Experienced and visionary, the owner and CEO of Route Homes brings over 20 years of international executive experience in engineering, particularly in energy. His leadership, innovation, and commitment to excellence drive the company’s success in construction and design, shaping industry standards with expertise and vision.
I’m a professional engineer and building-science specialist dedicated to helping buildings perform the way they should — more efficient, more comfortable, more durable, and built to the highest energy standards.
I’m a Professional Engineer (P.Eng.) licensed in British Columbia and Ontario, and a Certified Passive House Designer and Net Zero Energy Advisor — credentials that anchor my work in internationally recognized, high-performance building standards. I’m also a Certified Energy Manager (CEM) and Project Management Professional (PMP), a member of the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE), and I hold a BCIN registration in Ontario for HVAC design and building services along with a Recommissioning certification from Natural Resources Canada.
I serve as Service Organization Manager (SOM) with Green Canada Energy Advisors and as an energy consultant with Monolith Housing Solutions, leading EnerGuide assessments, energy modelling, and building-envelope performance work across residential and commercial projects.
My core specialties include large-building airtightness testing — the multi-fan blower-door verification that confirms envelope performance on multi-unit residential and commercial buildings — as well as commissioning and recommissioning of building systems, ensuring mechanical and energy systems operate as designed and helping existing buildings recover lost performance. I bring both the technical expertise and the equipment to deliver reliable, defensible results for energy targets, code compliance, and occupant comfort.
I’m always open to collaborating with builders, developers, architects, engineers, and property teams who need expert consultation in building science and high-performance construction. If energy performance, comfort, or code compliance matters on your project, I’d be glad to connect.
You can also learn more about my work through the Canadian Home Builders’ Association (CHBA), the Canadian Association of Consulting Energy Advisors (CACEA), and Natural Resources Canada.
A residential building permit application in Ontario that includes new heating or cooling work generally needs several core HVAC documents, though the exact list depends on the project and the municipality reviewing it. These typically include a heat loss and heat gain calculation prepared to CSA F280-12, duct or hydronic layout drawings that show equipment placement and distribution, mechanical ventilation design documentation, and a signed Schedule 1: Designer Information form. Larger or more complex projects sometimes add an equipment schedule, an Energy Efficiency Design Summary under SB-12, or duct design detail drawings, depending on what the local building department expects. Ontario Building Code Part 9 sets the baseline for houses and small buildings, though municipal submission requirements and review practices can differ even where the underlying provincial code requirements are the same. Homeowners sometimes assume a furnace quote and a duct sketch will satisfy a building official, and that assumption is a common reason applications get returned for missing information.
The table below sets out the core and supplementary HVAC design documents a permit reviewer may ask for, along with who typically prepares each one and the code reference it ties back to:
| Document | Prepared By | Code Reference | Typical Trigger |
| CSA F280-12 heat loss and heat gain report | BCIN registered HVAC designer or P.Eng. | OBC Section 9.33.2.2 | New homes, and select equipment replacements where a load calculation is required |
| Duct or hydronic layout drawing | Same designer as the F280 report | Distribution requirement tied to Section 9.33 | New forced air systems, additions, major renovations |
| Mechanical Ventilation Design Summary (MVDS) | HVAC designer with ventilation qualification | OBC Part 9.32 | New homes under the current ventilation provisions |
| Schedule 1: Designer Information | Designer of record | OBC Division C, Part 3 | Submissions where a mechanical designer is required to identify themselves |
| Equipment schedule | HVAC designer | Supports sizing documentation under Section 9.33 | Heat pumps, multiple zones, or backup heat sources |
| Energy Efficiency Design Summary (SB-12) | Energy advisor or qualified designer | OBC Section 9.36 | New homes and additions subject to energy compliance |
| Duct design detail drawings | HVAC designer | Requested case by case | Long runs, complex layouts, or municipal request |
| Alternate distribution drawings | HVAC designer | Used for hydronic or ductless systems | Radiant floor heating, mini-split systems |
| Structural coordination note | Building designer or structural engineer | Division B structural provisions | Ductwork crossing joists or beams |
| Municipal compliance letter | HVAC designer or building official | Set by local building department | Requested by some municipalities beyond the OBC minimum |
The sections that follow explain what each document needs to contain and who is allowed to prepare it. Where municipal practice tends to diverge from the code minimum is noted along the way rather than saved for a separate section.
