Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
That was a fantastic argument. I have no electrical code specific experience but I do love regulation heiarchy.
I think one thing to note is that in the Standata versus CEC both are wrong.
A Standata doesn’t change the code, it changes the regulatory requirements in Alberta which include the code
The constitution residual powers put safety regulation under provincial responsibility.
The Safety Codes Act specifies the rules that govern safety. The Safety Codes act and it’s regulation adopt various codes and standards from various bodies. These acts and regulations always include a clause that states something along the lines of “or other method acceptable to the administrator” or “as otherwise specified by the administrator”. This is how a Standata’s gain legal authority.
So Timum is correct that the Standata in Alberta will legally change the requirements of the electrical code as enforced in Alberta. Paperbagger is right that in a court merely saying I followed the regulation will not necessarily get you out of trouble.
[...]
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
So here is what I know
The Standata would still modify the regulatory requirements in the jurisdiction that the Standata was issued in. So if you followed a Standata for a project in Alberta and followed the requirements of the Standata rather than the code then you would have met the regulatory requirements for Alberta. I think the Supreme Court would be interpreting the Alberta regulations when ruling. That is my understanding on how these courts work. If they did not then the CEC has no more regulatory authority than a phone book.
Meeting regulatory requirements does not necessarily meet the standard of good engineering practice and does not necessarily mean a person wasn’t negligent.
I suspect you have a reference to a Supreme Court case where a judge found the person did not meet “good engineering practice” and was found negligent for not meeting the code. The details of that would be incredibly important before any comment could be made.
|
Lol, I don't see PaperBagger's posts but from your responses I can see he's still asking about what happens if you end up dragged into a Supreme Court case involving compliance with something in the electrical code. I can elaborate.
(The following isn't directed at him but rather to anyone who happens to be interested.)
First of all, backing waaaay up, the provinces have legislative jurisdiction over the construction of buildings under 92(10) of the
Constitution Act, 1867 (a.k.a. the
British North America Act, 1867). It does not fall to the provinces through residuary powers because residuary powers fall back to the
federal government under Section 91 of the
Act (GGG, maybe you were confusing Canada with the US, where reserve powers in the US constitution fall back to the state governments, not their federal government):
91 It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces [...]
92 In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
[...]
10. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:(a) Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:
(b) Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country:
(c) Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.
So, the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction to make laws relating to "local works and undertakings", which is really just some flowery legalese for "construction". Flowing from that power our provinces each have their own laws that elaborate on the accepted standards to which "local works and undertakings" can be constructed. These usually include buildings, plumbing systems, gas systems and yeah, electrical systems. (In Alberta this also includes "pressure equipment" and "elevating devices", which is where the establishment of ABSA (the Alberta Boiler Safety Association, who regulate pressure vessels, boilers, etc.) and AEDARSA (the Alberta Elevating Devices and Amusement Rides Safety Association, who regulate elevators and theme park rides) come from.)
Now, back in the late 19th and early 20th century it was typical that the regulation and administration of construction standards was assigned by the provincial governments to the municipal governments. As such every municipality had its own bylaws which dictated how the construction of buildings was to be done. As you can imagine this created a very big patchwork of acceptable practices that was very onerous for even an experienced builder to navigate. Some municipalities were very stringent, some were very lax, etc. Generally by the 1950s the provinces had taken back these powers from their municipal governments, with one big exception: the City of Vancouver, which still has its own
Building Bylaw. Instead of every municipality having its own way of doing things the provincial governments established province-wide legislation.
Where
codes and standards come into play is that the provincial governments didn't really want to create their own construction legislation entirely from scratch, and the federal government had already established a
model code for the municipalities to adopt in the '40s: the
National Building Code (NBC).
What is a "model code"? It's a standard created by an independent third party that is meant to be adopted through legislation by the jurisdiction that has the power to regulate whatever it is that code speaks to. Again, the provinces have the jurisdiction to enact legislation with respect to construction. The NBC was created by the National Research Council so that municipal and provincial governments had a common standard that they could
reference, rather than draft an entire code on their own. This is something that some people don't seem to understand, but the NBC itself
has no inherent force and effect whatsoever. Just because it's a standard that purports to be the standard to which buildings in Canada are built does
not mean it actually
is the standard to which buildings in Canada are built. There are no 'teeth' behind the NBC or any other model code until that code is adopted through legislation.
