Building Code Commission business plan 2019–2022
Learn about our activities and plans for delivering quality dispute resolution to Ontario’s building sector.
Mandate
The Building Code Commission (the “Commission”) is an adjudicative agency whose legislative authority is set out in sections 23 and 24 of the Building Code Act, 1992.
The Commission has a mandate to resolve disputes between proponents of construction projects and enforcement officials. The Building Code Act, 1992 sets out three types of disputes that can be heard by the Building Code Commission: those relating to the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code; those related to compliance with the prescribed time frames for permit processing; and those related to compliance with the prescribed time frames for site inspections. The Commission’s adjudicative decisions are made independently from the Ministry and the Government of Ontario.
In exercising its mandate, the Commission receives all of its staffing and financial resources from the Building Services Transformation Branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Guiding principles
As an agency of the Government, the Commission conducts itself according to the management principles of the Government of Ontario. The Commission’s proceedings are governed by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, 1992, the Building Code Act, 1992, the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, Treasury Board/Management Board of Cabinet Directives and the Building Code Commission’s Guidelines, Policies and Procedures Handbook. These principles and governance elements include ethical behaviour, accountability, excellence in management, wise use of public funds, and high quality service to the public by contributing to the health, safety, accessibility and energy efficiency of buildings in Ontario and by playing a positive role within Ontario’s design and construction sector.
The Commission has a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Minister relating to the exercising of its mandate. The MOU sets out the relationship between the Commission, the Minister and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing with respect to the Commission and the service it provides. The purpose of the MOU is to establish the responsibilities of these parties and to ensure that accountability is a fundamental principle that is observed in the management, administration and operations of the Commission.
Strategic direction
The Commission endeavours to provide a timely, cost effective and non-adversarial process for resolving Building Code disputes through a streamlined and accessible appeals system. In doing so, the Commission has earned a reputation of being an effective, useful and quality service provider within the construction industry. There are, however, certain challenges that face the Commission. In order to address these challenges and to improve its ongoing operations and client service delivery, the Commission plans to undertake the following initiatives.
Time to hearings
The Commission’s process requires input from the parties; therefore, the Commission’s ability to hold a hearing within a certain number of working days is based on the responses from the parties being received by the Commission within a specific time frame. Accordingly, the Commission decided that the performance measure should track what the Commission is responsible for, which is providing hearing dates, and filter out matters beyond the control of the Commission, such as delayed return of documents or parties being unavailable for hearing dates. The Commission’s performance measure reads “Offer a date for a hearing to be held within 40 working days from receipt of a complete application for 85% of all hearings” and “Offer a date for a hearing to be held within 20 working days from receipt of the Respondent’s confirmation of dispute for 85% of all hearings.”
As reported in the Commission’s 2017–2018 Annual Report, the Commission met its target in only one of these performance measures. The Commission offered a hearing date within 40 working days from receipt of a complete application in 88% of its cases. However, the Commission did not meet its stated target of offering a hearing date within 20 working days from receipt of the Respondent’s confirmation of dispute. The Commission was able to offer a hearing date within 20 working days from receipt of the Respondent’s confirmation of dispute in 82% of its cases. Part of this delay was caused by the Commission being unable to offer hearing dates for on-site sewage system files until such time as members having the appropriate expertise were appointed.
Time to written decisions
The Commission’s performance measure target for timely communication of decisions reads, “Communicate decisions to parties within 20 working days of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings.” The Commission notes that the target for this performance measure was met in the 2017–2018 fiscal year for 77% of all hearings.
The Commission also has a performance measure target for the timely preparation and finalization of full written decisions, which reads, “Full written decision to be prepared and finalized within six months of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings.” The Commission notes that this performance measure was met in the 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 fiscal years. However, the target was not met for the 2017–2018 fiscal year. Written decisions for 45% of the technical disputes and for 100% of the time frame disputes have been completed within six months of completion of the hearing.
In its previous Business Plan, the Commission noted that the performance targets for preparation and finalization of full written decisions can be highly affected by changes in staff resources, number of applications and hearings held within a fiscal year. The Commission attributes this reduction in performance to the fact that the Coordinator position was vacant for the majority of the 2017–2018 fiscal year. In addition, the Commission finalized its Report for the Court Referral hearing during this fiscal year which took up a significant amount of effort and time.