Section 9.33.2.2 of the Ontario Building Code requires that heating and cooling equipment capacities be determined in accordance with CSA F280-12, the Canadian standard for residential heat loss and heat gain calculation. The method works room by room. It weighs the area of walls and windows against their assigned insulation values, and ceiling and floor assemblies are treated the same way. Air leakage through the building envelope and the outdoor design temperature for the specific municipality complete the picture.
As an illustrative example, outdoor design temperatures in parts of Southern Ontario often fall in the minus 20 to minus 25 degree Celsius range, though the applicable figure for any given project comes from the code’s climatic data tables for that specific location and is not something a designer selects. As an example only, and not a substitute for a project-specific calculation, a two storey home of about 2,200 square feet in the Greater Toronto Area might show a calculated heating load somewhere in the 35,000 to 45,000 BTU per hour range. The actual figure for any home depends heavily on its envelope, glazing, and air leakage, and it can vary widely even among homes of similar size. A square-footage rule of thumb is not a substitute for the required calculation. The report should be produced using software capable of implementing the CSA F280 methodology, based on the project’s actual drawings and building assemblies, and stamped by a qualified designer.
Once the heating and cooling loads are known, the duct or hydronic layout drawing translates that number into a physical distribution system. This drawing shows where the heating and cooling equipment will sit. It also sets out the size of the main trunk duct and each branch running off it, plus the location of every supply register and return grille. Reviewers check that duct sizing tracks the load calculated for each room. A flat size applied uniformly across the whole house does not pass review, and return air paths need to suit the equipment selected. For example, Toronto requires HVAC drawings to be produced on standardized sheet sizes, drawn to scale, fully dimensioned, and signed and dated; other municipalities may follow different submission conventions, so this should be confirmed locally. A larger custom home with zoned systems or a mix of forced air and radiant floor heating typically needs separate duct design detail drawings, showing branch takeoffs and transitions along with equipment clearances at a larger scale.
Mechanical ventilation documentation, often summarized in a Mechanical Ventilation Design Summary, is now expected for new homes under the current ventilation provisions of Part 9.32 of the Ontario Building Code, where earlier code cycles left ventilation documentation to vary more by municipality. The MVDS needs to identify the ventilation system installed and its design airflow. It also needs to show the intended supply and exhaust arrangement, along with the equipment’s rated performance, and how fresh air reaches bedrooms and other habitable spaces. Two things get conflated fairly often here. The airflow a unit is capable of delivering under test conditions is not automatically the airflow the code requires for a given home, since the required rate depends on floor area, bedroom count, and the specific ventilation provisions that apply to the project. A heat loss report submitted without accompanying ventilation design documentation may not satisfy the mechanical documentation requirements for a permit application, particularly where a municipality specifically asks for ventilation design as a separate item.
HVAC design documents prepared by a qualified designer must identify the designer and the applicable qualification information required by the permit process, including the BCIN registration number and qualification identification number, along with an original signature. For residential projects, the relevant qualification category is Building Services, HVAC-House, held either by a BCIN registered designer or by a licensed professional engineer. This qualification category is intended for HVAC design activities associated with houses that fall within the applicable Part 9 scope. Projects outside that scope may require a different qualification category or professional engineering involvement, depending on the building’s classification, size, and the complexity of the design. Architects and engineers are exempt from BCIN registration under their own licensing bodies. Certain owner-builder exemptions may also apply in specific circumstances, though applicants should confirm eligibility with the local building department before relying on one. A company logo alone does not substitute for the required designer identification and declaration information on a submission.
