BCAB #1087A - T-Nails for Cedar Shakes

November 2, 1989

BCAB #1087A

Re: T-Nails for Cedar Shakes

Thank you for your letter of September 28, 1989, relating to Appeal #1087, but before dealing with the issue we must first correct some misconceptions.

The Appeal Board is an autonomous body appointed by the Minister under the Municipal Act, it has no "office" as such, but a secretarial and registry service is provided by the Building Standards Branch of Municipal Affairs. Staff of that Branch comment on appeal applications and these comments, together with those of others, are considered by the members of the Board when arriving at a decision. Reference is made in your correspondence to a member of the Branch by name, but the assumption of his connection with the Appeal Board is incorrect. He has never been connected with the Appeal Board in any capacity other than as indicated. Further, other functions, such as serving on Standards Committees, are no concern of the Board members.

On occasion a hearing may be requested, but the holding of such hearings is seldom necessary having regard to the subject matter of most appeals. If a hearing is shown to be of benefit then one can be arranged. In relation to the situation in question a hearing was neither requested by you or your client, nor considered necessary by the Board.

As you are no doubt aware the function of the Appeal Board is specifically defined in the Municipal Act. It is not open to the Board to pass judgement on the content of the National Building Code as to quality or necessity, nor other Codes or standards adopted by the Province. We have no authority to make nor recommend changes. In performing our function we must consider an appendix to a Standard to have the same value as an appendix to the Code. CSA 0118.1, the Standard in question, was considered suitable for reference without any modification by the national committees responsible for the Code; it was later adopted on the same basis by the appropriate provincial authority, which also adopted the latest revision. Appendix E setting out recommendations on fasteners is specific and in the Board's opinion is not open to interpretation.

While you may, or may not have a dispute with the authors of the Standard, the Board, regrettably, does not consider that evidence has been presented to date on which it can justify a re-assessment of the earlier decision. On this question we should point out that the decisions of the Appeal Board are open to review if an error is shown to have been made or new evidence is presented which justifies reconsideration.

We note that you are in receipt of correspondence from the Standards Administrator, Canadian Standards Association dated June 20, 1989, wherein Frank Obal, the addressee, was advised of a course of action open to him which might result in variation of Appendix E to CSA 0118.1-1988. You may wish to follow the course of action suggested.

J.C. Currie, Chair