The Commission and staff will continue to analyze these performance measures annually, along with any factors that may impact results.
Transparency and accountability
The Commission continues to comply with the accountability requirements set out in the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009. The legislation requires the Commission to review its accountability documents on a regular basis and places some additional requirements on the process for recruitment of new members. As a result of the rules contained within the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, the Commission was required to develop a recruitment statement which details the process to be undertaken when seeking recruitment of new members. In accordance with its recruitment statement, the Commission developed job advertisements seeking candidates for the Chair position, Vice Chair positions and new members. These advertisements were posted on the Public Appointments Secretariat website. The competition and appointment to the position of Chair was completed as of December 31, 2018. The competition and appointment of a Vice Chair was completed in October 2018. The competition for new members is on-going but is anticipated to be complete early in 2019.
Succession planning
The Commission has a total of 12 part-time members, including the Chair and one Vice-Chair. All Commission members are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council through an Order in Council. Management Board of Cabinet’s Agencies and Appointments Directive permits individuals appointed to the Commission to serve a combined term of appointment of up to 10 years. The current directive specifies that the appointment terms will be an initial appointment for a period of two years. On the recommendation of the Chair, the appointee is eligible for a reappointment term of three years and final appointment term of five years.
Succession planning continues to be an appointments-related issue. In keeping with the specified appointment terms, the Commission believes it would be ideal to have one-third of its membership in its initial appointment term, one-third of its membership in its second appointment term and one third of its membership in its final appointment term. This would enable the Commission to maintain a balance of new and veteran appointees. Further it would be appropriate to stagger the appointment terms throughout the year so that not all of the terms expire in November as they do currently.
The Commission Chair and staff had developed a plan to address this issue. In summary, the plan is to work with the Minister’s Office and the Public Appointments Secretariat to seek appointments of new members more often and in smaller groups, so that their terms of appointment do not all expire at once.
This strategy would allow the Commission to improve succession planning; achieve appointment overlaps, allowing for knowledge transfer from existing members to newly appointed members; achieve an appropriate balance of geographical representation; promote mentoring of new members; and achieve and maintain membership having expertise in all technical disciplines (structural, fire safety, plumbing, mechanical systems, on-site sewage systems, etc.).
The Commission notes that the opportunity for existing members to mentor the new members was lost with the recent round of appointments.
With 13 members having been appointed in November 2016, the Commission is once again in a situation where the 10 year maximum tenure of the majority of its membership occurs at the same time. This trend, in which large groups of terms of appointment expire at the same time, will continue to be an issue. This puts the Commission at risk of not being able to fulfil its mandate if there is any lapse in appointment/reappointments.
In order to mitigate this issue from continuing to occur, the Commission strongly urges that this be taken into account for any future appointments and that the Commission Chair considers this issue when making recommendations on reappointment of existing members. It would be ideal to stagger appointment terms throughout the calendar year so that the Commission would not be in the position of losing nearly all of its membership in one month.
The Commission Chair and staff continue to work with the Public Appointments Secretariat and the Minister’s Office to improve the existing complement of regional representation.
Annual survey of parties
The Commission intends to continue its independent survey which assists the Commission in determining satisfaction with levels of service delivery.
Overview of key activities
Staff supporting the Commission are responsible for case management and customer service to persons wishing to apply to the Commission for a hearing. The Commission Secretary liaises with the applicants and respondents throughout the appeal process. The Commission Secretary also works with Building and Development Branch staff in order to obtain information from the Branch on the technical issues involved in applications. Hearings are scheduled for the earliest possible hearing date, based on the volume of applications received.
The Ministry’s Coordinator of Building Innovation is the senior Commission staff person and is responsible for the overall administration of and policy development for the Commission. This involves liaising with the Minister’s Office regarding the appointments process, issues management, business planning, performance measurement, monitoring of expenditures and ensuring compliance with agency sector requirements and Treasury Board/Management Board of Cabinet directives.