In Alberta, the
Safety Codes Act establishes what our construction codes are and how they are to be promulgated and interpreted. The
Act sets up the legal framework for organizations like ABSA and AEDARSA, and also sets up the Safety Codes Council, the administrative body that "formulate[s] codes and standards for accreditation, safety standards and barrier‑free design and access for any thing, process or activity to which this Act applies and promulgate those codes and standards". The gist is the Safety Codes Council is the body that is delegated the power to establish what our codes are, how to interpret them, how they are enforced, etc. The basis of the codes themselves are established by regulations made under the
Act, for example the
Building Code Regulation (
AB Reg 31/2015) tells us what the basis of our building code is. Section 1(1), the very first clause in the regulation, says:
1(1) The National Building Code ‑ 2019 Alberta Edition, published by the National Research Council of Canada as amended or replaced from time to time, is declared in force with respect to buildings.
That's where the building code is legislatively established and given some actual force and effect. N.B. however that it is not the plain, raw NBC that is in force in Alberta, but rather the
Alberta Edition that is in force. The NBC-AE (also previously known as the
Alberta Building Code, or ABC) is very very close to the NBC—they're written and organized in exactly the same way and the vast majority of their contents are verbatim identical—but they are
not entirely the same. There are some minor variations between them. And it's not just that NBC-AE that forms the entirety of our accepted code, it's the Safety Codes Council's interpretations as well.
For the electrical code, it's adopted in the
Electrical Code Regulation (AB Reg 209/2006), which says:
Codes declared in force
3 The following codes, as amended or replaced from time to time, are declared in force in respect of electrical systems:
(a) the CSA Standard C22.1‑21 ‑ 2021 Canadian Electrical Code, Part 1 (25th edition), Safety Standard for Electrical Installations, published by the CSA Group;
(b) the Alberta Electrical Utility Code ‑ 5th Edition, April 2016, published by the Safety Codes Council.
Again, it's pretty important to note that it is a particular version of CSA Standard C22.1 that is in force, the 2021 version. That didn't happen until a very recent change, effective February 1, 2022. The 2021 version existed for months beforehand, but it was not in force in our province until about six weeks ago. The point I'm trying to emphasize here is that even though CSA may publish a newer version of that standard it can be floating around out there forever and
not be our electrical code. It won't become our electrical code until the government passes legislation that says it is. And it's not just the CEC
alone that is "the electrical code" in force in our province, it's also the Safety Codes Council's directives that are to be read in conjunction with it. The CEC is only the model code forming
the basis of Alberta's electrical code.
The Safety Codes Council's instructions on how to interpret and apply the codes are called "STANDATA".
STANDATA have primacy over whatever the model codes say, because they are the interpretations of the Safety Codes Council and it is the Safety Codes Council who decide what our construction codes are. CSA can say whatever the hell they like in the raw unedited CEC: the Safety Codes Council have the say-so as to whether it applies in our province or not.
How does this come into play if you get dragged into a court action that makes it up to the Supreme Court of Canada? Well, first of all the Supreme Court is just an appellate court. They hear cases from both the Federal Court and the provincial courts, and any action related to the application of construction codes will be heard by the provincial court first, because the provinces have jurisdiction. When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court the province's jurisdiction over the legislation and administration of construction doesn't just magically disappear, and the Supreme Court will hear the case in the context of the applicable provincial legislation.
The National Building Code does not supersede the applicable provincial code. (I say "applicable" because provincial jurisdiction doesn't extend over federal lands, so for federal buildings on federal lands (e.g. federal prisons) it is the National code that applies.) Put another way, the Supreme Court of Canada is a federal court, but it is not a
Federal
Court...
GGG, you're absolutely right though when you write "Meeting regulatory requirements does not necessarily meet the standard of good engineering practice and does not necessarily mean a person wasn’t negligent." Absolutely, 100% correct. Just blindly saying "I just followed the code!" is kind of akin to a Nuremberg defence in the construction industry. Code has to be interpreted and measured against risks to public safety, other industry standards (which may have been enacted as a construction code in that province or not), and even acceptable practices and codes in
other jurisdictions. (E.g. on jobs I've worked on we've followed clauses from the US
National Electrical Code (NFPA 70) because the Canadian equivalent is more lax.)
I know this is a big diversion from home improvement DIY advice, but I hope at least some of you find this information useful.