The core documents cover the code minimum, but municipal practice varies more than most applicants expect. Toronto’s stand-alone mechanical permit process, for example, asks applicants to confirm the type and location of every piece of equipment, along with its size, as a separate item from the main design package, plus the ventilation calculation itself. Some smaller municipalities will accept a combined heat loss and duct drawing on one sheet for a simple renovation, while others insist on separate documents even for modest projects. An Energy Efficiency Design Summary under SB-12 sometimes gets bundled into the same submission where the project also needs to demonstrate energy compliance, and a handful of building departments ask for a short compliance letter confirming the HVAC design matches what was approved on the architectural drawings. HVAC replacement work is not automatically exempt from permit requirements.
Toronto’s mechanical HVAC permit categories, for example, explicitly include boiler and furnace replacement alongside new air conditioning installations. Permit and documentation requirements for replacement work vary by municipality and by the scope of the change, so confirming with the local building department before work begins is worth doing regardless of how minor the replacement seems.
Conclusion
An Ontario HVAC permit package generally rests on the heat loss and heat gain calculation, the duct or distribution drawings that follow from it, mechanical ventilation design documentation, and the Schedule 1: Designer Information form identifying who stands behind the design. Everything else, from equipment schedules to compliance letters, gets added depending on project size and the municipality reviewing the application. Confirming the specific document list with the local building department before drawings are finalized tends to save more time than any other single step in the process, since the code sets the floor and reviewers apply their own expectations on top of it. A BCIN registered designer working from the actual floor plans, with the correct HVAC-House qualification for the project’s scope, gives an application a stronger chance of getting through review without being returned.
When Ontario building owners compare Energy Audit vs Building Commissioning services, the right first step depends on the decision they need to make. A commercial building energy audit examines how a property uses energy and identifies measures that could reduce consumption, utility costs, or greenhouse gas emissions. Building commissioning tests whether installed systems are operating according to the owner’s requirements, design documents, control sequences, and current operating needs.
An energy audit is usually the better starting point when utility costs are high, no recent energy assessment is available, and the owner needs a prioritized improvement plan. Building commissioning deserves priority after new construction, a major HVAC retrofit, a significant occupancy change, or when modern equipment continues to produce comfort and performance problems.
Cost and timing depend on scope. A Level 1 energy audit may require less time than comprehensive commissioning, while a Level 3 audit can involve extensive measurement and modelling. Proposals should therefore be compared by the systems, testing, analysis, and deliverables included, rather than by the service name alone.
| Point | Energy audit | Building commissioning |
|---|---|---|
| Primary question | Where is energy being used, and which improvements make financial and technical sense? | Are building systems installed, controlled, and operating as intended? |
| Main evidence reviewed | Utility data, operating schedules, equipment information, benchmarks, site observations, and measurements | Owner’s requirements, design documents, sequences of operation, BAS trends, test results, and operator input |
| Typical trigger | Unexplained energy use, rising utility costs, retrofit planning, benchmarking, or capital budgeting | New construction, a major renovation, persistent comfort complaints, control problems, or performance drift |
| Fieldwork | Building walk-through, equipment review, staff interviews, and selected measurements | System verification, control review, functional performance testing, and deficiency tracking |
| Main deliverable | Energy conservation measures with estimated savings, costs, and financial metrics | Test records, a deficiency log, corrective actions, and a commissioning report |
| Role in capital planning | Evaluates operational measures and capital upgrades | Focuses mainly on system performance but may identify repair or replacement needs |
| HVAC focus | Efficiency, energy use, condition, and retrofit opportunities | Sequences, schedules, sensors, setpoints, interlocks, airflow, and actual system response |
| Common next step | Feasibility study, design, incentive application, or retrofit implementation | Corrective work, retesting, operator training, or ongoing commissioning |
| Ontario incentive relevance | May support planning and documentation for eligible retrofit projects | Qualifying properties may be eligible for Ontario’s Existing Building Commissioning program |
A commercial building energy audit starts with the property’s energy data. Depending on the scope, the auditor may review electricity and fuel consumption, peak demand, seasonal patterns, operating hours, Energy Use Intensity, and changes in occupancy or production.