The Commission received 33 new applications and held 31 hearings between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018. Once a hearing has concluded, the members of the panel deliberate on the evidence and render their ruling. This decision is then communicated to the parties to the hearing and is eventually posted on the Commission’s website. The Commission received the following numbers of applications over the previous five years:
| Fiscal year** | Building | On-site sewage system | Permit processing prescribed time frame | Site inspection prescribed time frame | Total applications | Total hearings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014–2015 | 30 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 35 | 26 |
| 2015–2016 | 42**** | 3 | 2 | 0 | 47 | 47* |
| 2016–2017 | 30 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 35 | 33* |
| 2017–2018 | 26 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 33 | 31* |
| 2018–2019*** | 15 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 21 | 22 |
* Differences in application vs. hearing totals may be attributed in part to matters being resolved between the parties before a hearing is held as well as having some hearings involving files from previous fiscal years.
** The Commission’s fiscal year runs from April 1 to March 31.
*** The actuals for 2018–2019 do not reflect the entire fiscal period. The numbers are interim actuals that cover the period from April 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018. Results for the 2018–2019 fiscal year will be reported in next year’s business plan report and the Commission’s 2018–2019 Annual Report.
**** In addition to the 42 building applications in 2015–2016, two more applications were referred to the Commission by the Superior Court of Justice, which resulted in 10 additional hearing days. In 2016–2017 the same two applications resulted in seven additional hearing days. In 2017–2018, one court referral resulted in 4 additional hearing days.
Achievements
Based on the annual client survey, the Commission identified the following achievements for 2017–2018:
- Heard 100% of service level disputes within five days from the date of application.
- Continued to provide a fair and expeditious appeal mechanism regarding technical disputes and, as a result, again faced no judicial review challenges during the 2017–2018 fiscal year.
- Continued its practice of surveying clients after the close of the fiscal year (after March 31, 2018 for this business plan).
- Survey results of parties that used Commission services in the 2017–2018 fiscal year indicated that:
- 92% felt that the processes and procedures were clear and understandable.
- 92% felt that members demonstrated an appropriate level of expertise regarding the matter under consideration.
- 92% felt that they were treated with courtesy throughout the application process.
- 92% felt they were treated with courtesy at the hearing.
- 92% were satisfied with the overall level of service provided by the Commission.
Other achievements in 2017–2018 fiscal year included:
- The Commission Chair and staff worked with the Public Appointments Secretariat and the Minister’s Office to appoint three new members having on-site sewage system expertise.
- The Commission continued to maintain its compliance with the Management Board of Cabinet’s Agencies and Appointments Directive:
- It prepared, finalized and submitted its three year Business Plan for 2018–2021;
- Its Annual Report for 2017–2018 fiscal year was completed and approved by the Commission within the specified time frame.
- The Commission continues to maintain compliance with the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009.
- The Commission held two meetings of the full Commission and will continue this practice as it accommodates the review and approval of accountability requirements such as the Annual Report and the Business Plan.
The Commission has also identified the following achievements in 2018–2019 from April 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018:
- The Commission Chair and staff worked with the Public Appointments Secretariat and the Minister’s Office to have two Vice Chairs appointed.
- The Commission Chair and staff worked with the Public Appointments Secretariat and the Minister’s Office to advertise for a new Chair and a new Chair was successfully appointed on December 31, 2018.
- As the new Chair had been appointed to the position of Vice Chair in October 2018, there is now a need to fill one of the Vice Chair positions again.
- The Commission Chair and staff worked with the Public Appointments Secretariat and the Minister’s Office to advertise for new members.
- Seeking new members is the beginning of the implementation of the succession plan that has been developed in order to address the issue of having the terms of the majority of its members expire at the same time.
Resources
Human resources
The Commission currently has a total of 12 part-time members, including the Chair and one Vice Chair. All members are appointed by an Order-in-Council for terms totalling up to 10 years, in accordance with Management Board of Cabinet’s Agencies and Appointments Directive. The Chair and Vice-Chairs are responsible for agency governance and relations with the Ministry.
The following divisions of the Ministry support the Commission in fulfilling the Agencies and Appointments Directive:
- Building Services Transformation Branch
- Building and Development Branch
- Corporate Services Branch
- Controllership and Financial Planning Branch
- Legal Services Branch
- I&IT Community Services Cluster
The Commission’s direct support staff (who are Ministry employees) consists of a 1.0 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Commission Secretary, a 0.4 FTE Coordinator, Building Innovation, and a 0.4 FTE administrative assistant.
Financial resources
The Commission has no financial budget of its own. The Commission is supported by Ministry staff. The operating expenses for this Commission are funded through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s budget.
