility Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.2.2.(6) Question: If a residential care facility in a Part 9 building is small enough that it does not require provincial licencing, is it required to comply with the BCBC requirements of Sentence 9.10.2.2.(6) for residential care facilities? Interpretation: No. Sentence 9.10.2.2.(6) states “A care facility accepted for residential use pursuant to provincial legislation is permitted to be classified as a residential occupancy…”. Such a facility is limited to sleeping accommodation for no more than 10 persons who must live in a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. The unit must have smoke alarms and emergency lighting, and the building must be sprinklered throughout. The Province of BC website includes the following statement, for residential care facilities: Residential care facilities provide accommodation, meals and care and supervision based on the person’s needs. Facilities that provide care and supervision to three or more persons must have a licence, whether they receive funding (subsidized) from a health authority or another agency, or whether a person pays privately. Based on this information, if a residential care facility provides care and supervision to only one or two persons, it does not require a licence. In that case, Sentence 9.10.2.2.(6) is not applicable. It is interpreted that if the facility provides care and supervision to fewer than 3 persons, it can be classified as a residential occupancy. Note that the Provincial licencing requirements for residential care facilities may be revised from time to time, with no coordination with the BCBC requirements. Any persons referencing this Interpretation should check the current Provincial requirements at the time of application to their project. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0050 | Group A Division 2 Occupancy in an Article 3.2.2.60 Building Without Group D Occupancy | 15/10/2024 | File No: 24-0050 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-11-03 Interpretation Date: October 15, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Group A Division 2 Occupancy in an Article 3.2.2.60 Building Without Group D Occupancy Keywords: Group A Division 2, Combustible Construction, Group D Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.2.60., 3.2.2.26. Question: Can Article 3.2.2.60. be applied to a 2 storey building of Group A Division 2 major occupancy, where the building has no Group D major occupancy? Interpretation: No. Article 3.2.2.60. allows a 6-storey building of Group D major occupancy to be of combustible construction, with a maximum allowable building area of 9000 m2 for a 2 storey building. A Group A Division 2 major occupancy is permitted below the third storey. This is inconsistent with Article 3.2.2.26. for a building of Group A Division 2 major occupancy, which permits a maximum building area of only 2400 m2 for a sprinklered 2 storey building of combustible construction. It does not allow combustible construction of an A2 major occupancy in a building of more than 2 storeys. For example, Article 3.2.2.60. permits a maximum building area of 4500 m2 for a 4 storey building. If a 2 storey building of A2 major occupancy has a building area of 4500 m2, noncombustible construction is required by Article 3.2.2.26. However, if 2 storeys of Group D major occupancy of the same area are added on top, the A2 occupancy in the larger building would now be permitted by Article 3.2.2.60. to be of combustible construction. There are similar inconsistencies in the BCBC requirements that have been introduced in recent years to allow 6 storey buildings of Group C major occupancy, and encapsulated mass timber buildings of Group C and Group D major occupancy. While it may seem logical to apply Article 3.2.2.60. for larger 2 storey combustible buildings of A2 occupancy, this is not specifically permitted by the BCBC. Application of Article 3.2.2.60. requires that the building have a Group D major occupancy on at least 1 storey. Applying Article 3.2.2.60. to a building of Group A Division 2 major occupancy, with no Group D major occupancy, would require an alternative solution and acceptance by the authority having jurisdiction. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0049 | Adaptable Water Closet Encroachments | 24/09/2024 | File No: 24-0049 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-10-02 Interpretation Date: September 24, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Adaptable water closet encroachments Keywords: Water closet, wall hung sink, clearances Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.5.7.(1)(a), 3.8.5.7.(1)(c), 3.8.3.12.(1)(b) Question: Can a future wall hung sink in an adaptable dwelling unit bathroom encroach into the 900 mm x 1500 mm clear transfer space beside the water closet? Interpretation: Yes. Clause 3.8.5.7.(1)(a) states that a clear transfer space adjacent to a water closet be designed in accordance with Clause 3.8.3.12.(1)(b). Clause 3.8.3.12.(1)(b) requires a clear transfer space of 900 mm x 1500 mm beside the water closet. Clause 3.8.5.7.(1)(c) states that a plumbing system be designed to accommodate the future installation of a sink with knee clearance beneath it in accordance with Clauses 3.8.3.16.(1)(a) to (f) that does not impede the space for or use of other fixtures described in this Article. Subclause 3.8.3.16.(1)(c)(ii) permits the clear space in front of an accessible wall hung sink to encroach 430 mm beneath the sink. The Notes to Part 3 – A-3.8.3.7.(1)(b) indicates that a wall hung sink is permitted to encroach into the 900 mm x 1500 mm clearance in front of an accessible shower when the sink is located on the opposite side of the fold down bench in the shower. Refer to illustration below: It is interpreted that a similar encroachment of a future wall hung sink is permitted in the 900 mm x 1500 mm side clearance of the water closet when the sink is located on the opposite side from the water closet. This is because the future wall hung sink does not impede the space for or use of the water closet. The occupant using the water closet will have the back of their wheelchair facing the back of the wall behind the water closet, so their knees and feet can extend beneath the sink for distance of 430 mm per Clause 3.8.3.16.(1)(e). So, the wall hung sink can encroach up to 430 mm into the required 900 mm x 1500 mm transfer space beside the water closet. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0048 | Sprinklers on top Floor Residential Balconies | 24/09/2024 | File No: 24-0048 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-10-02 Interpretation Date: September 24, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Sprinklers on top floor residential balconies Keywords: Sprinklers, balconies, open air Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.5.12.(7), A-3.2.5.12.(7) Question: Are sprinklers required on balconies that are open to the sky in buildings regulated by Articles 3.2.2.48., 3.2.2.51., 3.2.2.57. or 3.2.2.60 (i.e. up to 6 storey combustible buildings or up to 18 storey EMTC or noncombustible buildings)? Interpretation: Yes (with exception). Sentence 3.2.5.12.(7) states that all balconies that are deeper than 610 mm must be sprinklered when they are serving buildings regulated by Articles 3.2.2.48., 3.2.2.51., 3.2.2.57. or 3.2.2.60. This applies to all balconies, even when they have no balcony or roof overhang above them. As stated on the Notes to Part 3 – A-3.2.5.12.(7), the purpose of this requirement in combustible buildings up to 6 storeys or up to 18 storey EMTC or noncombustible buildings is to limit fire spread from exterior balconies to the roof assembly or to other parts of the building. The only exception to this requirement is when the balcony is less than 610 mm deep. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0047 | Separate Water Closets for Genders | 18/02/2025 | File No: 24-0047 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-02-28 Interpretation Date: February 18, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Separate water closets for genders Keywords: Separate, water closets, male, female Building Code Reference(s): 3.7.2.2.(1) & (2), Note A-3.7.2.2.(1), 3.8.2.8.(1) and (2) Question: Is it required that males and females be served by separate water closet rooms? Interpretation: No. Sentence 3.7.2.2.(1) states that, except as permitted by Sentence (2), water closets shall be provided for each sex assuming the occupant load is equally divided between males and females, unless the proportion of each sex expected in the building can be determined with reasonable accuracy. Sentence 3.7.2.2.(2) permits a single water closet for certain occupancies when the occupant load of the building is not more than 10 persons. In this case, the single water closet would be shared between males and females. BCBC 2018 included Note A-3.7.2.2.(1) to clarify that a water closet available to both males and females would satisfy the intent of the code. This Note has been removed from BCBC 2024 pending on the finalization of proposed change (PCF 1750) to NBC 2020 on Note A 3.7.2.2.(1) to clarify that the code only requires a minimum number of water closets be made available to the building’s occupants. “The code contains no implied or explicit requirements for the provision of separate gender-identified washrooms”. Sentence 3.7.2.2.(3) of the BCBC 2018 that did not take one universal washroom into consideration in determining the number of water closets required has been deleted. In BCBC 2024, universal washroom can be counted as one of the required water closets. For example, for assembly use with an occupant load of 140 persons, Table 3.7.2.2.-A would require the number of water closets to be based on 70 males and 70 females resulting in 2 male water closets and 3 female water closets. Since 1 universal washroom is required as per Sentence 3.8.2.8.(1), the following options are deemed to comply: • 2 male water closets, 2 female water closets and 1 universal washroom; or • 1 male water closet, 3 female water closets and 1 universal washroom; or • 4 unisex water closets and 1 universal washroom. Note that as per Sentence 3.8.2.8.(2), when there are more than 2 water-closet stalls in a washroom, at least one water-closet stall must be an accessible stall in accordance with Article 3.8.3.12. The provision of accessible water closet stalls does not eliminate the requirement for the universal washroom. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0046 | Opening Restrictor on Bedroom Window | 15/10/2024 | File No: 24-0046 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-10-29 Interpretation Date: October 15, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Opening Restrictor on Bedroom Window Keywords: Window, Restrictor, Egress, Bedroom Building Code Reference(s): 9.8.8.1.(4) and (5), 9.9.10.1.(1) and (2) Question: In an unsprinklered Part 9 building, can an openable window required for emergency egress from a bedroom have a restrictor to limit the extent of its opening? No. The openable portion of the bedroom window must be at a height where it does not require a restrictor or guard. Sentences 9.8.8.1.(4) and (5) require openable windows in buildings of residential occupancy to be protected by a guard or by a mechanism that will limit the clear openable part of the window to not more than 100 mm measured either vertically or horizontally, except where the bottom edge of the openable portion of the window is more than 900 mm above the floor or less than 1800 mm above the floor or ground on the other side of the window. Article 9.9.10.1 regulates “Egress Windows or Doors for Bedrooms”. Except where a suite is sprinklered, Sentence 9.9.10.1.(1) requires a bedroom or combination bedroom to have at least one outside window or exterior door openable from the inside without the use of keys, tools or special knowledge and without the removal of sashes or hardware. Sentence 9.9.10.1.