Developers should not be allowed to call a windowless room a Bedroom!!

[Team Me]

Am I the only person here that actually PREFERS the indoor bedroom layout?

I guess I should qualify that though. Living in the core, and especially in lower buildings, I find that a layout with a bedroom that is further back in the unit but still allows natural light is better. When are right at the window, you are much more likely to hear street noise at night, whether it be traffic, nightclubs, sirens, partyers etc.

Also, with buildings packed so tight in the core, you are provided much more privacy with a bedroom further in to your unit. Unless you want to get blackout shades in your bedroom window (which allow even less light than a frosted glass door would), a window right next to your bed can be awkward if you have neighbours with a view.

And when the bedroom is further back you have more windows and more light to dedicate to the areas that you spend the most time in while awake...the living room and kitchen. I have a huge wall of windows in my place...if my bedroom had to share some of that, my main living space would be much smaller, and look much smaller.

If I lived on a higher floor in a huge unit with a view that could never be obstructed, of course I would rather have a bedroom with its own window. But for 500-700 square foot units in dense parts of downtown, I prefer to have the bedroom further back in the unit.

Anyone else? I can't be the only one, as almost the entire King West neighbourhood consists of units like this.

 

[The Condo Observer]

Yours is the first opinion of the sort that I have encountered. All opinions are valid and thanks for sharing. However, the crux of my thread is that surely there are criteria that must be satisfied in the designation of some space as a BEDROOM. The concern is that new buyers purchase a "Two bedroom "unit pre construction, only to discover TREB classifies one of the two as a DEN, and throws the unit into a different asset class....The criteria suggested so far are the inclusion of a window, a closet, some source of natural light.

Surely there must te a set of rules that would universlly apply to 1) Presale Marketing labelling 2) Listings on Resale via TREB, 2) City of Toronto parking guidelines.

It really also comes down to a consumer-protection issue. Boom, condomania aside, hard earned cash gets invested into these condos, and consumers need to know their rights. and exposure.

 

[iSlutsky]

I hope some Real Estate Brokers and Legal people contribute to this thread. There must be a legal definition of a bedroom...What do agents and brokers use as a guideline when listing properties? Could I buy a two bedroom today, and end up with a resale that is a one plus den by TREB's definition of a bedroom Also, in granting permission to build, the city classifies projects by mix of units (studios, 1 bdr, one plus etc...), and prescribes parking requirements accordingly. So there must be some means of defining a bedroom.

I do not have my version of the Ontario Building Code handy (and, I am pretty sure it is not online), but that is where you should look.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Yes, this is a building code issue. It is legal to have a bedroom with no exterior windows as long as it satisfies requirements for natural light "borrowed" from another room in the unit, so if it does not have an exterior or interior window or a glass door then it cannot be called a bedroom. The city reviews all plans to ensure code compliance, so if a new unit is advertised as a 2 bedroom you know it at least passes minimum code. I would be more careful buying a resale unit that is described as having a "den that could be used as 2nd bedroom" as that may not be a conforming use of the space.

The code is online at the Ontario e-laws website, and here's the link:
(unfortunately the file is massive)

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_060350_e.htm

Really there are two reasons for the window requirements: fire safety and ventilation. Because of the first, sleeping rooms should have two means of egress, although this rule is relaxed for high-rise construction with good fire ratings, sprinklers, etc. The second is from the days of tenement houses, where whole familes lived in single windowless rooms and disease was thought to be the result of a lack of fresh air.

Personally I would hesitate to buy a unit with a windowless bedroom, but then again I would never live in a 500 square foot space so to each their own I guess!

 

[avatarreb]

Interesting discussion. Here's some stuff I pulled from the building code. When read strictly, it seem to indicate that a window is mandatory for each floor with bedrooms, not the bedrooms themselves.

9.5.7. Bedrooms or Spaces in Dwelling Units and Dormitories
9.5.7.1. Areas of Bedrooms
(1) Except as provided in Articles 9.5.7.2. and 9.5.7.3., bedrooms in dwelling units shall have an area not less than 7 m² where built-in cabinets are not provided and not less than 6 m² where built-in cabinets are provided.
9.5.7.2. Areas of Master Bedrooms
(1) Except as provided in Article 9.5.7.3., at least one bedroom in every dwelling unit shall have an area of not less than 9.8 m² where built-in cabinets are not provided and not less than 8.8 m² where built-in cabinets are provided.
9.5.7.3. Areas of Combination Bedrooms
(1) Bedroom spaces in combination with other spaces in dwelling units shall have an area not less than 4.2 m².
9.5.7.4. Areas of Other Sleeping Rooms
(1) Sleeping rooms other than in dwelling units shall have an area not less than 7 m² per person for single occupancy and 4.6 m² per person for multiple occupancy.