The table below provides details on the costs associated with supporting the Commission:
| Expense type | 2017–2018 actuals1 | 2018–2019 year-to-date actuals2 | 2019–2020 estimates | 2020–2021 estimates | 2021–2022 estimates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Members' per diems | $74,086 | $39,842 | $52,000 | $54,000 | $56,000 |
| Members’ travel/hearing expenses | $15,598 | $4,629 | $12,360 | $12,720 | $13,100 |
| Other administration | $9,197 | $5,137 | $8,240 | $8,500 | $8,755 |
| Subtotal3 | $98,880 | $49,608 | $72,600 | $75,220 | $77,855 |
| Full Time Equivalents | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| Full Time Equivalents (salary + benefits) | $137,716 | $126,585 | $156,560 | $160,000 | $164,800 |
| Total | $236,597 | $176,193 | $229,160 | $235,220 | $242,655 |
1The Commission’s fiscal year runs from April 1 to March 31. The actuals for 2017–2018 cover the period from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018.
2The actuals for 2018–2019 do not reflect the entire fiscal period. The numbers are actuals that cover the period from April 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018.
3The operating expenses cover costs associated with hearings, per diems for Commission members and reimbursement for out-of-pocket travel expenses related to hearings, including hotel accommodations, meal allowances (to the maximum allowed through the Travel, Meals and Hospitality Expenses Directive), parking and public transit.
The Commission notes that the 2017–2018 actuals are substantially higher than the estimates projected for 2019 to 2022 fiscal years. This is due to the cost of Member per diems for the multiple days of hearing and deliberations required for the court referral matter to the Commission. The court referral concluded in early 2018.
Revenue
A fee for filing an application to the Building Code Commission was implemented starting January 1, 2014 ($170 per application) and is set to increase annually up to the rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Accordingly, the application fee increased to $184.00 on January 1, 2018 and increased to $189.00 effective January 1, 2019. For the purposes of determining the estimated revenues for 2019–2020, 2020–2021 and 2021–2022, a CPI increase of 2% was assumed which resulted in a fee of $188.00 for January 1, 2019, a fee of $192.00 effective January 1, 2020 and a fee of $196.00 effective January 1, 2021. It should be noted that the increase in actual fee for January 1, 2019 was slightly more than the fee used in the assumptions for estimates.
Revenues received from the application fee are recorded as part of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s non-tax revenues.
The table below provides details of the revenues associated with applications to the Commission:
| Revenues | 2017–2018 actuals | 2018–2019 year-to-date actuals1 | 2019–2020 estimates2 | 2020–2021 estimates2 | 2021–2022 estimates2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Application fees | $6,184 | $3,312 | $6,600 | $6,700 | $6,900 |
| Total revenues | $6,184 | $3,312 | $6,600 | $6,700 | $6,900 |
Notes:
1The actuals for 2018–2019 do not reflect the entire fiscal period. The numbers are actuals that cover the period from April 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018.
2Estimated revenues for 2019–2020 and ongoing are based on an average of 35 applications per year. Applications fees were established on January 1, 2014 and set to increase annually up to the rate of the Consumer Price Index.
Communications plan
The agency communicates with applicants and potential applicants through appropriate publications, forms and instructions, either posted on its public Internet page or distributed on request.
Telephone and email inquiries are responded to by the Secretary of the Commission or the Coordinator, Building Innovation.
Environmental scan
Conditions with impacts on the Business Plan
Changes in demand
The increased complexity of the applications as well as an increase in the number of applications that contain multiple disputes will influence the need for appropriately skilled Commission members and could potentially impact the administrative support system required by the Commission. It is essential that the Commission have a sufficient number of skilled members appointed to ensure that it can continue to provide Ontarians with a cost effective and efficient avenue for resolution of disputes.
The Commission has also seen an increase in the number of applications requiring the Commission to examine and determine its jurisdiction and mandate relative to disputes that may extend beyond the technical requirements of the Building Code.
With the increase in the complexity of the applications and the increase in the number of applications that contain multiple disputes, the Commission notes that the length of time it takes to fully hear the matter has also increased.
New commission members
During 2017, the Chair of the Commission made recommendations to the Minister on possible new appointees. Four new members were appointed to the Commission; three having expertise in on-site sewage systems. These member appointments were in addition to the 13 new members that were appointed in late 2016.