(2) requires the openable window to have an unobstructed opening area of at least 0.35 m2 with no dimension less than 380 mm. A window required by Article 9.9.10.1 for egress from a bedroom cannot have a restrictor as required by Article 9.8.8.1 because the openable area limitation is too small for egress purposes. If the bottom of the openable portion of the window is more than 1800 mm above the floor or ground on the other side of the window, the bottom of the openable portion of the window must be at least 900 mm above the floor, so that a restrictor or guard is not required. A bedroom window could have a restrictor or guard if the suite is sprinklered, or if the bedroom has a door or another window that complies with Article 9.9.10.1. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0045 | Industrial Mineral Stockpile Cover | 13/08/2024 | File No: 24-0045 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-09-02 Interpretation Date: August 13, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024, Book I: General Subject: Industrial Mineral Stockpile Cover Keywords: Low Hazard Industrial, Storage Building, Low Fire Load Building Code Reference(s): Division A, 1.4.1.2.(1); Division B, 3.2.2.91. Question(s): 1. Can an industrial mineral stockpile cover (triodetic dome) with no human occupancy be used for permanent storage of mineral stockpile materials without having to meet any requirements of the BC Building Code? 2. If such a mineral storage structure is considered a building, would Article 3.2.2.91. “Group F, Division 3, One Storey, Low Fire Load Occupancy” be an appropriate major occupancy classification? Interpretation: 1. No (with exceptions). In various industries it is common to utilize large cover structures for the storage of raw materials, products, or equipment. Such structures typically do not have a continuous human occupancy, are unconditioned, and may be open to the exterior. Common construction includes truss or framed structures covered by lightweight materials, in configurations such as domes, industrial sheds, or tents. Such structures fall within the definition of building in the BC Building Code (BCBC) and are therefore subject to the applicable requirements of this regulation. Broadly speaking, a building is any kind of structure supporting or sheltering a use, including not only persons, but also animals or property. This interpretation is consistent with past BCIC interpretations and BC Building Code Appeals Board rulings for non-traditional structures such as the following: • BCIC Interpretation 18-0265 Use of Containers as a Building for Storage • BCAB Ruling #1335 - Definition of Building, Water Storage Reservoir, Article 1.1.3.2 • BCAB Ruling #1418 - Definition of "Building", Covered Storage Bins, Article 1.1.3.2. • BCAB Ruling #1455 - Definition of Building, Article 1.1.3.2. • BCAB Ruling #1640 - Article 1.1.3.2. Definition of Building (“umbrella” structure) Sentence 4.1.1.3.(1), Structural Design Requirements (application to fabric “umbrella” structure) Regardless of its classification as a building, it may be that not all the requirements of the building code ought to apply. The NRC’s Users Guide to Part 3 (“what is a building?”, Page 5) acknowledged this despite many structures being considered buildings, it may be impractical for all the requirements of the building code to apply. The Users Guide identified that the designer and the authority must agree on the most appropriate fit and that “Good judgment must be exercised in determining whether to apply a requirement under extenuating circumstances, provided always that the safety of the occupants is not threatened.” If the interpretation of whether a given building is unclear within a particular jurisdiction, the code user is encouraged to contact the local Authority Having Jurisdiction so they can provide additional guidance. 2. Yes. In many cases, to be suitable for storage in an exterior unconditioned space, the stored resource or product is non-reactive and non-hazardous. If the material is also effectively non-combustible and it can be demonstrated that the total combustible fuel load is not more than 50 kg/m2 or 1 200 MJ/m2 of floor area, then a Group F, Division 3 major occupancy may be appropriate. Article 3.2.2.91. identifies the further constraint that the use should be a Low Fire Load Occupancy, meaning that the total fuel load should be consistent with the fuel load that might be expected of a power generating plant or facility used for the manufacture or storage of noncombustible materials. Conceptually means little to no combustible fuel loads and may require some interpretation by the designer and AHJ in circumstances where this is not inherently clear. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0043 | Venting Requirements for Floor Drains NPS 3 and Larger | 13/08/2024 | File No: 24-0043 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-09-23 Interpretation Date: August 13, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) and BC Building Code Book I: General Subject: Venting Requirements for Floor Drains NPS 3 and Larger Keywords: Floor Drain, Venting Building Code Reference(s): 2.5.1.1.(3), Table 2.4.9.3. of the BCPC Question: Does the trap for a non-emergency floor drain, which is NPS 3 or larger, require a vent? Interpretation: No. Sentence 2.5.1.1.(3) waives the requirement for a vent on a trap for a floor drain where; a) the nominal pipe size of the trap is not less than NPS 3, b) the length of the fixture drain is not less than 450 mm, and c) the fall of the fixture drain does not exceed its nominal pipe size. Whether the floor drain is an emergency or non-emergency floor drain has no effect on whether the trap requires a vent or not, but rather, is based solely on the above criteria. If the floor drain is installed for a specific purpose, (i.e. non-emergency), then the hydraulic load from Table 2.4.9.3. would apply to the drainage system based on the trap size. Attached to this Interpretation is a comprehensive summary of drainage and venting requirements for floor drains taken from the 1992 BC Plumbing Code. Since the wording regarding floor drain requirements has not substantially changed since that time, it is reasonable to use the included methods for drainage and venting hydraulic load calculations and other considerations. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0042 | Camera as a Door Viewer | 24/09/2024 | File No: 24-0042 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-09-27 Interpretation Date: September 24, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Camera as a door viewer Keywords: Door viewer, camera Building Code Reference(s): 9.7.2.1.(1), 9.7.2.1.(2) Question: Does an electronic camera at an entry to a dwelling unit meet the requirements for a door viewer? Interpretation: No. Sentence 9.7.2.1.(2) requires the main entrance doors to dwelling units shall be provided with a door viewer or transparent glazing in the door or a sidelight. One of the intents from the 2015 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) is to limit the probability of person unknowingly opening a door to an intruder, which could lead to unwanted entry, which could lead to harm to persons. In other words, occupants must be able to see who is at the door prior to opening it. Products are available that can allow persons to view the exterior of their dwelling on their smart devices via a small camera near the door. While these products are convenient, the reliability and functionality of such products should be considered when satisfying Code requirements. The use of such technology can be problematic as there could be conditions where the devices are not effective due to connectivity issues, power supply, or persons that are not technologically savvy. Although the wording “door viewer” is not specific to a peephole, this wording has been in the code for upwards of 20 years which predates the modern devices that are available today. The assumption of the Code authors is to provide a means for the vast majority of people to view the exterior with minimal maintenance and without the need for special knowledge or devices. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0041 | Handrail Projections | 15/10/2024 | File No: 24-0041 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-12-13 Interpretation Date: October 15, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Handrail Projections Keywords: Handrail, Projections, Minimum required width Building Code Reference(s): 9.8.7.6.(1), 3.4.3.3.(4) Question: If a stair within a dwelling unit is wider than the minimum required width, is the handrail allowed to project into the stair more than the 100 mm as specified in Sentence 9.8.7.6.(1)? Interpretation: Yes. Sentence 9.8.7.6.(1) permits handrails and construction below handrails, including handrail supports and stair stringers, to project not more than 100 mm into the required width of a stair or ramp but there is no mention if it is allowed on both sides. Similar provisions are provided in Sentence 3.4.3.3.(4) for the projections into the required width of a means of egress. Sentence 3.4.3.3.(4) of 2012 BCBC specified that the projections was allowed “on each side” of the required width. Such a phrase was removed in 2018 BCBC in order to harmonize with Part 9 where such phrase was never there, however, the intent has not changed. A sketch (shown on the next page) in the User’s Guide to Part 3 of NBC 1995 show the 100 mm projections on both sides of a stair. Similar sketch in the User’s Gude to Part 9 of NBC 2015 show detail of the 100 mm projection of the handrail from the wall. It is interpreted that handrails can project not more than 100 mm into each side of the required width of a stair. If a stair is wider than the required minimum width, handrails can project more than 100 mm into each side provided the width of the stair between handrails as shown above is not less than the required exit width less 200 mm. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0040 | Footing Area Proportional to Column Spacing | 15/10/2024 | File No: 24-0040 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-12-25 Interpretation Date: October 15, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Footing Area Proportional to Column Spacing Keywords: Footing area, proportional, column spacing Building Code Reference(s): 9.15.3.4., Table 9.15.3.4., 9.15.3.7. Question: Table 9.15.3.4. indicates minimum column footing areas for Part 9 buildings where the columns are spaced at 3m on centre. Can the minimum footing size be reduced if the column spacing is less than 3m? Interpretation: Yes (with conditions). Sentence 9.15.3.7.(1) states that the column footing area can be adjusted (either increased or decreased) in proportion to the distance between columns. Therefore, if the column spacing is less than 3m, the column footing size can be reduced. Minimum column footing sizes in Table 9.15.3.4. are based on uniform supported joist lengths for each span with a maximum of 4.9 m supported joist length. If the supported joist lengths are greater than 4.9 m for any of the spans, the adjustments to the column footing size cannot simply be based on the proportional variance in the length of the span. The proportional variance must take into consideration the actual superimposed load on the footing due to the variable supported joist lengths. Note that minimum column footing sizes are also subject to change based on soil conditions described in Clause 9.15.3.4.(3)(b). | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0039 | Access for Part 9 Apartment Buildings | 24/09/2024 | File No: 24-0039 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-12-25 Interpretation Date: September 24, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Access for Part 9 Apartment Buildings Keywords: Access, Part 9, Apartment Building Code Reference(s): 9.5.2.1., 9.5.2.3.