Latest news with #OntarioBuildingCode
Hamilton Spectator
31-05-2025
- Hamilton Spectator
Man who built towering west Mountain home without permit convicted in court, fined $174,000
The builder behind a towering and controversial three-storey home on Hamilton's west Mountain has been fined $174,000 after being found guilty of multiple provincial building code violations. This included construction without a permit and repeatedly flouting stop-work orders. Omre Taha was convicted in provincial offences court on May 26 of six charges stemming from the unsanctioned build at 279 Bonaventure Dr., between December 2023 and February 2024. Besides a hefty fine, the builder was also handed a 12-month probation order. Taha was convicted in absentia. He couldn't be reached for comment. The home at 279 Bonaventure Dr., on April 25. 'The city is pleased with this outcome and will continue to ensure the safety and well-being of the community,' the city said in a statement. The still-unfinished property — once a modest bungalow destroyed in a ghastly late-night explosion — has drawn the ire of neighbours who have said its scale and design are out of place on a street dominated by single-storey homes. Taha began construction in late December 2023 while his application for a building permit was still under review. During the next two months, the city fined him 15 times. One longtime building official called his repeated flouting of work orders ' one of the most egregious acts of noncompliance that I've come across in my 20-year (career).' City granted building permit for homeowner while provincial offences charges against him remain The city took Taha to provincial court after exhausting traditional enforcement measures. As that legal challenge waited to be heard, Taha was granted a building permit for a three-storey single-family dwelling with a secondary unit on the main floor and basement. The city said the Ontario Building Code doesn't allow them to withhold permits amid pending enforcement. In the span of less than a year, the property went from an unfinished wooden shell with no visible siding or windows to an imposing structure with dark-black siding, detailed stonework near the entrance and balcony and trim around about a dozen windows. Then came another fine. A half-finished home at 279 Bonaventure Dr. This photo was taken in June 2024, when the home was listed for sale. Taha was issued an order to comply April 17 after city inspectors found construction occurred inside that didn't match approved building plans. Despite the order — and his conviction earlier this week for multiple building code violations — work at the property appears to be ongoing. On Friday afternoon, the home showed clear progress: a freshly poured concrete driveway, a more finished exterior and a new address sign in cursive lettering. Behind its open fence, a buzzing sound of power tools could be heard coming from the rear. Meanwhile, a City of Hamilton SUV was parked on the curb. 'The owner is permitted to continue only with work that is under the auspice of the original building permit,' said city building director Rob Lalli. Lalli said the homeowner has heeded part of the city's recent order — namely, he's applied for a revised building permit. The application is still under review. 'Any additional construction requirements will need to be adhered to prior to occupancy of the two-family dwelling,' Lalli said in a statement. Residents have long harboured concerns about the development. Although the property was initially zoned for a single-family dwelling with a secondary unit in the basement, one neighbour said the structure suggests otherwise. 'This has been, apparently only to the citizens in this neighbourhood, obvious as the building is nothing more than four apartments stacked on top of each other,' Eric Brink told The Spectator last month. He fears 'living in the shadow of this monolith' will create parking issues and decrease property values. Homeowner still facing court challenge from city over noncompliance. 'It just looks out of place, like it's going to fall over,' decades-long resident Mary Alessi said in February 2024, following a committee of adjustment hearing that reviewed Taha's application for a minor zoning variance at his then half-built property. At the hearing — where Taha's zoning request was ultimately pushed to another day — committee member Robyn Reid questioned how the three-storey property got approved for that neighbourhood in the first place. 'After a tour on Sunday, everything one-and-a-half or two storeys … and then in the middle of the properties, you have this long tower,' he said. 'I just don't know this got through to this point.' Taha's links to 279 Bonaventure date back to October 2016, when he bought the former bungalow for $355,800, according to property records. A year later, in August 2017, he sold it for $549,000. By March 2021, he was again the listed owner after purchasing it for $655,000. The building site at 279 Bonaventure Dr. The original house on the site exploded. The latter transaction came about a month before the home was reduced to rubble in a massive explosion. The Ontario office of the fire marshal attributed the incident to a building of natural gas and said it was not considered suspicious. Taha put the property up for sale as a pit of dirt in early 2023. Then he was hit with three civil suits from affected neighbours who alleged the explosion could've been avoided if not for his negligence. These claims remain active and have yet to be tested in court. A few months later, he took the razed site off the market and started building. In June 2024, the home, half-finished and built without a permit, was billed in realtor ads as a promising investment duplex available for just under $850,000. Records show the property hasn't changed hands since then. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Canada Standard
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Canada Standard