The site review connects those records to the way the building operates. The auditor examines major energy-using systems such as HVAC equipment, lighting, domestic hot water, controls, motors, pumps, fans, and the building envelope. Interviews with facility staff help explain operating schedules, recurring maintenance problems, tenant requirements, and temporary overrides that may not appear in utility data.
The resulting energy conservation measures may include operational changes, maintenance work, or capital improvements. Examples include:
A detailed audit normally estimates the energy and cost savings, implementation cost, and financial performance of each recommended measure. These figures support planning, but they remain estimates until a project is designed, installed, and measured under actual operating conditions.
An energy audit in Ontario is particularly useful when the owner needs to compare several potential projects, establish a capital plan, or prepare technical information for an incentive or financing application.
Building commissioning is a quality-assurance process. It verifies how systems perform under real operating conditions and documents deficiencies that prevent the building from meeting its requirements.
A commissioning provider may review drawings, equipment schedules, sequences of operation, previous test reports, building automation system trends, and operation and maintenance records. Functional performance testing then checks how equipment responds in different modes.
For example, the provider may command an air-handling unit through occupied and unoccupied operation, test a temperature sensor, verify an alarm, or confirm that heating and cooling equipment respond in the correct sequence. This work can reveal issues that utility bills cannot identify on their own, including:
Commissioning can reduce energy waste, although it may also be initiated to improve comfort, reliability, indoor air quality, documentation, or operator readiness. The exact objective should be defined before testing begins.
ASHRAE Standard 211 establishes consistent practices for commercial building energy audits and defines three levels of effort. The standard is voluntary unless a contract, incentive program, or jurisdiction specifically requires it.
A Level 1 audit is a walk-through assessment. It generally includes a preliminary review of utility data, interviews with facility staff, and a site visit focused on major systems.
The report identifies visible energy-saving opportunities and highlights areas that may justify further analysis. It is suitable for early screening, portfolio planning, or a property that has never completed a formal energy review.
A Level 2 audit provides a more detailed energy survey and analysis. It examines major end uses, operating conditions, system performance, and practical energy conservation measures.
The report typically includes estimated energy savings, implementation costs, and financial metrics for each recommended measure. This level is often appropriate when an owner needs enough information to compare projects and establish a retrofit budget.
A Level 3 audit provides detailed analysis of selected capital-intensive measures. It is often called an investment-grade audit and is usually used when a major project requires stronger technical and financial validation.
The work may include temporary metering, equipment-level analysis, calibrated energy modelling, detailed cost estimates, and an assessment of project risks. Calibrated whole-building modelling can be part of a Level 3 scope, but it is not automatically required for every project. The methodology should match the measure being evaluated.
The level should be written into the proposal along with the systems included, required measurements, modelling approach, financial assumptions, and final deliverables. ASHRAE also publishes an overview of its commercial building energy audit procedures.
New building commissioning begins during design and continues through construction, testing, handover, and early operation. Starting during design allows the commissioning provider to review the owner’s project requirements, basis of design, control sequences, and planned tests before systems are installed.
Existing building commissioning, often shortened to EBCx, is an umbrella term for commissioning work performed in an occupied or operating property.
Recommissioning applies to a building that was commissioned previously but needs its systems tested and optimized again. Changes in occupancy, equipment, controls, or maintenance practices can cause performance to drift over time. Retro-commissioning generally applies to an existing building that did not receive formal commissioning when it was constructed. It establishes current requirements, tests system performance, and identifies operational or maintenance corrections. The U.S. Department of Energy’s commissioning guide provides a useful summary of these distinctions.
Schedule an energy audit first when:
A Level 1 audit may be enough for preliminary screening. A Level 2 audit is more suitable when the owner expects to select and budget specific measures.