(1) & (2), 3.8.2.1., 3.8.5.1.(1), Question: For a 3 storey Part 9 apartment building that does not have any common facilities on the storeys other than the accessible entrance level, is an elevator required to provide access to storeys above the accessible entry level? Interpretation: No. Sentence 3.8.5.1.(1) of the BCBC 2024 requires all one storey dwelling units in Part 3 buildings to be adaptable when they are served by an accessible interior public corridor and an accessible common building entrance. Article 3.8.2.1. waives all accessible and adaptable requirements to buildings with dwelling units such as detached houses, semi-detached houses, houses with secondary suites, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, row houses and boarding houses. Article 9.5.2.1. requires every Part 9 building to be designed in accordance with Section 3.8, except as provided in Articles 9.5.2.3. (for apartment buildings) and 3.8.2.1. as described above. Except as permitted by Sentence (2), Sentence 9.5.2.3.(1) requires apartment buildings to provide access to all common spaces on the accessible entrance storeys and within all other common spaces on other above or below grade storeys including common rooftop occupancies serving adaptable units (private dwelling unit rooftop occupancies are exempt). Sentence 9.5.2.3.(2) waives the requirement for access to above or below grade storeys in a 3 storey apartment building if the building does not have an elevator, and the building does not have any “common facilities” on the above or below grade storeys that are not also provided on the accessible storey (i.e. Level 1). Note that public corridors on Levels 2 & 3 that only serve dwelling units are not considered to be “common facilities” for the purposes of Sentence 9.5.2.3.(2). Elevators for Part 9 apartment buildings are optional as described below: An elevator is mandatory if the following conditions apply: • The building contains common facilities on any above or below grade storeys that are not also provided on the accessible entrance storey (this includes common rooftop occupancies, accessible parking stalls, residential storage rooms, bike locker rooms, common garbage/refuse rooms). • Note that Clause 3.8.2.3.(2)(h) does not require access to parking storeys if they do not contain any accessible parking stalls, provided such storeys do not contain other common facilities such as residential storage rooms or bike locker rooms. If an elevator is provided to a storey that contains dwelling units that are served by an interior public corridor, the following conditions apply: • Every one storey dwelling unit on such storey must be designed as an adaptable dwelling unit per Subsection 3.8.5., • Accessible path of travel on such storey is required to every one storey adaptable dwelling unit and to every common facilities. If an elevator is not provided to a storey, the following conditions must apply: • The storey cannot contain any common facilities that are not already provided on the accessible entrance storey. • Every one storey dwelling unit on the accessible entrance must be designed as an adaptable dwelling unit per Subsection 3.8.5. • Every dwelling unit on storeys that are not served by an elevator need not be provided with an accessible path of travel and need not be designed as an adaptable dwelling unit per Subsection 3.8.5. Refer to Technical Bulletins issued by BSSB for the implementation date of the adaptable suite requirements in Subsection 3.8.5. Refer also to local government bylaws with respect to adaptable suite requirements that are unique to their locale. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0038 | Separation of Suites in a House having a Suite without a Kitchen | 13/08/2024 | File No: 24-0038 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-09-23 Interpretation Date: August 13, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Separation of Suites in a House having a Suite without a Kitchen Keywords: Secondary Suite, house, suite separation Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.9.16.(1), (2) and (4) Question: The basement of a house is finished with sleeping accommodation but no kitchen and is used by the building owner for occasional sleeping accommodation. The floor above is finished and occupied by another tenant. There is no interior connection between the two levels. Is a fire separation required between the two floor levels? Interpretation: Yes. Sentence 9.10.9.16.(1) requires a 45 min fire separation between suites in residential occupancies, with exceptions. One of the exceptions is Sentence 9.10.9.16.(2) for sleeping rooms in boarding or lodging houses where the sleeping rooms form part of the proprietor’s residence and do not contain kitchens. Since the owner does not live in the floor above it cannot be considered as the proprietor’s residence. Also, a typical boarding or lodging house has common areas and a common kitchen. In this case, the two floor areas are entirely separate with no common areas, so they do not constitute a boarding or lodging house where the sleeping rooms in the basement do not form part of the proprietor’s residence. The other exception is Sentence 9.10.9.16.(4), separation of secondary suite. Secondary suite is defined as “self-contained dwelling unit…” and dwelling unit is defined as “a suite operated as a housekeeping unit … and usually containing cooking, eating, living, sleeping, and sanitary facilities”. Although the basement is not finished as a typical secondary suite with a kitchen, it should be considered as such because it is used for sleeping accommodation by the owner that is different from the tenant on the upper floor. Therefore, the floor assembly between the two units is subject to the fire separation requirements of Sentence 9.10.9.16.(4) for a house with a secondary suite. The required fire-resistance rating is 0 h, 15 min, 30 min, or 45 min depending on the applicable conditions, as stated in that Sentence. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0037 | Fire Dampers in Houses with Secondary Suites | 24/09/2024 | File No: 24-0037 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-09-27 Interpretation Date: September 24, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Fire Dampers in Houses with Secondary Suites Keywords: Fire damper,secondary suite, ducts Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.9.9.(6); 9.32.3.2.(5) Question: Can fire dampers be omitted in ducts penetrating the fire separations in a house with a secondary suite? Interpretation: Yes (with conditions). Sentence 9.32.3.2.(5) requires that ducts penetrating fire separations shall be equipped with fire dampers in conformance with Article 3.1.8.10. except as provided in Sentence 9.10.9.6.(14), 9.10.9.6.(14) was in the 2018 BCBC but was relocated to 9.10.9.9.(6) in the 2024 BCBC. Sentence 9.32.3.2.(5) should have referenced 9.10.9.9.(6) as the exception rather than Sentence 9.10.9.6.(14). As per Sentence 9.10.9.9.(6), “in a house with a secondary suite including their common spaces, ducts penetrating fire separations need not be equipped with fire dampers in conformance with Article 3.1.8.10. provided they are noncombustible with all openings in the duct system serving only one fire compartment”. Building and Safety Standards Branch has been informed of this error and the revision is forthcoming. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0035 | Exhaust Air Inlet as a Return Air Inlet in Dwelling Unit | 18/02/2025 | File No: 24-0035 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-02-27 Interpretation Date: February 18, 2025 (REVISED) Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Exhaust Air Inlet as a Return Air Inlet in Dwelling Unit Keywords: Heat Recovery Ventilator (HRV), Forced-air Heating System, Exhaust Air, Return Air Building Code Reference(s): 9.32.3.4.(3); Table 9.32.3.5.; Note A-9.32.3; Figure 9.32.3.4.(3); 9.33.4.1.; 9.33.6.12.(2),(3); Note A-9.33.6.13, Question: In a single-family dwelling unit that is equipped with a heat recovery ventilator (HRV) and a forced air furnace, can an inlet to an exhaust air duct satisfy the requirement for a return air inlet on the upper most floor level? Interpretation: No. Exhaust duct is defined as a duct through which air is conveyed from a room or space to the outdoors. Return duct means a duct for conveying air from a space being heated, ventilated or air-conditioned back to the heating, ventilating or air-conditioning appliance. They serve different purposes. Subsection 9.32.3. applies to heating-season mechanical ventilation. Sentence 9.32.3.4.(3) regulates ventilation system with a combination of a ducted forced-air heating system and an HRV. It requires that “the HRV shall draw exhaust air, through dedicated ducting from one or more indoor inlets, at least one of which is located at least 2 m above the floor of the uppermost floor level and at the capacity rating of the HRV, which shall be no less than the air-flow rate specified in Table 9.32.3.5.” The exhaust air is ducted directly to the HRV and then to the exterior without mixing with the forced-air heating system. ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-02-27 Subsection 9.33.6. applies to air duct systems serving heating and cooling systems. Sentence 9.33.6.12.(2) requires at least one return-air inlet located on each floor level in a dwelling unit. Sentence 9.33.6.12.(3) also requires that provision shall be made for the return of air from all rooms by leaving gaps beneath doors, using louvred doors or installing return duct inlets. Return-air systems shall also comply with Article 9.33.6.13. The return-air is ducted back to the furnace, not to the HRV. Figure 9.32.3.4.(3) shows a forced-air heating system with an HRV. It indicates an exhaust inlet and a furnace air return at the upper level and a return air inlet on the lower floor. The exhaust duct and return duct serve different functions and their requirements are regulated by different sections of the code. When using the prescriptive method for the design and installation they are not interchangeable. As indicated in Note A-9.33.6.13. excessive outdoor air should not be introduced to the return air duct system as it could result in damage to the air handler. Note A-9.32.3. also provides some guidance on acceptable ventilation strategies. Article 9.33.4.1. indicated that aspects of HVAC systems not specifically addressed in this Subsection, including ducting, and mechanical heating and refrigeration equipment, shall be designed, constructed and installed in accordance with good practice. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0034 | Balcony Access in Adaptable Suites | 21/05/2024 | File No: 24-0034 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-07-14 Interpretation Date: May 21, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Balcony Access in Adaptable Suites Keywords: Balcony, access, adaptable Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.5., 3.3.1.7.(1)(c) Question: Is access for persons with disabilities required to balconies in adaptable suites? Interpretation: No (with some exceptions). Subsection 3.8.5. does not require access for persons with disabilities to balconies serving an adaptable suite. Note that if the adaptable suite is unsprinklered, Clause 3.3.1.7.(1)(c) does require an accessible path of travel to balconies in accordance with Sentence 3.3.1.7.(4). This means that for adaptable suites within buildings that are sprinklered throughout, there are no restrictions in Subsection 3.8.5. on balcony size, balcony door threshold height or balcony door width. There may be restrictions in other parts of the code that do apply. Note that adaptable requirements are temporary unrestricted matters with time limitations in the Building Act. Local governments can adopt bylaws to require additional adaptable design features that are more than the building code requirements. Their bylaws cannot include less restrictive requirements than are required by the building code. Check with the AHJ to determine if they have additional adaptable requirements within their community. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0033 | Spatial Interpolation with LD < 1.2m | 13/08/2024 | File No: 24-0033 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-08-29 Interpretation Date: August 13, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Spatial Interpolation with LD < 1.2m Keywords: Spatial, limting distance, exposing building face Building Code Reference(s): Table 3.2.3.1.-D, Table 3.2.3.7., 3.2.3.5.(1) Question: For a Part 3 building where the limiting distance of an exposing building face (EBF) is more than 0m but less than 1.2m, is it acceptable to interpolate the allowable area of unprotected openings (UPO) with respect to the construction requirements of the exposing building face (i.e. combustible or noncombustible construction)? Interpretation: No. For sprinklered buildings with major occupancies of Groups A, B, C, D and F3, Table 3.2.3.1.-D permits the area of unprotected openings to be 14% to 16% when the limiting distance is 1.2m and 0% when the limiting distance is 0m. For major occupancies of Groups A, B, C, D and F3, Table 3.2.3.7. permits the exposing building face to be combustible construction when the allowable UPO is more than 10%. Sentence 3.2.3.5.(1) clearly states that when the limiting distance is less than 1.2m, no unprotected openings are permitted. This sentence is silent with respect to the type of construction of the exposing building face when the limiting distance is less than 1.2m. It should be noted that for Part 9 building, the wording of Table 9.10.14.4.-A is different than Table 3.2.3.1.-D. The Part 9 Table clearly states that where the limiting distance is “less than 1.2m”, the allowable area of unprotected openings is 0%, which would require the construction of the exposing building face to be noncombustible construction. Although the wording of Table 3.2.3.1.-D does not specifically say “less than 1.2m”, the same intent is provided by Sentence 3.2.3.5.(1) which mandates 0% area of unprotected openings when the limiting distance is less than 1.2m. Hence the type of construction of the exposing building face must be noncombustible when the limiting distance is less than 1.2m. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0032 | Tactile Walking Surface Indicators | 16/07/2024 | File No: 24-0032 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-08-29 Interpretation Date: July 16, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Tactile Walking Surface Indicators Keywords: Tactile, warning, indicators Building Code Reference(s): 3.3.1.19.(1)(a), CSA B651 - 4.3.5.3.2., 5.4.3.1. Question: 1. Are tactile walking surface indicators required at intermediate landings in an open stair? 2. Are tactile walking surface indicators required to be setback 1 stair tread from the top stair riser? IInterpretation: 1. Yes. Clause 3.3.1.19.(1)(a) requires that tactile walking surface indicators be located at the top of flights of stairs that are unenclosed. Flight is defined in Division A - Article 1.4.1.2. as follows: Flight means a series of steps between landings. When a stair contains more than one flight, the top of each flight requires a tactile walking surface indicator. The term “top of flights of stairs” means the top of each flight of stairs. When a visually challenged person is descending several flights of stairs, they are not aware when they have reached the bottom of the stairs. Therefore, it is important to identify the top of each flight of stairs to warn the user of the start on a subsequent flight of stairs. 2. Yes. BCBC Sentence 3.3.1.19.(1) requires that tactile walking surface indicators be designed to Clauses 4.3.5.3.1.(Configuration), 4.3.5.3.3. (Installation) and 4.3.5.3.4. (Luminance) of CSA B651. Note that Clause 4.3.5.3.2. (Location) of CSA B651, is not referenced in BCBC Sentence 3.3.1.19.(1) because the location of the indicators is described in BCBC Article 3.3.1.19. CSA B651 Sub-clause 4.3.5.3.3.(b) (Installation) states that one side of the indicator be against the edge of the hazard, unless otherwise indicated in this Standard. CSA B651 Article 5.4.3. specifically deals with Tactile attention indicator surfaces at stairs which is referenced by Sub-clause 4.3.5.3.3.(b). CSA B651 Sub-clause 5.4.3.1.(d) requires the indicator to commence one tread depth back from the edge of the stair as shown in Figure 27 below. Although there is no direct reference in BCBC to CSA B651 Sub-clause 5.4.3.1.(d), the indirect reference through CSA B651 Sub-clause 4.3.5.3.3.(b) does make it applicable in BC. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0030 | Illumination of Exterior Path of Travel | 16/07/2024 | File No: 24-0030 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-08-29 Interpretation Date: July 16, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024, Book I: General Subject: Illumination of Exterior Path of Travel Keywords: Lighting; Accessibility; Accessible Path of Travel Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.7.1.(1); 3.8.2.2.(1); 3.8.2.5.(1); 3.8.3.2.(3) & (7) Question(s): Do the minimum lighting levels required by Sentence 3.2.7.1.(1) apply to exterior accessible paths of travel? Yes. The minimum lighting requirements under normal power for a building is regulated by Sentence 3.2.7.1.(1) and specifically identifies several locations requiring illumination. Accessible paths of travel required by Section 3.8. are specifically identified by this requirement, which is a notable change from previous code edition. Article 3.8.2.5., Sentences 3.8.2.2.(1), 3.8.3.2.(3), 3.8.3.3.(1) and 3.8.3.4.(1) include both interior and exterior accessible paths of travel. Sentence 3.8.3.2.(7) requires illumination of interior and exterior paths of travel in accordance with Sentences 3.2.7.1.(1) and (2). Explanatory material provided in Note A-3.8.2.5.(1) and (2) state that it is the intent of Sentences 3.8.2.5.(1) and (2) to provide means of access so that “persons of all abilities can move to and from a building with minimal effort”. Providing illumination supports this intent, by providing additional illumination to assist those with reduced visual acuity, who might otherwise have difficulty navigating during periods of reduced visibility. The requirements of Article 3.2.7.1. identify various minimum and average lighting levels for the purposes of an accessible path. The Code does not address the potential interactions between the lighting needs for accessibility and the potential impact on adjacent properties and exterior spaces, including adjacent vehicular roadways or the potential for nuisance lighting. To minimize potential adverse impacts on the surrounding spaces, designers may consider various strategies to reduce glare, uplighting, and backlighting. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0029 | Limited Mobility Stalls | 13/08/2024 | File No: 24-0029 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-12-25 Interpretation Date: August 13, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Limited Mobility Stalls Keywords: Plumbing facilities, Accessibility, Limited mobility, Accessible washroom, Urinal, Water-closet stall Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.2.8.(6), 3.8.2.8.(7) Question: 1. Does an accessible washroom having less than 10 water-closet stalls require a limited mobility stall? 2. Does an accessible washroom containing more than 10 water-closet stalls but less than the next increment of 10 require 2 limited mobility stalls? Interpretation: 1. No. The requirement for limited mobility stalls of Sentence 3.8.2.8.(7) is applicable when the accessible washroom has a total of 10 stalls. When 10 stalls are provided, one of these must be designed for persons with limited mobility conforming to Subsection 3.8.3. When 9 or less stalls are provided, limited mobility requirement does not apply. 2. No. Sentence 3.8.3.6.(7) is applicable for each increment of 10 stalls. When 20 stalls are provided, two would need to be limited mobility. When 19 stalls or less are provided, only one would need to be limited mobility. The same interpretation applies to urinals in accessible washroom as per Sentence 3.8.2.8.(6). | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0028 | Egress from Multi-Level Dwelling Units | 16/07/2024 | File No: 24-0028 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-08-11 Interpretation Date: July 16, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Egress from Multi-Level Dwelling Units Keywords: Exit, Egress, Dwelling Unit Building Code Reference(s): 9.9.9.1 Question: If a multi-storey dwelling unit in a Part 9 building complies with Sentence 9.9.9.1.(2) or (3), and it does not have a door to a public corridor, enclosed exit stair or exterior passageway, does it require an exterior exit door not more than 1.5 m above adjacent ground level? Interpretation: Yes. Sentence 9.9.9.1.(1) states: Sentence 9.9.9.1.(2) allows the travel limit to exceed 1 storey in a non-stacked dwelling unit for a floor level with an openable exterior window meeting the criteria stated in that Sentence. Sentence 9.9.9.1.(3) allows the travel limit to exceed 1 storey where the floor level has direct access to a balcony. Sentences 9.9.9.1.(2) and (3) allow different approaches for the vertical travel limit to the exterior exit or egress door to exceed 1 storey. They do not supersede or alter the other requirements of Sentence 9.9.9.1.(1). The exit door is still required to be a maximum height of 1.5 m above adjacent ground level. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0025 | Lever Handles for Faucets in Adaptable Suites | 21/05/2024 | File No: 24-0025 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-07-14 Interpretation Date: May 21, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Lever Handles for Faucets in Adaptable Suites Keywords: Adaptable, faucets, lever handle Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.5.7.(1)(c) & (d), A-3.8.5.7.(1)(c) &(d) Question: Are lever handles required on lavatory, bathtub, shower and kitchen sink faucets in adaptable suites? Interpretation: No. Refer to Interpretation 24-0023. Adaptable dwelling units are not required to comply with the accessible requirements of Section 3.8. except those provided in Subsection 3.8.5. Subsection 3.8.5. does not include any requirement for lever handles on faucets. Note that adaptable requirements are temporary unrestricted matters with time limitations tin the Building Act. Local governments can adopt bylaws to require additional adaptable design features that are more than the building code requirements. Their bylaws cannot include less restrictive requirements than are required by the building code. Check with the AHJ to determine if they have additional adaptable requirements within their community. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0024 | Plumbing Systems for Showers in Adaptable Suites | 16/07/2024 | File No: 24-0024 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-08-11 Interpretation Date: July 16, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Plumbing Systems for Showers in Adaptable Suites Keywords: Adaptable suites, plumbing systems, showers Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.5.7.(1)(d)(i), A-3.8.5.7.(1)(c) &(d) Question: 1. For the purposes of Article 3.8.5.7., does the term “plumbing systems” include all aspects of the plumbing system as defined in Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A? 2. Must the initial installation of a shower in an adaptable dwelling unit include pressure equalizing mixing valve mounted on the opposite wall as per Clause 3.8.3.17.