Ontario Legislation Could Override Local Green Standards, Stall Climate Progress
A new Ontario bill could set back green building efforts and mark "the beginning of the end of urban planning" in the province, gutting city-led climate policies as extreme weather risks are rising, warn critics. Bill 17, the proposed Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, would override bylaws like Toronto's Green Standard by "clarifying" that municipalities do not have jurisdiction to set green construction standards. Climate advocates say the measure would stall progress on municipal climate goals while burdening homeowners with higher energy and retrofit costs down the line. The Doug Ford government says the bill will bring regulatory consistency across Ontario, speed up construction, and reduce housing costs. But the provincial building code lacks many of the green features cities like Toronto require, writes The Canadian Press. The Toronto Green Standard, for example, mandates stormwater retention features to reduce flood risk during heavy rainfall, minimum tree canopy coverage to combat extreme heat, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new residential parking spaces. The Ford government eliminated that last requirement from its own code shortly after coming to power. The bill follows a legal challenge filed last year by the Residential Construction Council of Ontario-an association of builders-to block Toronto from enforcing standards beyond those set out in the Ontario Building Code. The council was incensed by Toronto's green standards, which aim to improve air quality, transportation, energy usage, water efficiency, and waste diversion with a checklist of requirements for developers of new buildings, reports The Trillium. "These include everything from bicycle parking and pedestrian walkways to energy efficiency targets, trash compaction guidelines, and tree-planting quotas." View our latest digests Bill 17 will gut green building standards implemented in several other cities across Ontario, warn environmental advocates. The bill as it is now written will "set back green building efforts by 15 years," said Bryan Purcell, vice-president of policy and programs at The Atmospheric Fund (TAF), citing the period of time the Toronto Green Standard has been in place. "As buildings are the largest source of carbon emissions in most cities, it would make it impossible for cities to reach their climate targets," Purcell told The Energy Mix . The bill could lock nearly all new buildings into using gas as a primary fuel source, which would saddle home and building owners with higher energy costs while undercutting the economics of green building technology and services. "And it would create huge costs down the road, as retrofitting buildings to get off gas or enable electric vehicle charging is five to 10 times more expensive than building it right to begin with," he added. Other environmental organizations have also warned against the bill. In one recent post, the Toronto Environmental Alliance said the legislation would completely undermine municipal planning authority, leaving cities with few tools to adapt regulations to local conditions. Environmental Defence says the bill claims to address construction challenges, but focuses on "scapegoating municipal policies" instead of fixing the root issues-namely, provincial restrictions against mid-rise developments, which have caused a shortage of family-sized homes. "McMansion" rebuilds and sprawl are further problems, it adds. The Ontario government says its action to block municipal building bylaws is only a "clarification" to existing legislation-in particular, Section 8 of the Building Code Act , the legal foundation of the province's building code-which regulates how building permits are issued. But TAF argues that a city has the right to set green building standards unless they conflict with provincial rules. Purcell points to section 35(1), which he says "is generally interpreted to mean that if a building code requirement actively conflicts with a municipal bylaw, then the building code requirement takes precedence." That section authorizes local municipalities to pass bylaws "respecting the protection or conservation of the environment" in accordance with the provincial codes. A later subsection even specifies that 35(1) gives municipalities power to require green roofs on buildings, but does not address other green standards. By not stating the specific role of municipalities in setting building codes, the Building Code Act creates a grey area that could be interpreted to align with Purcell's reading. But it could also support the government's interpretation. Section 8 states that a building official must issue a permit for a building that meets the requirements of the Building Code Act except in a few prescribed circumstances. The list of exceptions does not include a carve-out for buildings that fail to meet municipal requirements. Municipalities are also considered "creatures of the provinces," and have "no constitutional protection whatsoever against provincial laws that change their structures, functions, and financial resources without their consent," writes the Centre for Excellence on the Canadian Federation. The wider concern is that Bill 17 will amount to a dramatic shift in authority for cities, and not just to manage their building regulations and address climate change. Purcell warns that Bill 17 would "be the beginning of the end of urban planning in Ontario" by instigating legal challenges to existing bylaws across the province, beyond the green building standards. "It could create a wild west type of development environment, where anything can be built anywhere and consultants working for developers approve their own submissions." Source: The Energy Mix
Hamilton Spectator
20-05-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Will Hamilton's green building standards die on the vine with new Ontario legislation?