While the appointment of these new members allows the Commission to continue to fulfil its mandate, the Chair and Vice Chair positions needed to be filled.
The Chair of the Commission reviewed all of the applications received in response to the Vice Chair job advertisement and found two candidates to be qualified and experienced. The Chair made recommendations that the Minister consider the appointment of two Vice Chairs. In late 2018, two Vice Chairs were appointed to the Commission.
A job advertisement seeking candidates for the position of Chair of the Commission was posted. The former Chair reviewed the applications and, made recommendations to the Minister on candidates to interview. The former Chair was able to complete the interview process before his term of appointment expired. An Order-in-Council appointed a new Chair to the Commission effective December 31, 2018.
The new Chair had been appointed to the position of Vice Chair in November 2018 so his appointment as Chair results in a need to fill the vacancy in one of the Vice Chair positions. The Chair and Commission staff will work with the Public Appointments Secretariat and the Minister’s Office to fill the vacancy.
In addition, in trying to address the overall succession planning issue noted previously, the Commission Chair carefully considered what recommendations to make regarding reappointment of current members. Accordingly, not all members were recommended for reappointment.
Through the Public Appointments Secretariat website, the Commission advertised for candidates for the position of member. Prior to his appointment expiring, the former Chair reviewed the applications, interviewed candidates and made recommendations to the Minister on possible appointees. It is anticipated that new members will be appointed in early 2019.
Potential financial pressures
As part-time appointees, Commission members receive remuneration in the form of a per diem as established by Treasury Board/Management Board of Cabinet. This per diem ranges from $472 for members to $583 for the Vice-Chair and $744 for the Chair. Commission members are also reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses associated with attending Commission hearings in Toronto. Costs and expenses associated with Commission activities, including operating costs and member per diems, form part of the overall budget for the Building Services Transformation Branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Any changes to the Commission’s application rate and/or complexity of issues will also directly impact the Branch’s budget in support of Commission activities.
Performance measures and targets
The Commission has adopted the recommendations for performance measurement established by the Agency Reform (Guzzo) Commission. These are: fairness, accessibility, timeliness, quality and consistency, transparency, expertise, optimum cost, and courtesy. While not all of the goals were rated as “high” priorities for the Commission, processes are in place to ensure that all goals are integrated into the Commission’s operation and are, therefore, adequately addressed. The table below indicates how the Commission ranked the goals:
| Goals | Ranking |
|---|---|
| Fairness | High |
| Accessibility* | Low |
| Timeliness | High |
| Quality and Consistency | Medium |
| Transparency | High |
| Expertise | High |
| Optimum Cost | Low |
| Courtesy | High |
* It should be noted that the term “Accessibility” for the purposes of the performance measurement recommendations of the Agency Reform Commission was related to providing seamless and simple access to dispute resolution so that the public can receive quality and timely services regardless of their familiarity with the system.
Building Code Commission: Performance Measures
| Outcomes | Measures | Targets | 2017–2018 status | 2019–2022 commitments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairness (processes and procedures that are fair and are seen to be fair) | Parties* are satisfied that the process was implemented fairly and without bias. | Not more than 10% of hearings should result in judicial review on an annual basis. | Target met. There were no judicial reviews in 2017–2018. | Not more than 10% of hearings should result in judicial review on an annual basis. |
| Timeliness (quick resolution of technical construction disputes) | a) Number of working days from application to offered hearing date. b) Number of working days from receipt of Respondent’s confirmation of dispute to offered hearing date. c) Timely communication of decision. d) Timely preparation and finalization of full written decision. e) Timely posting of final written decisions on Building Code Commission internet site. |
a) Offer a date for hearing within 40 working days from receipt of complete application for 85% of all hearings. b) Offer a date for hearing within 20 working days from receipt of Respondent’s confirmation of dispute for 85% of all hearings. c) Communicate decisions to parties within 20 working days of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings. d) Full written decision to be prepared and finalized within six months of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings. e) Post 85% of final written decisions on the Building Code Commission internet site within 10 working days of completion of the French translation. |
a) Target met. A hearing date was offered within 40 working days of receipt of complete application was offered for 88% of all hearings. b) Target not met. A hearing date was offered within 20 working days of receipt of Respondent’s confirmation of dispute was offered for 82% of all hearings. c) Target met. Communicated decisions to parties within 20 working days of completion of hearing for 77% of all hearings. d) Target not met. Full written decisions were prepared and finalized within six months of completion of hearing for 45% of hearings e) Target met. 85% of full written decisions that were prepared and finalized were posted on the Building Code Commission internet site within 10 working days of completion of the French translation. |