(1)(h) and handheld shower as per Clause 3.8.3.17.(1)(i)? Interpretation: 1. No. Sentence 3.8.5.7.(1)(d) requires that the “plumbing system” be designed to accommodate a future shower as per Sentence 3.8.3.17.(1) or a future bathtub per Sentence 3.8.3.18.(1). “Plumbing system” is defined in Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A as a drainage system, venting system and a water system or parts thereof. “Parts thereof” includes all other aspects of the plumbing system such as faucets, mixing valves, plumbing fixtures, etc. The Notes to Part 3 – A-3.8.5.7.(1)(c) & (d) clarifies that, for the purposes of Article 3.8.5.7., “plumbing system” means the water supply as well as drainage and venting system only. It does not include all plumbing components as defined in Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A for “plumbing systems”. Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-08-11 2. No. As stated in the answer to question 1, “plumbing systems” with respect to Article 3.8.5.7. only includes water supply piping, drainage and venting system, and does not include mixing valves or handheld showers. A rough in for the water supply piping for the future mixing valve and future hand-held shower must be provided as part of the initial installation in the location described in Clauses 3.8.3.17.(1)(h) and 1(i), but the installation of the mixing valve and hand-held shower can be provided when the adaptable suite is converted to include some accessible features as required by the homeowner. The initial installation of a bathtub or shower must be installed in accordance with the Plumbing Code with a mixing valve and temperature control, but the location of this initial installation need not be in accordance with Clauses 3.8.3.17.(1)(h) or 3.8.3.18.(1)(e). Note that adaptable requirements are temporary unrestricted matters with time limitations in the Building Act. Local governments can adopt bylaws to require additional adaptable design features that are more than the building code requirements. Their bylaws cannot include less restrictive requirements than are required by the building code. Check with the AHJ to determine if they have additional adaptable requirements within their community. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0023 | Future Conversion of Adaptable Suites | 21/05/2024 | File No: 24-0023 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-07-14 Interpretation Date: May 21, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Future Conversion of Adaptable Suites Keywords: Adaptable, future, conversion Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.3.1.(1), 3.8.5.7.(1)(c) & (d), A-3.8.5.7.(1)(c) &(d) Question: 1. When a homeowner decides to convert an adaptable suite to include some accessible features to suit their needs, does the future installation have to comply with the requirements for public washrooms as described in Subsection 3.8.3.? This would include future grab bars, future push buttons for power door operators, toilet paper dispensers, etc.? 2. If the answer to (1) is NO, are there any design requirements of Subsection 3.8.3. for future installations? Interpretation: 1. No (with some exceptions). Sentence 3.8.3.1.(1) states that Subsection 3.8.3. apply to buildings or parts thereof and facilities that are required to be accessible. Clause 3.8.2.3.(2)(l) states that access is not required within a suite of residential occupancy provided that is “has not been designated by this Code or an authority having jurisdiction to be accessible or designed and constructed as an adaptable dwelling unit”. This means that an adaptable dwelling unit is not required to comply with the accessible requirements of Section 3.8. except those provided in Subsection 3.8.5. It is not the intent of the code that interior spaces within an adaptable dwelling unit for future accessible conversions be designed in a similar manner to public spaces as required by Subsection 3.8.3. The homeowner can design accessible features within their dwelling unit to suit their individual needs. For example, they may utilize a remote-control device to activate power door operators rather than using upper and lower push paddles that are setback from the latch side of the door by 600 mm as required by 3.8.3.6.(6). The exception to this is backing for future grab bars: 3.8.3.7.(1)(e) mandates that backing for grab bars for water closets, showers and bathtubs be installed in accordance with 3.8.3.12.(f) & (g) for water closets, 3.8.3.17.(1)(f) for showers and 3.8.3.18.(1)(f) for bathtubs. 2. No. As stated in the answer to question 1, Clause 3.8.2.3.(2)(l) states that access is not required within a suite of residential occupancy, and adaptable dwelling units need only to comply with Subsection 3.8.5. Note that adaptable requirements are temporary unrestricted matters with time limitations in the Building Act. Local governments can adopt bylaws to require additional adaptable design features that are more than the building code requirements. Their bylaws cannot include less restrictive requirements than are required by the building code. Check with the AHJ to determine if they have additional adaptable requirements within their community. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0022 | Adaptable Bathrooms | 21/05/2024 | File No: 24-0022 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-07-14 Interpretation Date: May 21, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Adaptable Bathrooms Keywords: Adaptable, bathroom, water closets, clearances Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.5.7.(1)(c) & (d), A-3.8.5.7.(1)(c) &(d) Question: 1. Is it mandatory that the water closet in an adaptable bathroom be adjacent to a wall? 2. Is it mandatory that the water closet in an adaptable bathroom be provided with 900 mm side clearance at the initial installation of the water closet? 3. If the initial installation of an adaptable bathroom includes a bathtub, is it mandatory to provide 1700 mm diameter floor area clearances in the bathroom? Interpretation: 1. Yes. Clause 3.8.5.7.(1)(a) to locate the water closet within 460 mm to 480 mm is a mandatory requirement for the initial installation. It would be difficult for a homeowner to relocate a water closet to make it accessible in the future. The building code mandates that the water closet be in a fixed location in the bathroom with a wall on one side to accommodate future grab bars. Refer to the Building and Safety Standards Branch Bulletin 24-09R. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/construction-industry/building-codes-standards/bc-codes/technical-bulletins. 2. Yes. Clause 3.8.5.7.(1)(b) to provide 900 mm side clearance at the water closet is a mandatory requirement for the initial installation. Although Clause 3.8.5.7.(1)(c) requires that the “plumbing system” be designed to accommodate the future installation of a lavatory with adequate clear spaces, this only applies to the future clearances in front of the lavatory. It does not permit the initial installation of a lavatory to encroach into the 900 mm side clearance for the water closet. As stated in the Bulletin 24-09R, “the functional clear space adjacent the water closet described in Article 3.8.5.7. of Division B is required at the time of initial construction. This helps ensure the dwelling unit is visitable by people with diverse abilities by providing reasonable access to a water closet as part of a visit.” It also stated that the 900 mm side clearance for the water closet can be provided within a zero-threshold shower if it is provided in the initial installation. 3. No. 3.8.5.7.(1)(d) requires that the “plumbing system” be designed to accommodate a future shower per 3.8.3.17.(1) or a future bathtub per 3.8.3.18.(1). The Note to Part 3 – A-3.8.5.7.(1)(c) & (d) clarifies that the “plumbing system” means the water supply as well as drainage and venting system only. It does not include all plumbing components as defined in Section 1.4 of Division A for “plumbing systems”. 3.8.3.17.(1)(b) requires future showers to have a 900 mm deep x 1500 mm wide floor area clearance in front of the shower. 3.8.3.18.(1)(a) requires future bathtubs to be located in a room with a clear floor space of not less than 1700 mm diameter. Since 3.8.5.7.(1)(d) provides the option to design for a future shower or bathtub, the initial installation can include a bathtub without the 1700 mm diameter clearance on the basis that the homeowner will convert the existing bathtub to an accessible shower in the future. Note that adaptable requirements are temporary unrestricted matters with time limitations in the Building Act. Local governments can adopt bylaws to require additional adaptable design features that are more than the building code requirements. Their bylaws cannot include less restrictive requirements than are required by the building code. Check with the AHJ to determine if they have additional adaptable requirements within their community. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0021 | Adaptable Bedrooms | 21/05/2024 | File No: 24-0021 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-07-15 Interpretation Date: May 21, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Adaptable Bedrooms Keywords: Adaptable, bedroom, bed size, clearances Building Code Reference(s): A-3.8.5.6.(1), 3.8.5.6.(1)(b), 3.8.5.9. Question: 1. Is it mandatory to design adaptable bedrooms to accommodate 2 people? 2. Is it mandatory to provided 850 mm clearance on both sides of the bed and on the foot of the bed. 3. Can the size of an adaptable suite be based on a single bed that is tight to the wall on one side? Interpretation: 1. No. Refer to the Building and Safety Standards Branch Bulletin B24-09-R. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/construction-industry/building-codes-standards/bc-codes/technical-bulletins 2. No (with conditions). Clause 3.8.5.6.(1)(b) requires a pathway clearance in an adaptable bedroom of 850 mm wide. This 850 mm wide pathway applies from the bedroom entry door to the transfer space on one side of the bed as required in Clause 3.8.5.6.(1)(a). This 850 mm wide pathway also applies from the adaptable bedroom entry door to any operable window, door and dwelling unit controls, switches and outlets that are intended for frequent operation as described in Article 3.8.5.9. Refer to the Building and Safety Standards Branch Bulletin B24-09-R. 3. Yes (with conditions). For demonstration of compliance to Clause 3.8.5.6.(1)(b), a single bed can be tight to the wall on one side provided it does not interfere with access to any operable window, door and dwelling unit controls, switches and outlets that are intended for frequent operation as described in Article 3.8.5.9. Refer to Building and Safety Standards Branch Bulletin 24-09-R. Note that adaptable requirements are temporary unrestricted matters with time limitations in the Building Act. Local governments can adopt bylaws to require additional adaptable design features that are more than the building code requirements. Their bylaws cannot include less restrictive requirements than are required by the building code. Check with the AHJ to determine if they have additional adaptable requirements within their community. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0020 | Double Header Joist around Floor Opening | 16/07/2024 | File No: 24-0020 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-08-11 Interpretation Date: July 16, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Double Header Joist around Floor Opening Keywords: Header joist, floor opening Building Code Reference(s): 9.23.9.5.(1) Question: If the header joist at the side of an opening in a floor sits directly above a wood stud bearing wall, must the header joist be doubled if the opening is wider than 1.2 m? IInterpretation: No. The load on a single header joist that sits directly on a bearing wall is supported by the bearing wall itself, so there is no need to double the header joist when the width of the opening is greater than 1.2 m as described in Sentence 9.23.9.5.