Skip to Content
View site list

Profile

Pre-Bid Projects

Pre-Bid Projects

Click here to see Canada’s most comprehensive listing of projects in conceptual and planning stages

Government

B.C. Supreme Court affirms Architects Act in Langford residential build case

B.C. Supreme Court affirms Architects Act in Langford residential build case

VANCOUVER — The Supreme Court of British Columbia has declared a building permit in Langford “unreasonable” as it was issued without using an architect and therefore violated the Architects Act. 

Justice Stephen Kelleher sided with the Architectural Institute of B.C. (AIBC), which was established by and enforces the Architects Act, and requested no financial penalty but instead asked for declaration from the court that the permit was not properly issued. AIBC added it also did not wish for the permit to be set aside.

According to court documents, the case traces back to 2016, when the chief building inspector of Langford issued a building permit for the construction of a residential/commercial strata complex on Hoffman Avenue which was designed and had drawings completed by a designer instead of an architect. 

The building was completed and occupancy permits were issued for Sept. 6, 2017 and June 29, 2018. One of the building’s occupants contacted AIBC after becoming concerned that the complex had not been designed by, and constructed under, the supervision of an architect.

After an investigation by AIBC, the designer was contacted and said he violated the act by providing design services and prepared drawings without an architect and provided the AIBC with an undertaking not to do so in the future.

The city’s senior building inspector acknowledged that the act required the involvement of an architect. However, he argued that city bylaws only conferred authority to enforce the British Columbia Building Code and not the act.

City officials stated they are not required under the city’s building bylaw to take the act into account when considering building permit applications.

However, Judge Kelleher disagreed, stating that, “the work here is construction of a building that exceeds 470 m2. The act requires that the person who supervises such work be an architect.”

Recent Comments

comments for this post are closed

You might also like