a) Offer a date for hearing within 40 working days from receipt of complete application for 85% of all hearings. b) Offer a date for hearing within 20 working days from receipt of Respondent’s confirmation of dispute, for 85% of all hearings. c) Communicate decisions to parties within 20 working days of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings. d) Prepare and finalize full written decision within six months of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings. e) Post 85% of final written decisions on the Building Code Commission internet site within 10 working days of completion of the French translation. |
| Timeliness (quick resolution of disputes related to prescribed time frame) | a) Timely acknowledgement and notification of hearing date. b) Timely scheduling of hearing date. c) Timely communication of decision. d) Timely preparation and finalization of full written decision. e) Timely posting of final written decisions on Building Code Commission internet site. |
a) Acknowledge receipt of complete submission and provide date for appeal hearing within two business days. b) Hear appeals regarding the issuance of municipal building permits and inspection service levels within five business days of receiving the completed application. c) Communicate decisions within 15 business days of receiving the completed application. d) Full written decisions to be prepared and finalized within six months of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings. e) Post 85% of final written decisions on the Building Code Commission internet site within 10 working days of completion of the French translation. |
a) Target met. Receipt of complete submission acknowledged and provided date for appeal hearing within two business days in 100% of the cases. b) Target met. Appeals regarding the issuance of municipal building permits and inspection service levels were heard within five business days of receiving the completed application in 100% of the cases. c) Target met. Communicated decisions within 15 business days of receiving the completed application in 100% of cases. d) Target met. Full written decisions were prepared and finalized within six months of completion of hearing for 100% of hearings. e) Target met. 100% of full written decisions that were prepared and finalized were posted on the Building Code Commission internet site within 10 working days of completion of the French translation. |
a) Acknowledge receipt of complete submission and provide date for appeal hearing within two business days. b) Hear appeals regarding the issuance of municipal building permits and inspection service levels within five business days of receiving the completed application. c) Communicate decisions within 15 business days of receiving the completed application. d) Prepare and finalize full written decisions within six months of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings. e) Post 85% of final written decisions on the Building Code Commission internet site within 10 working days of completion of the French translation. |
| Quality and Consistency (process and procedures that have integrity and uniformity) | Parties are satisfied that the Commission process was conducted with a high degree of quality and consistency. | 85% of parties feel that the process had a high degree of quality and consistency. | Target met. 2017–2018 survey results indicate 92% of parties felt that the process had a high degree of quality and consistency. | 85% of parties feel that the process had a high degree of quality and consistency. |
| Transparency (clear and understandable process and procedures) | Parties are satisfied that the Commission’s process and procedures were clearly understood. | 85% of parties feel that the process and procedures were clear and understandable. | Target met. 2017–2018 survey results indicate 92% of parties felt that the process and procedures were clear and understandable. | 85% of parties feel that the process and procedures were clear and understandable. |
| Expertise (thoughtful and sound Building Code Commission decisions made due to technical competence of members) | a) Parties are satisfied that the Commission members demonstrated an appropriate level of knowledge and technical competency. b) Timely notice to the Ministry regarding upcoming Building Code Commission member terms of appointment expiration. |
a) 85% of parties feel that the members were experts in the subject matter of the hearing b) Provide four months’ notice to the Ministry in advance of member’s appointments expiring. |
a) Target met. 2017–2018 survey results indicate 92% of parties were satisfied that members were experts. b) Target met. The Ministry was provided with four months’ notice in advance of member appointments expiring in the fiscal year 2017–2018. |
a) 85% of parties feel that the members were experts in the subject matter of the hearing b) Provide four months’ notice to the Ministry in advance of member’s appointments expiring. |
| Courtesy (polite and courteous treatment of all parties) | Parties are satisfied that they were treated with courtesy throughout the application process and at a hearing. | 85% of parties surveyed feel that they were treated with courtesy throughout the application process and the hearing. | Target met. 2017–2018 survey results indicate that 92% of parties felt that they were treated with courtesy by Commission staff throughout the application process and 92% felt that they were treated with courtesy by the Commission members at the hearing. | 85% of parties feel that they are treated with courtesy throughout the application process and the hearing. |
In this Table, “parties” are those recognized by the Building Code Act, 1992, namely BCC Applicants (applicants for building permits, holders of building permits or persons to whom an order has been issued) and Respondents (municipal enforcement officials and their designates).