Building commissioning should take priority when the building has recently completed construction, undergone a major renovation, or received new HVAC equipment that has never been tested under normal operating conditions. At this stage, the owner needs evidence that the installed systems respond correctly, maintain comfort, and follow the approved sequences of operation.
It is also the better starting point when complaints continue even though the equipment is relatively new. Uneven temperatures, poor ventilation, excessive equipment runtime, repeated overrides, and unexplained changes in energy use often indicate an operating or controls problem. A commissioning provider can test the affected systems, review automation trends, check sensor calibration, and compare actual performance with the design requirements.
Completing this work before an energy audit can improve the quality of the audit baseline. If an air-handling unit follows the wrong schedule or heating and cooling operate at the same time, current utility data reflects a fault rather than normal building performance. Correcting those issues first gives the auditor a clearer picture of the building’s remaining energy-saving opportunities. In some cases, commissioning resolves the main problem without an equipment replacement. In others, its findings show exactly where a later energy audit or capital study should concentrate.
When both services make sense؟
A large or technically complex building may need both services. The scopes can share utility data, equipment records, operating schedules, and staff interviews, but the analysis and deliverables remain different.
The sequence depends on the building:
Combining the work does not always mean every activity can occur during one site visit. Functional testing may require access at specific times, seasonal conditions, trend data, corrective work, and retesting. The proposal should state which activities will be coordinated and which require separate visits.
Ontario programs treat retrofit projects and existing building commissioning as separate activities.
The Save on Energy Existing Building Commissioning program supports qualifying commercial and institutional buildings that improve performance through operational, maintenance, and behavioural measures. As of August 2026, key facility requirements include at least 12 months of consecutive energy data, annual electricity consumption of at least 750,000 kWh excluding process loads, and no recommissioning exercise within the previous two years.
The program includes investigation, implementation, and persistence phases. It requires an approved commissioning provider and program-specific reporting. Building owners should confirm current eligibility and obtain the required approvals before beginning work.
The separate Save on Energy Retrofit Program supports eligible equipment upgrades. An energy audit can help identify and evaluate those upgrades, but completing an audit does not automatically make a project eligible for funding.
Program rules, incentive rates, and application deadlines can change. Current requirements should be checked before equipment is ordered, installed, or included in a construction contract.
Choose an energy audit when the immediate decision is where to invest. Choose building commissioning when the immediate concern is whether installed systems are performing properly.
If both questions remain open, begin with a scoping review of utility data, available design documents, recent projects, and reported operating problems. That review can determine whether the services should be completed sequentially or under one coordinated scope.
Green Canada Energy Advisors provides ASHRAE-based energy audits and building commissioning services for commercial, institutional, and multi-unit residential buildings. Our team can review your building’s available records and define a scope based on the decisions the assessment needs to support.
A single-family house or duplex built under Part 9 of the Ontario Building Code usually points to an SB-12 energy report. A store, clinic, small office, or other non-residential occupancy in a similar building size may need SB-10 instead.
That distinction matters at the permit stage. SB-10 and SB-12 cover different building types, use different technical references, and usually require different documentation. If the wrong standard is used, the permit file can come back for correction and the project team may have to revise the energy compliance submission before review can continue.
SB-12, formally called Energy Efficiency for Housing, sets the energy efficiency path for houses and residential occupancies within the scope of Part 9. SB-10, Energy Efficiency Requirements, applies to Part 3 buildings and to non-residential occupancies that fall within Part 9. It also draws from commercial energy standards such as ASHRAE and the National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings rather than a single housing package.