(1). | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0019 | Installation Requirements for Condensate Drains | 13/08/2024 | File No: 24-0019 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-12-11 Interpretation Date: August 13, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) and BC Building Code Book I: General Subject: Installation Requirements for Condensate Drains Keywords: Condensate Drain, Drainage System, Connections Building Code Reference(s): 2.2., 2.3. and 2.4.2.1. of the BCPC Question: 1. Does the condensate piping from HVAC equipment need to comply with the requirements for drainage piping in the BCPC? 2. Can the condensate piping terminate outdoors? Interpretation: 1. No. The condensate piping from HVAC equipment, an HRV for example, need not comply with the requirements for drainage piping contained in the BCPC. That said; however, the termination of that piping, and where and how it is connected to a drainage system (including the load imposed on that system), must comply with the applicable minimum requirements of the BCPC (See BCIC Interpretation #18-0283 for further information). 2. Yes (with conditions). Since most condensate piping from HVAC equipment is typically of smaller diameter (NPS 3/4 or 1), the piping could be subject to frost closure during the winter months so care must be taken to ensure that this is prevented. In addition, the termination of the condensate line should not be in a location which could lead to the creation of a hazardous situation (over a paved walkway for example which could lead to ice formation). | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0018 | Open Mezzanine | 15/10/2024 | File No: 24-0018 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-10-21 Interpretation Date: October 15, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Open mezzanine Keywords: Mezznine, partition, open Building Code Reference(s): Div. A 1.4.1.2.(1); Div. B 3.2.1.1.(3)(b), 3.2.1.1.(7) Question: If a mezzanine is not considered as a storey, is it permitted to have a full height glass partition installed on the open edge of the mezzanine? Interpretation: No. Clause 3.2.1.1.(3)(b) states that when a mezzanine is not considered as a storey, there cannot be any walls or partitions higher than 1070mm above the mezzanine floor, except for walls surrounding an enclosure that is less than 10% of the open area of the room in which the mezzanine is located per Sentence 3.2.1.1.(7). Partition is defined in Division A Sentence 1.4.1.2.(1) as a non-loadbearing 1 storey or part-storey high wall. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0017 | Doorway Width for One Bathroom in a Dwelling Unit | 15/04/2025 | File No: 24-0017 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-04-15 Interpretation Date: April 15, 2025 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Doorway Width for One Bathroom in a Dwelling Unit Keywords: Doorway, Dwelling Unit, Adaptable, Accessible Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.2.3.(2), 3.8.2.13.(1), 3.8.3.1.(1), 3.8.3.6.(3), 3.8.5 Question: Does Sentence 3.8.3.6.(3) require every dwelling unit in an apartment building to have a bathroom with a clear doorway opening width of at least 850 mm? Interpretation No. A bathroom with a clear doorway opening of at least 850 mm is required only in a dwelling unit that is required to be adaptable or accessible. Sentence 3.8.3.6.(3) states: The clear width is required to be measured with the door in the open position, and an 850 mm clear doorway width typically requires at least a 914 mm (standard 3 ft.) wide door. In previous editions of the BCBC, dwelling units and apartment buildings were exempted from most of the requirements of Section 3.8 (Accessibility). In the 2024 BCBC, the types of exempted buildings have been reduced, and there is no general exemption for dwelling units and apartment buildings. Clause 3.8.2.3.(2)(l) states that access is not required: Sentence 3.8.5.1.(1) states that Subsection 3.8.5 “Adaptable Dwelling Units” applies to one storey dwelling units served by an accessible interior public corridor and an accessible common entrance, so units that do not have these entrances are not required to be adaptable. Sentence 3.8.5.4.(3) requires doorways with a clear opening width of at least 850 mm for certain rooms within adaptable dwelling units, including to an adaptable bathroom. Please refer to the Province of BC technical bulletins at https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/construction-industry/building-codes-standards/bc-codes/technical-bulletins for further clarification of the required number of adaptable units, and the timing of application of the requirements. The BCBC does not require residential suites to be accessible, except that Sentence 3.8.2.13.(1) requires at least 1 in 20 or part thereof of sleeping rooms or bed spaces to be accessible: • in hotels and motels, and • not including apartments and condominiums and the buildings described in Clause 3.8.2.1.(1)(a) (which are smaller residential buildings that are not required to be accessible), in other buildings or parts of buildings used for residential major occupancies. For these uses, and where an authority having jurisdiction requires a residential suite to be accessible as stated in Clause 3.8.2.3.(2)(l), then the access requirements of Subsection 3.8.3. are applicable to that suite, sleeping room or bed space, and one bathroom in the unit requires a clear doorway width of at least 850 mm. This requirement came into effect on March 8, 2024 with the 2024 BCBC and it is not deferred because it is not part of the requirements for adaptable dwelling units. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0016 | Accessory Building | 16/07/2024 | File No: 24-0016 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-08-29 Interpretation Date: July 16, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024, Book I: General Subject: Accessory Building Keywords: Accessory building, storage shed; ancillary Building Code Reference(s): Division A, 1.4.1.1.(1); Division B, 9.12.2.2. Question(s): Is storage shed the only form of accessory building under the BCBC? No. The term “Accessory Building”, is undefined in the BC Building Code, but is commonly associated with provisions in the Code to exempt certain types of structures, which would otherwise be classified as buildings, from complying with requirements which might prove to be overly onerous relative to the size, purpose or use of that building. The most common usage of the term “accessory building” is that of Division A, Clause 1.1.1.1.(2)(e) which waives the application of the Building Code to small ancillary buildings under 10 m2 that do not create a hazard. As an undefined term, common practice has been to consider the common usage of the term “ancillary building”, which is further clarified in Sentence 1.4.1.1.(1), which identifies that non-defined terms should be attributed the meanings commonly assigned to the words in the context used, with special attention to its usage in building construction or design. From this guidance, it can generally be established that this is typically viewed as a subordinate structure to a principal building, providing support1 to the usage of the principal building. 1 Ancillary: 1. Ancillary (to something) providing necessary support to the main work or activities of an organization 2. in addition to something else but not as important (Oxford English Dictionary (2024May) Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-08-29 However, in many cases this may not provide sufficient context for interpretation and so it may be useful to consider local developmental regulations with respect to this term, as this often outlines broad developmental goals of a municipality that can help guide code users in determining what should be considered to be “ancillary” with respect to those regulatory objectives. By inspection, it can readily be seen that there is broad variation between local municipalities with respect to what should be regulated, and so it may likewise be inferred that it is not solely storage sheds which might be considered as “ancillary buildings” – provided that this fits within the regulatory goals of that municipality. Structures such as greenhouses, detached storage garages, or other subordinate structures may potentially be seen as an “ancillary building” within a given municipality along with the consequential allowances within the BC Building Code. If the interpretation of whether a given building is unclear within a particular jurisdiction, the code user is encouraged to contact the local Authority Having Jurisdiction so they can provide additional guidance. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0015 | Measurement of Clear Floor Space Width at a Door | 16/07/2024 | File No: 24-0015 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-08-10 Interpretation Date: July 16, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Measurement of Clear Floor Space Width at a Door Keywords: Clear floor space, Swinging door Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.3.6.(14), (15) and (16) Question: Where a clear space is required at a door for accessibility per Sentence 3.8.3.6.(14), is the width measured from the door jamb on the hinged side? Interpretation: Yes. Sentence 3.8.3.6.(14) states that the pull side of a swinging door in an accessible path of travel requires a clear and level floor space “of not less than 1700 mm by 1500 mm measured from the hinged side of the door”, with a reference to Note A-3.8.3.6.(14) to (16). Sentences 3.8.3.6.(15) and (16) also contain requirements for clear spaces at doors. The question relates to whether the width of the required clear area is measured from the hinged side of the door when the door is in the closed position, or the face of the door on the hinged side when the door is in the open position. These two measurements will be different by the thickness of the door and by the distance that the hinges hold the door off the frame. The excerpt on the next page is one of the sketches in Note A-3.8.3.6.(14) to (16). This interpretation is not intended to reproduce all of those sketches. Please refer to Note A-3.8.3.6.(14) to (16) for a graphic representation of various clear space conditions at doors. In this sketch and in the other sketches in Note A-3.8.3.6.(14) to (16), the width of the clear floor space is measured from the door jamb, not from the inside face of the open door. The clear space is intended to allow a disabled person to approach the door and to open the door, without their position impeding the opening of the door. The position of the door in the open position is not relevant for this intent because the greatest restriction will be when the door is initially being opened, not when it is fully open. The width of the clear space should be measured from the door jamb as shown in the sketches in Note A-3.8.3.6.(14) to (16). | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0013 | Accessible Ramp, Landing and Walkway Curb Protection | 18/06/2024 | File No: 24-0013 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-07-15 7Interpretation Date: June 18, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Accessible ramp, landing and walkway curb protection Keywords: Ramps, curb, edge protection Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.3.1., Table 3.8.3.1., 3.8.3.2.(3)(a) and (b), 3.8.3.5.(5) Question: 1. Is the edge protection required by 3.8.3.5.(5) for a ramp and landings permitted to be horizontally offset from the edge of the ramp outwards, so there is a gap between the edge of ramp/ landing and the edge protection? 