Hamilton is examining how newly introduced provincial legislation meant to expedite residential construction in Ontario will affect the city's ability to move ahead with green building standards. This past fall, council adopted a series of carbon-cutting guidelines — some mandatory and others optional — covering a range of considerations, from building-energy efficiency to water conservation and bird-friendly windows. But city politicians recently delayed implementation of the standards in response to development industry concerns they could add to construction costs during a severe market downturn. City staff, tasked to report back with a cost analysis, must now also weigh the potential impact of Bill 17, the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act . 'The devil's in the details,' Steve Robichaud, acting general manager of planning and economic development, told The Spectator, noting regulations flowing from the proposed legislation must be examined. But the legislation appears to take aim at mandatory guidelines that deal with building construction while steering clear of other elements, including voluntary measures. Overall, Bill 17 aims to limit studies municipalities require for projects, expedite some minor variances and standardize fees that cities charge to pay for infrastructure like water lines, pumping stations, roads and recreation centres. Overall, Bill 17 aims to limit studies municipalities require for projects, expedite some minor variances and standardize fees that cities charge to pay for infrastructure like water lines, pumping stations, roads and recreation centres. It would also allow municipalities to more nimbly offer breaks on development charges and enable builders to hold off on paying them until projects are occupied, rather than when permits are issued. The Progressive Conservatives introduced the suite of proposed measures this week after falling behind annual targets to have 1.5 million homes built in Ontario by 2031. 'To be frank, it takes too long and it costs too much to build houses in Ontario,' Rob Flack, municipal affairs and housing minister, said during a recent news conference about Bill 17. Particular to green building standards, the legislation would 'clarify' that municipalities 'do not have the authority to require their own unique standards beyond' the Ontario Building Code, a technical briefing notes. That provision is to help 'provide consistency, reduce costs and increase uniformity of technical standards for builders.' While mandatory green building standards that relate to construction appear off the table under Bill 17, Robichaud suggested other elements such as stormwater management, landscaping and whether projects are in walkable locations, wouldn't be affected. What's not clear is whether the city could require certain standards as conditions for site-plan or subdivision approvals, if the legislation bars bylaws imposing such requirements, he noted. And if some standards can no longer be mandatory, they could become 'voluntary through an incentive program' that encourages builders to meet them. Meanwhile, Bill 17 has won praise from some municipal leaders alongside the development industry amid a significant market slowdown aggravated by U.S. tariffs. 'Across Canada, our provincial and national governments are focused on harmonization to break down trade and supply chain barriers,' Mike Collins-Williams , CEO of the local West End Home Builders' Association, said via email. Bill 17 'shows strong provincial leadership to reduce the number of municipal planning studies and to standardize building and planning regulations for one Ontario Building Code,' he wrote. 'Standardized approaches across all municipalities will help us get shovels in the ground to protect jobs and build desperately needed housing.' But environmental groups warm the proposed legislation could in fact lead to higher energy costs for Ontario residents down the road. 'Municipal 'green' standards do not duplicate or conflict with the Ontario Building Code; they complement it and consolidate municipal design priorities into a single streamlined document,' Bryan Purcell, vice-president of policy and programs with the Atmospheric Fund, wrote in a statement. 'Municipalities have a legislated responsibility to protect public health and environmental well-being. Restricting their ability to exercise those duties will not protect Ontario or build housing faster. It will only reduce the quality of new housing and communities and expose Ontarian residents to greater environmental risks.' The proposed Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act is subject to public feedback through the Environmental Registry of Ontario until June 11.