The standard should be confirmed early because it affects the drawings, forms, modelling path, and the person responsible for preparing the compliance paperwork.
| Aspect | SB-10 | SB-12 |
|---|---|---|
| Full title | Energy Efficiency Requirements | Energy Efficiency for Housing |
| Buildings covered | Part 3 buildings and non-residential occupancies within Part 9 | Houses and residential occupancies within Part 9 |
| Main reference standards | ASHRAE 90.1-2013, 2015 NECB, or ASHRAE 189.1-2014, depending on the selected path | Ontario housing compliance packages and accepted SB-12 performance options |
| Typical compliance documentation | OBC Matrix, SB-10 compliance summary, or energy modelling documentation depending on the path | Energy Efficiency Design Summary (EEDS), OBC Matrix, or performance modelling documentation where applicable |
| Airtightness assumption | Not fixed to one universal ACH value in the base path | Commonly tied to airtightness assumptions used in the selected SB-12 package or performance model |
| Alternative prescriptive path | Division 5 prescriptive path using Ontario HDD18 zones for eligible buildings | Not applicable in the same way; SB-12 uses its own housing compliance packages and performance options |
| Performance path option | Energy modelling against a reference building | Energy modelling, commonly with HOT2000 for houses |
| Common exemptions | Certain farm buildings, unconditioned spaces, buildings without electrical or fossil fuel service, and other code-defined exemptions | Similar Part 12 exemptions, with additional housing-related conditions depending on the building type |
| Typical preparer | Mechanical engineer, energy modeller, or energy consultant familiar with SB-10 | Designer, builder, energy advisor, or qualified professional familiar with EEDS and SB-12 |
| Renovations | Usually handled through Parts 10 and 11 rather than SB-10 directly | Usually handled through Parts 10 and 11 rather than SB-12 directly |
Occupancy classification usually decides the energy compliance path before building size becomes the main issue. Part 9 covers houses, small residential buildings, and some smaller-scale construction, but that does not automatically mean every Part 9 project follows SB-12.
A residential occupancy within Part 9 usually follows SB-12. A non-residential occupancy at a similar scale can be excluded from SB-12 and directed toward SB-10. That is why a small retail unit, clinic, daycare, or office cannot be assessed the same way as a detached house simply because the building is similar in size.
Mixed-use buildings are where mistakes happen most often. A ground-floor commercial unit with apartments above may need two documentation streams: one for the non-residential portion and another for the residential portion. Some municipalities may want that split shown clearly on the drawings as well as in the energy forms.
Building departments do not always flag the issue at the same stage. One reviewer may catch a missing SB-10 submission early, while another may raise it after the file reaches detailed plans examination. A short confirmation with the local building department before drawings are finalized can prevent a larger redesign or resubmission later.
SB-12 is the standard most people encounter when preparing an energy compliance report for a new house in Ontario. For many straightforward housing projects, the prescriptive route is the fastest path because the designer selects a permitted package of envelope and mechanical requirements instead of modelling every trade-off from scratch.
The Energy Efficiency Design Summary, usually called the EEDS, is widely used to record the selected SB-12 package. In practice, many municipalities accept the EEDS alongside the OBC Matrix because it gives reviewers a clear summary of the insulation levels, window performance, mechanical system, and selected compliance package.
The form still needs to match the actual design. A designer, builder, or qualified professional should complete it only when the assemblies and systems are known well enough to support the selected package. Stock house plans can sometimes reuse the same package across similar permits, but municipal expectations and project details still need to be checked each time.
The risk with SB-12 is not usually that the form is difficult. The risk is choosing a package too early and then changing the windows, HVAC system, insulation, or air sealing details without updating the energy paperwork. That is how a simple prescriptive submission can turn into a permit delay.
SB-10 is more technical than SB-12 because it connects Ontario energy compliance to commercial building energy standards. The selected path depends on the building type, system design, performance target, and the documentation expected by the authority having jurisdiction.
One common route is based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES 90.1-2013, the commercial energy standard used across many North American projects. Another route is based on the 2015 National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings, usually shortened to NECB. A third option uses ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES 189.1-2014, a high-performance green building standard, although using that path does not automatically mean the project receives a green building certification.