2. For an elevated walkway that has side mounted guardrails, is there any requirement for edge protection and if so, does the edge protection need to align with the edge of the walkway as Question 1? Interpretation: 1. No. Sentence 3.8.3.5.(5) has a requirement of edge protection. Table 3.8.3.1. also permits the use of CSA B651-2018 section 5.3. and 5.5. as an alternative. The above sentence (5) mentions either a raised curb or barrier above the ramp or landing surface, neither of these two options permit a horizontal gap between the edge of ramp and the edge protection. B651-2018 figure 34 has useful diagrams which are useful illustrative guidance of the CSA standard. 2. Yes. While Section 3.3. and 3.4 guardrail requirements are trying to address a fall hazard, BCBC Clauses 3.8.3.2.(3)(a) and (b) address requirements for interior and exterior accessible walking surfaces. 3.8.3.2.(3)(a) notes no openings in the walking surface are to permit the passage of a sphere more than 13mm in diameter and Clause 3.8.3.2.(3)(b). The elongated opening is not intended to apply to the gap between the walking surface and the inside face of the guard because the gap is not a part of the walking surface. Both Clauses 3.8.3.2.(3)(a) and (b) share the same functional statements and objectives of that of Sentence 3.8.3.5.(5) being F30-OS3.1 which intend to limit the probability a person in or adjacent the building will be exposed to an unacceptable risk of injury caused by tripping, slipping, falling, contact, drowning or collision. The designer must exercise professional judgment to limit the above probability of such an unacceptable risk of injury from occurring. The provisions of 3.8.3.5.(5) do provide guidance of a suitable method of protection, and are further reinforced by Figure 34 of the B651-2018 standard. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0012 | Future Visible Signal Devices in Ensuite Bathrooms | 18/06/2024 | File No: 24-0012 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-07-15 Interpretation Date: June 18, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024, Book I: General Subject: Future Visible Signal Devices in Ensuite Bathrooms Keywords: Special Outlet Box, Visual Signal Device; Bathroom; Accessibility; Adaptability Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.4.19.(1)(h)(i), 3.2.4.19.(4).(e), 3.2.4.19.(7)(c) Question(s): 1. Is an ensuite bathroom serving a bedroom in an adaptable dwelling unit required to be roughed in with a special outlet box for a future visible warning system? 2. Is a small storage room in an adaptable dwelling unit required to be roughed in with the special outlet box for a future visible warning system? 1. Yes. Subclause 3.2.4.19.(1)(h)(i) waives the requirement for visible signal devices in washrooms in suites of residential occupancy, but this is superseded by Clause 3.2.4.19.(7)(c) in adaptable dwelling units which requires special outlet boxes and cover plates for future visible signal devices in locations described in Clause 3.2.4.19.(4)(e). Sentence 3.2.4.19.(4) provides requirements for visible signal devices to be installed in the rooms and spaces required by 3.2.4.20. and Section 3.8., for the purpose of notifying persons who may be experiencing auditory sensory impairment, such as reduced hearing or deafness, which could lead to delay in evacuation due to being incapable of hearing or distinguishing an alarm from being promptly notified of fire conditions. Clause 3.2.4.19.(4)(e) provides further clarification that it is required to be installed in each sleeping room or bed space, in addition to living area and hallways serving it, and various other rooms closed off from living areas, including bathrooms. The general intent of this is to provide visual information of an alarm condition, in areas likely to regularly contain occupants throughout the day. Refer to Interpretation18-0288 for an option to use the electrical outlet boxes of fire alarm audible devices as the “special outlet box”. 2. No. Subclause 3.2.4.19.(4)(e)(ii) requires all “rooms” that are closed off from the living area to be equipped with special outlet boxes for futures strobes, but this does not apply to “storage closets”. Small storage rooms could be considered to be a “closet” if they are not large enough to accommodate prolonged usage. Designers should confirm with the AHJ if the storage room is small enough to be treated as a closet. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0011 | Part 9 Guards for Windows | 15/10/2024 | File No: 24-0011 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2025-01-31 Interpretation Date: October 15, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Part 9 guards for windows Keywords: Guard loads, glazing, window, dwelling unit Building Code Reference(s): 9.8.8.1.(1), (6), (7); 9.8.8.2.; 9.8.8.3.(2); 9.8.8.3.(6), (7) Question: In a Part 9 building, are all glazing including those in exterior walls within a dwelling unit required to resist guard loads when the glazing is installed below 900 mm above finished floor where the difference in elevation is more than 600 mm between the finished floor and the adjacent surface below? Interpretation: Yes. Sentence 9.8.8.1.(1) requires that a guard be provided wherever the difference in floor elevation exceeds 600 mm. Note A-9.8.8.1. states that “a wall along the edge of the higher surface will obviously prevent such a fall, provided the wall is sufficiently strong that a person cannot fall through it. Where there is no wall, a guard must be installed.” If glazing or window is located within a wall that is acting as a guard, they are considered part of the wall and shall be able to resist the guard loads specified in Article 9.8.8.2. Sentence 9.8.8.3.(6) and (7) provide additional requirements for glazing installed over stairs, ramps and landings. Sentence 9.8.8.3.(1) requires all guards shall be not less than 1070 mm high. Sentence (2) relaxes the height to 900 mm within dwelling units. Sentence (3) also relaxes the height of exterior guards serving not more than one dwelling unit to 900 mm provided the walking surface served by the guard is not more than 1800 mm above the finished ground level. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0010 | Climbable Objects and Steps Near Guards | 16/07/2024 | File No: 24-0010 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-08-30 Interpretation Date: July 16, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Climbable Objects and Steps near Guards Keywords: climbable, objects, steps, guards Building Code Reference(s): 3.3.1.18.(4), 9.8.8.6.(1) Question: Are permanently fixed objects permitted near guards if they form a climbable element that is between 140 mm to 900 mm above the level protected by the guard? Interpretation: No (unless the fall is less than 4.2m). For Part 3 buildings, Sentence 3.3.1.18.(4) prohibits climbable elements on guards between 140 mm and 900 mm above the level protected by the guard when the fall is greater than 4.2m. For Part 9 buildings, Sentence 9.8.8.6.(1) has a similar requirement. The intent of 3.1.18.(4) is: “To limit the probability that preschool aged children will climb a guard and fall, which could lead to harm to persons” Although these two Sentences only address climbable elements which form part of the guard itself and do not regulate other permanent fixtures that are near the guard, to meet the intent of the code and for safety reason it is recommended to apply this requirement to permanently fixed objects that are near a guard (such as planters, shelving, windowsills, door thresholds). This recommendation is supported by EGBC’s professional practice guidelines “Designing Guards For Building Projects” PP Guidelines - Designing Guards for Building Projects V.2.0 (egbc.ca) The Guide stated that : “Guards should be designed to meet the requirements for non-climbable guards, as defined in the governing building code and this standard. Additionally, steps and curbs must be considered, and must not reduce the required height of the Guard. In general, the height of the Guard must not be less than the radial distance from the highest and nearest point on the step.” It is recommended that the climbable objects should be setback from the guard, or the guard height be increased so that the diagonal dimension from the top of the object to the top of the guard is a minimum 1070 mm as illustrated below. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0009 | Landing at Top of Mezzanine Stair | 18/06/2024 | File No: 24-0009 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-07-14 Interpretation Date: June 18, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Landing at Top of Mezzanine Stair Keywords: Mezzanine, Stair Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.1.1, 3.4.2.2 Question: Where a mezzanine is served by a stair that is not enclosed at the mezzanine level, is the landing at the top of the stair included in the mezzanine area? Interpretation: Yes. Article 3.2.1.1 limits the area of a mezzanine in relation to the open area of the plane it which it is located, or the area of the suite in which it is located, depending the degree of openness of the mezzanine. The mezzanine area and the travel distance to the mezzanine stair also determine the type of egress required for the mezzanine as stated in Article 3.4.2.2. Where there is no enclosure around a mezzanine stair, the landing at the top of the stair will be at the same level as the mezzanine floor. There is an opening in the mezzanine floor where the stair flight is located so that the stair is not part of the mezzanine area, but the top landing of the stair is part of the mezzanine floor. As such, it is considered to be part of the mezzanine area. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0008 | Unsupported Height of Foundation Wall | 16/07/2024 | File No: 24-0008 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-08-05 Interpretation Date: July 16, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Unsupported height of foundation wall Keywords: Unsupported, height, foundation wall Building Code Reference(s): 9.15.4.2.(1), Table 9.15.4.2.-A, 9.15.4.3. Question: Does Table 9.15.4.2.-A limit the height of foundation walls to 3m for Part 9 buildings when the foundation walls are constructed of solid concrete, concrete core in flat insulating concrete form, or unreinforced concrete block walls? Interpretation: Yes. The columns entitled “Height of Foundation Wall Laterally Supported 4 to 6 of Table 9.15.4.2.-A indicates the maximum height of a foundation wall when it is laterally supported at the top in accordance with Article 9.15.4.3. Rows 4 to 15 of columns 4 to 6 of Table 9.15.4.2.-A indicate the maximum height of finished ground level above the basement floor or crawl space ground cover (i.e. the maximum allowable height of soil which is retained by the foundation wall). The scope of Part 9 limits the height of a foundation wall to 3m when it is supported at the top in accordance with Article 9.15.4.3. For example, a 300 mm thick solid concrete wall with a maximum height of 3m can retain up to 2.85 m of soil. Refer to Table 9.15.4.2.-A on the following page. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0007 | Cooling System in a Dwelling Unit | 19/03/2024 | File No: 24-0007 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-04-03 Interpretation Date: March 19, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Cooling System in a Dwelling Unit Keywords: Dwelling Unit, Cooling Building Code Reference(s): 9.33.2.1.(2), 9.33.3.1.(2) Question: Can required cooling facilities for a dwelling unit be roughed-in for future installation, instead of being installed as a completed system when the unit is constructed? Interpretation: No. The BCBC 2024 contains new requirements for cooling of dwelling units. Sentence 9.33.2.1.