Risk assessment
Based on the Commission’s strategic directions and objectives, one risk to performance has been identified.
Mitigation strategies (including contingency plans, mitigation controls, and monitoring where required as part of prudent risk management protocols) are identified. Planning is required to address these issues and will be scheduled.
The Reference Impact and Probability Matrix used in this assessment is shown below:
Risk impact and probability matrix
| Impact | Low probability | Medium probability | High probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| High | Mitigation controls/contingency plans | Mitigation controls/contingency plans; monitor closely | Take urgent remedial action; monitor rigorously |
| Medium | Tolerate; monitor | Mitigation controls/contingency plans | Mitigation controls/contingency plans; monitor closely |
| Low | Tolerate; no action | Tolerate; monitor | Mitigation controls/contingency plans |
Risk #1: Lack of knowledge transfer/succession planning impacting commission
Issue
Succession planning continues to be an important issue for the Commission.
Insufficient overlap between sitting members whose terms are nearing expiration, and newly appointed members, has in the past resulted in a disproportionate load on some of the more experienced members. Newly appointed members are unfamiliar with Commission processes. Ideally, not more than 10% of members should retire from the Commission in any given year. This allows for gradual phasing in and out of members and maintains a balance of veteran and newer members. The Commission has expressed an interest in having more overlap between sitting members and newly appointed members than has been afforded in the past.
Probability: low
The Chair along with one other member reached their ten year maximum term in 2018. The former Chair and Ministry staff were able to have the Chair appointment package completed before the end of the term of the former Chair and as noted previously a new Chair was appointed on December 31, 2018.
Further, the former Chair of the Commission made recommendations on reappointments so that there would be a need to seek new members. This results in the staggering of appointment terms which will allow the Commission to transition new members in and allow for transfer of knowledge. Once appointment terms are staggered, the risk will be significantly reduced. However, the risk will be an ongoing issue for the Commission which will fluctuate in its severity depending on the specific status of appointments.
Impact: medium
Extensive simultaneous changes in Commission membership can result in a disproportionate workload on some members and creates difficulty in determining the appropriate composition of a hearing panel. Newer members, while they may be technically experienced, ideally should be phased into hearings to learn the processes of the Commission.
Tolerate and monitor
While the risk matrix above indicates that the Commission can tolerate and monitor the risk, the Commission intends to follow the mitigation strategy outlined below. This risk will be ongoing for the Commission, and the probability and impact will fluctuate depending on the circumstance at the time of assessing the risk. It seems prudent for the Commission to continue to mitigate the risk as best as it can.
Mitigation
Advertisements for the Commission’s Chair, two Vice Chair positions and new Members were posted on the Public Appointments Secretariat’s website. Two new Vice Chairs were appointed in 2018, one of which was subsequently appointed as the new Chair. The Chair was able to complete the interview process for the position of Chair and for possible new member appointments before the end of his term. The new Chair was appointed on December 31, 2018.
In making these recommendations, the Chair, the Commission and Ministry staff are working towards addressing the overall succession planning issue.
The Commission Chair and staff will work with the Minister’s Office and the Public Appointments Secretariat to seek appointments of new members more often and in smaller groups, so that their terms of appointment do not all expire at once. As mentioned above, the ideal circumstance would be to have not more than 10% of its appointments expire in the same year.
This strategy will allow the Commission to improve succession planning; achieve appointment overlaps, allowing for knowledge transfer from existing members to newly appointed members; achieve an appropriate balance of geographical representation; promote mentoring of new members; and achieve and maintain membership having expertise in all technical disciplines (structural, fire safety, plumbing, mechanical systems, on-site sewage systems, etc.).
Contingency plan
The Commission will continue to process its applications and hold its hearings as quickly as possible. The Commission Chair and Ministry staff will continue to make it a priority to work with the Minister’s Office and the Public Appointments Secretariat on recruitment to achieve appointment overlaps that improve succession planning, allowing for knowledge transfer from existing members to newly appointed members, and promoting mentoring of new members.