For eligible buildings that do not use electric space heating, SB-10 also includes a Division 5 prescriptive path based on Ontario heating degree day zones. This path uses local climate data rather than ASHRAE climate zones and separates Ontario into areas below or above 5,000 HDD18.
A project team should choose the path that fits the building early enough for the mechanical design, envelope details, schedules, and code matrix to remain consistent. SB-10 is not just a form added at the end. It can affect design assumptions across the permit package.
SB-12 packages rely on assumptions about the building envelope, including airtightness. For many housing projects, airtightness is not just a blower door number checked after construction. It is part of the energy assumptions behind the selected package.
That matters because a house can meet insulation values on paper and still perform poorly if the air barrier is not built carefully. Rim joists, sheathing seams, attic penetrations, electrical boxes, plumbing stacks, and mechanical penetrations can all create leakage paths if they are not sealed in line with the intended air barrier strategy.
The practical lesson is simple: SB-12 compliance is not only a paperwork exercise. The selected package should be reflected in the way the house is detailed and built. If the envelope is looser than the assumption behind the package, the project can run into problems during energy review, testing, or final verification.
Good documentation helps, but execution on site is what protects the result.
Some projects do not fit neatly into a prescriptive package. A house with a large glazing ratio, an unusual mechanical system, a complex addition, or envelope assemblies that do not match the tables may need energy modelling instead.
Under a performance path, the proposed building is compared against a reference building that meets the applicable compliance package. For housing projects, this modelling is commonly done with HOT2000 or another accepted simulation approach. If one part of the design performs worse than the prescriptive package, another part may need to perform better to compensate.
For example, a design with more glass than the prescriptive route allows may still pass if the rest of the envelope and mechanical system make up the difference. This gives designers more flexibility, but it also takes more coordination. The drawings, mechanical assumptions, window schedules, insulation values, and modelling file must all tell the same story.
Energy modelling is usually not the first choice for a simple house permit because it takes more time and costs more to prepare. It becomes useful when the design value is worth the extra work or when the prescriptive route simply does not fit the project.
Some projects fall outside the usual SB-10 and SB-12 reporting paths because of specific exemptions in the Ontario Building Code. These exemptions should be checked carefully against the actual article and project condition, not assumed from the building’s size or temporary use.
Common examples may include:
The important point is that an exemption is not a design shortcut. A building official or qualified code consultant should confirm whether the exemption applies to the exact project. A small building, temporary use, or low-energy occupancy does not automatically remove the need for an energy compliance report.
Existing buildings need extra care because renovations do not always fall directly under SB-10 or SB-12 in the same way as new construction. Renovation projects often reference Parts 10 and 11 of the Ontario Building Code, which deal with existing buildings and the extent of required upgrades.
Additions can be different. A new addition to an existing house may need to meet SB-12 for the new work even when the rest of the house is not being fully upgraded. The exact approach depends on the scope, the municipality, and how the addition connects to the existing building.
Mixed-use buildings need the clearest planning. A three-storey building with a ground-floor café and residential units above may need SB-10 documentation for the café and SB-12 or performance-path documentation for the residential portion. Those should be treated as separate compliance questions, not forced into one standard.
This is why early classification matters. Before the mechanical design is locked in, the project team should know which occupancies are present, which parts of the building each standard applies to, and how the compliance documents will be separated. Skipping that step is how a nearly finished permit package ends up needing late revisions.
Conclusion
For most Ontario projects, the first question is not which form to fill out. The first question is what the building is and how it is classified.
Residential Part 9 work usually points toward SB-12 and an EEDS-backed prescriptive or performance path. Non-residential occupancies and Part 3 buildings usually point toward SB-10 and one of its commercial energy compliance routes. The difficult cases are mixed-use buildings, additions, renovations, designs that do not fit the prescriptive package, and exemptions that must be checked against the actual Code article.
The safest approach is to confirm the occupancy classification and compliance path before the permit drawings go too far. Once that decision is clear, the rest of the energy report becomes much easier to coordinate.