(2) states: Article 9.33.5.1, referenced above, states the method of determining the design capacity of heating and cooling appliances, except that the design temperatures shall conform to Subsection 9.33.3. In that Subsection, Sentence 9.33.3.1.(2) states: The term “shall be capable” is not intended to mean that cooling equipment can be roughed-in for future installation. Before the dwelling unit is completed and occupied, the required cooling facilities must be installed and functional. Note that in some circumstances it may be possible to use solutions in addition to air conditioning as part of a system to achieve the required indoor air temperature. The BCBC Notes include the following: In areas of B.C. where the outdoor summer design temperature is sufficiently below 26°C, it may be possible to use outdoor air as part of the required cooling. Appendix C of Division B provides climatic data for numerous locations in B.C. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0006 | Application of Tables in 9.36.2.6, 9.36.2.7 and 9.36.2.8. | 16/07/2024 | File No: 24-0006 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-08-29 Interpretation Date: July 16, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Application of Tables in 9.36.2.6, 9.36.2.7 and 9.36.2.8. Keywords: Energy Efficiency, Prescriptive Approach, Step Code Building Code Reference(s): 9.36.1.3.(1), 9.36.1.3.(3), Notes A-9.26.1.3.(3), 9.36.1.3.(6), Tables 9.36.2.6.-C, 9.36.2.7.-D, 9.36.2.8.-C. Question: Are the Tables 9.36.2.6.-C, 9.36.2.7.-D, and 9.36.2.8.-C intended to be applied to additions and renovations to existing houses while the step code applies to new houses? Interpretation: No. In general, Sentence 9.36.1.3.(3) requires that all houses except log homes, have to comply with Section 9.36.6., Energy Step Code. Energy Step Code applies to all new houses; and addition and renovation to existing houses. Similar to applying other parts of the code to existing buildings, discretion and judgement must be exercised when applying the Energy Step Code to addition and alteration to an existing building as described in Division A. It is up to the AHJ to determine what is appropriate and practical on a case-by-case basis. In order to use the prescriptive approach in Section 9.36. with specific requirements for insulation, windows and other equipment, the Building Act General Regulation would allow local authorities with a bylaw to permit the use of the prescriptive approach. If that is the case, Tables 9.36.2.6.-C, 9.36.2.7.-D and 9.36.2.8.-C can be applied to new construction including additions and renovations for houses as per Sentence 9.36.1.3.(6). More explanation can be found in Information Bulletins B23-01 and B23-02 published by the Building and Safety Standards Branch and Note A-9.36.1.3.(3) of the Code. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0005 | Encroachment of Clear Transfer Space for the Change Room Accessible Bench | 18/06/2024 | File No: 24-0005 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-07-14 Interpretation Date: June 18, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Encroachment of clear transfer space for the change room accessible bench Keywords: Accessible Shower, Accessible Washroom, Clear Transfer Space Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.3.6.(11), Figure A-3.8.3.6.(11), 3.8.3.6.(14), 3.8.3.6.(15), 3.8.3.6.(16), Figure A-3.8.3.6.(14) to (16), 3.8.3.17.(2) Question: 1. In universal dressing and shower room is it acceptable for the lavatory to impinge on the clear transfer space at one end of the required long bench? 2. In universal dressing and shower room or washroom is it acceptable to impinge the clear space required for the door opening on the clear transfer spaces required for other uses? Interpretation: 1. No. Clause 3.8.3.17.(2)(e) requires a bench to be 1 830mm long and 760mm wide and 480 – 520mm high in a universal dressing and shower room. This bench must have a clear 900mm wide transfer space adjacent to the long side of the bench as required by Clause 3.8.3.17.(2)(f). This clear space must not be impeded by the lavatory as it is allowed at the entrance of the shower in Clause 3.8.3.17.(1)(b) because the lavatory may restrict the persons who need to make a lateral transfer from the wheelchair onto the bench. 2. Yes, with limitations. The spaces required for the door operation are used by the wheelchair person to open or close the door, therefore as per Figure A-3.8.3.6.(11) the wheelchair must be positioned facing the door latch. The spaces required in Articles 3.8.3.6.(11), 3.8.3.6.(14), 3.8.3.6.(15) & 3.8.3.6.(16) may overlap the open transfer spaces required for the bench, shower or access to the bathtub, but in the space for lavatory use, only the portion of this space outside of the rim of the lavatory or counter may be considered acceptable for the overlapping with the door opening area. Figure A-3.8.3.6.(14) to (16) provides the graphic representation of the areas required for the door operation depending on the used type of door and its swing, and as noted in Article 3.8.3.6.(11) the space must be free of obstacles for the full door height. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0004 | Spatial Separation Between Dwelling Units with Storage Garage | 21/05/2024 | File No: 24-0004 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-07-15 Interpretation Date: May 21, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Spatial Separation between dwelling units with storage garage Keywords: Dwelling unit, occupancy, spatial separation Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.14, 9.10.15 Question: A property has two separate buildings. Both buildings fall within the scope of Part 9. The first building contains a dwelling unit on the second floor with a storage garage on the first floor, providing parking for both dwelling units. The second building is a dwelling unit but does not have an attached garage. 1. Do spatial separation requirements of Subsection 9.10.15. apply to the first building? 2. Do spatial separation requirements of Subsection 9.10.15. apply to the second building? Interpretation: 1. No. If the storage garage only serves the attached dwelling unit, it can be considered subsidiary to the residential use and can be considered as part of the dwelling. The parking located in the first building is intended to serve also the second building; therefore, the use is no longer subsidiary to the residential occupancy in the same building but rather an industrial occupancy. Since Subsection 9.10.15. cannot not apply to industrial occupancy, Subsection 9.10.14. would apply to the first building. 2. Yes. Since the second building only contains a dwelling unit; therefore, Subsection 9.10.15. would apply. | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0003 | Dead End Corridors | 16/04/2024 | File No: 24-0003 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-05-03 Interpretation Date: April 16, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Dead End Corridors Keywords: Dead end, corridor Building Code Reference(s): 3.3.1.3.(11) &(12), 3.3.1.9.(5) Question: Does Sentence 3.3.1.9.(5) supersede Sentence 3.3.1.3.(12) for dead end corridors that are less than 6 m in length? Interpretation: Yes. Sentence 3.3.1.3.(11) requires each suite in a floor area that contains more than 1 suite to have an exterior exit doorway, a doorway to a public corridor, or a doorway to an exterior passageway. Sentence 3.3.1.3.(12) requires the doorway described in Clause 3.3.1.3.(11)(b) to discharge to a public corridor or exterior passageway where it is possible to travel in opposite directions to reach 2 separate exits. Sentence 3.3.1.3.(12) states “Except as permitted by this Section”. Since Sentence 3.3.1.9.(5) is part of Section 3.3, dead end corridors that are less than 6 m in length need not comply with Sentence 3.3.1.3.(12). | Download |
| 2024 | 24-0001 | Power Door Operators for Entry Doors | 16/04/2024 | File No: 24-0001 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2024-07-14 Interpretation Date: April 16, 2024 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2024 Subject: Power door operators for entry doors Keywords: Accessibility, power door operators, entrance Building Code Reference(s): Div B: 3.8.2.2.(1); 3.8.2.2.(2); 3.8.2.7.(1)(a) Question: 1. Clause 3.8.2.7.(1)(a) requires an accessible entrance referred to in Article 3.8.2.2.(1) be equipped with power door operators. Do all required accessible entrances of a building require power door operators? 2. If the accessible entrance(s) in question 1 meets the accessible door clearances in Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11), is a power door operator still required? 3. Do exterior doors leading to/from an exterior space that is part of the building such as a restaurant patio or an outdoor play space for a daycare require a power door operator? Interpretation: 1. Yes (with exceptions). Sentence 3.8.2.2.(1) requires all pedestrian entrances to an accessible storey to be accessible except service entrances and entrances to residential suites described in Clause 3.8.2.3.(2)(l). If there are multiple entrances to an accessible storey of a building this requirement applies to all entrances. Sentence 3.8.2.2.(2) requires an accessible entrance required by Sentence (1) shall be designed in accordance with Subsection 3.8.3. Even though Sentence (2) indicates a singular entrance by using the word “an” but it means to cover each of those accessible entrances required by Sentence (1). Clause 3.8.2.7.(1)(a) requires doors located in an entrance referred to in Article 3.8.2.2. be equipped with power door operators. Such requirement shall apply to every accessible entrance even though “an entrance” is being referred to. Similarly, Clause 3.8.2.7.(1)(b) refers to an accessible path of travel. That applies to every accessible path of travel. Sentence 3.8.2.2.(3) only requires one of the doorways at an accessible entrance that includes more than one doorway, to be designed in accordance with Subsection 3.8.3. Sentence 3.8.2.7.(3) only requires one doorway to be equipped with a power door operator where more than one doorway is provided at an accessible entrance. Notes to Sentence 3.8.2.7.(3) provides clarification: “In selecting which doorway to equip with a power door operator as required by Sentence 3.8.2.7.(3), consideration should be given to the location of accessible paths of travel, to ease of access, and to minimizing congestion.” 2. Yes. Clause 3.8.2.7.(1)(a) requires entrance doors to be equipped with a power door operator regardless if they meet the door clearances in Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11). Sentence 3.8.3.6.(6) provides specific clearances for doors equipped with a power door operator and references Sentence 3.8.2.7.(1) for entrances. 3. No (with conditions). Doors to exterior areas of a facility such as a restaurant patio and outdoor play spaces are likely within an accessible path of travel and therefore are required to have door clearances specified in Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11). If the doors are equipped with a power door operator, then the door clearance may conform to Sentence 3.8.3.6.(6). Note A-3.8.2.2. clarifies that “doors that open onto exterior facilities that are only accessible from inside the building (e.g., hotel pools) are not considered entrances in the context of Article 3.8.2.2.” Power door operators are not required for self-contained exterior areas where the required door clearances are provided. However, if such door is also served as a normal entrance to the suite, such as a restaurant in a shopping mall, even though there may be another entrance to the suite from inside the mall, such entrance would be considered as a pedestrian entrance to the suite and a power door operator is required. It is also because the restaurant may still be open while the mall entrance is closed. | Download |
