Date of Publication: August 19, 2025 [2022.09.V-02.C]
Subject: Design and General Review Requirements for a Restaurant with an Occupant Load (OL) 30 or less. 2024 OBC UPDATE
Summary of updates: Numbering of Articles. New wording of Article 3.1.2.7. confirms that Part 3 is applicable. No changes to recommendation.
2024 Ontario Building Code [O.Reg 163/24 Amended to 5/25] Reference(s):
Article 3.1.2.7. of Division B
Articles 1.2.1.2. and 1.2.2.1.of Division C.
Incoming Request:
Article 3.1.2.7. of Div. B permits a restaurant to be classified as a Group E major occupancy where the number of patrons is limited to 30. The question is whether the re-classification as a Group E occupancy applies to both technical requirements found in Division B, and to design and general review requirements in Division C?
What administrative requirements for design and general review apply to an extensive renovation of a restaurant with an occupant load of not more than 30 persons consuming food or drink, regardless of the size of the building in which it is located?
Executive Summary:
The provision contained in 3.1.2.7. of Division B in the Ontario Building Code (OBC) that allows certain low occupancy restaurants to be re-classified from a Group A major occupancy to a Group E major occupancy does not remove the requirements for design and general review by an Architect and/or a Professional Engineer, nor the applicability of Part 3. The general review requirements of Division C apply to all restaurants (see definition below), regardless of occupant load as they are deemed an assembly occupancy.
Discussion & Considerations:
Definition of Restaurant:
As stated above, article 3.1.2.7. of Div. B permits a restaurant to be classified as a Group E major occupancy where the number of patrons is limited to 30. The OBC, the Architects Act and the Professional Engineers Act do not define restaurant. For the purposes of this guidance, a restaurant will be defined as an occupancy in a building or part of a building that is designed and constructed to provide for gathering of persons for purposes of consumption of food and drink.
Design and General Review Requirements:
Article 1.2.1.1. of Division C of the Code specifies when Architects and Professional Engineers
are required to design specific building elements (certain foundations, sprinkler protected glazed wall assemblies, shelf and rack storage systems, tent framing and sign structures). Article 1.2.2.1. of Division C specifies that general review by Architects and Professional Engineers is required for these same building elements, and goes on to provide Table 1.2.2.1. which specifies what type of buildings require general review. This Table is a summary of what is contained in the Architects and/or Professional Engineers Acts, and follows designer requirements summarized in the OAA/PEO joint bulletin “Design and General Review Requirements for Buildings in the Province of Ontario”.
Specific to restaurants, the Architects Act requires that an Architect be involved to provide design for all assembly occupancies. Assembly occupancy is defined in the Architects Act[1] and includes restaurants, with no exception for a low-occupancy restaurant. For reference, this definition matches that found in the Professional Engineer’s Act and closely reflects that found in the Code.
The Building Code Act states under 8 (2) (b.1) that the chief building official shall issue a permit unless the Architects Act or the Professional Engineers Act require that the proposed construction be designed by an architect or engineer and such design has not been provided.
Following the above logic, regardless of the size of the building or number of storeys, there is no path to allow the application of Part 9 requirements to a low occupancy restaurant. Part 3 technical requirements are therefore applicable if the occupancy is deemed either a Group A restaurant or Group E restaurant. Examples of technical requirements includes fire separations, required washroom facilities, barrier free requirements etc.
Risk/Benefit Analysis:
There is little to no risk associated with this guidance. The benefit is that a building official now has a path to follow when requiring professional design for a small restaurant.
Final Recommendation:
A restaurant of not more than 30 patrons is considered an assembly occupancy for the purposes of Article 1.2.2.1. of Division C (general review) and both the Architects Act and the Professional Engineers Act (design). The permitted re-classification as a Group E occupancy does not relieve an applicant from the general review or the design requirements found in the OAA, the PEA or the OBC for an assembly occupancy.
It should be noted, that some exemptions to these professional design and review requirements are found in paragraph 3[2] of the OAA/PEO joint bulletin “Design and General Review Requirements for Buildings in the Province of Ontario”, where the design work does not affect any fire safety, structure, exiting or other major features of the building. Qualifications for designers for these renovations should comply with Table 3.5.2.1. of Division C.
Also, the Architects Act permits an OAA Licensed Technologist to design a restaurant that will accommodate not more than 100 persons consuming food or drink in a building that does not exceed 600m2 in gross area, and is not more than 3 storeys as constructed, enlarged or altered.
Technical requirements for the Group A2 or Group E restaurant are contained in Part 3 and will apply to all restaurants.
All of the above is not meant to say that a Part 9 building cannot contain spaces designed for the consumption of food and drink. Part 9 D or E major occupancies may have lunchrooms or kitchenettes or a take-out/”paper service” food premises that generally would not be considered a restaurant per the definition above.
While CBOs are not empowered to enforce the Professional Engineers Act or the Architects Act. These two Acts do govern which buildings or major occupancies require professional design. If professional design is required by the applicable Act, but is not provided, a CBO is not required to issue a building permit. Where a CBO is unable to determine the design and/or review requirements for a proposal under review, they should contact the PEO/OAA Joint Practice Board for clarification.
Referenced Documents:
- Architects Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.26
- Building Code Act, 8(2)(b.1)
- Division A 1.1.2.2.(1)(a)
- Division B. 3.1.2.6.(1)
- Division C 1.2.1.2. (1)
- Division C 1.2.2.1.
- Division C Table 1.2.2.1
- Division C Table 3.5.2.1..
- PEO/OAA Joint Bulletin (Design and General Review Requirements for Buildings in
the Province of Ontario, 2007)
[1] “assembly occupancy” means occupancy for gatherings of persons for civic, educational, political, recreational, religious, social, travel or other similar purpose, or for the consumption of food or drink; from Architects Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.26 and Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28
[2] The requirement for an architect does not apply to the preparation or provision of a design for interior space for a building, including finishes, fixed or loose furnishings, equipment, fixtures and partitioning of space, and related exterior elements, such as signs, finishes and glazed openings used for display purposes, that does not affect or is not likely to affect, (a) the structural integrity, (b) a fire safety system or fire separation, (c) a main entrance or public corridor on a floor, (d) an exit to a public thoroughfare or to the exterior, (e) the construction or location of an exterior wall, or (f) the usable floor space through the addition of a mezzanine, infill or other similar element, of the building. From paragraph 3 of PEO/OAA joint bulletin “Design and General Review Requirements for Buildings in the Province of Ontario.
Disclaimer:
This guidance document is intended to assist building officials by gathering relevant information to interpret the OBC Act and the prescriptive requirements of the Ontario Building Code, and is intended to be a best practice aid for building officials.
The views expressed within this guidance document should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the Ontario Building Code, as the final responsibility for interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction.
The views of this advisory committee should not be construed as legal advice.