9.7.1.3. Bedroom Windows
(1) Except where a door on the same floor level as the bedroom provides direct access to the exterior, every floor level containing a bedroom in a suite shall be provided with at least 1 outside window that,
(a) is openable from the inside without the use of tools,
(b) provides an individual, unobstructed open portion having a minimum area of 0.35 m² with no dimension less than 380 mm, and
(c) maintains the required opening described in Clause (b) without the need for additional support.
(2) Except for basement areas, the window described in Sentence (1) shall have a maximum sill height of 1 000 mm above the floor.
(3) When sliding windows are used, the minimum dimension described in Sentence (1) shall apply to the openable portion of the window.
(4) Where the sleeping area within a live/work unit is on a mezzanine with no obstructions more than 1 070 mm above the floor, the window required in Sentence (1) may be provided on the main level of the live/work unit provided the mezzanine is not more than 25% of the area of the live/work unit or 20 m2 whichever is less and an unobstructed direct path of travel is provided from the mezzanine to this window.

 

[CMoney]

[The correct answer]

For an apartment building in Ontario that conforms to a residential building exceeding 600 sq.m. in building area or exceeding three stories in height you have to first look to a different Part of the Code (other than Part 9). See Parts 3, 5 and 6 of Div. B.

Specifically see. Article 3.7.2.1. Window Area: (1) Except as provided in Sentences (2) and (3) or otherwise permitted, every room used for sleeping in any building, and every principal room such as living room, dining room or combination of them in dwelling units shall be provided with windows having areas conforming to Part 9, except that Article 9.7.1.3 does not apply.

Therefore Article 9.7.1.3 does not apply which states that "except where a door on the same floor level as the bedroom provides direct access to the exterior, every floor level containing a bedroom in a suite shall be provided with at least 1 outside window that..." Looking only this sentence you would think that if there is a balcony door in an apartment building dwelling (that conforms to Parts 3, 5 and 6 of Div B.) then a bedroom does not legally need a window.

This is not so if your building exceeds 600 sq.m. in building area or exceeding three stories in height

see 9.7.1.2 for Minimum Window Areas and then Table 9.7.1.2. For a bedroom the minimum glass area in 5% of area served.

I would think that if a developer is representing an illegal bedroom as a bedroom you might have some legal recourse if you bought the unit and did not know better at the time. Marketing tactic - sure - but nonetheless it appears to at least be deceiving and perhaps fraudulent. The product is improperly labelled. The developer should know better.

One caveat: the "otherwise permitted" language in Article 3.7.2.1 may suggest that each room does not need a window since it could be "otherwise permitted" for some reason. To the best of my knowledge there is no place where this is otherwise permitted except in the case of maybe a glass door (but I can't find any Article to support that statement). Transparent doors and panels are defined in the code and nowhere that I can see is this equated with a window. Contact a building code expert in your city to clarify.

Interesting discussion. Here's some stuff I pulled from the building code. When read strictly, it seem to indicate that a window is mandatory for each floor with bedrooms, not the bedrooms themselves.

 

[interested]

All this discussion about what is a bedroom and what is not and what constitutes a den is indeed interesting.

Frankly, and speaking personally, a room without a window is not a bedroom but a den. I really don't care how the building code, developer or anyone is representing it. The fact is as pointed out above, by constructing a 6' wall and leaving 2 or 3' for natural sunlight to come in indirectly, in my view does not make what I view as a den a bedroom. My suspicion is that in a couple of years when these units are built, people (purchasers) will look and call them 1 bedroom / dens, independent of what they were sold as by the builder, or how they are represented by realtors and listings.

Similarly, these little alcoves where a jut in the wall allows a 3 x 5 foot desk to be placed is not a den and the same rationale above re the 2 bedroom argument will be applied.

The sad part of all this is that resale buyers who will not have access to a plan will waste everyone's time for they will walk in, not see a window and conclude that this is not a bedroom but a den, or that the condo is a 1 bedroom and a small alcove and not a 1 bedroom/den.

I agree with the post that one may have some recourse if a developer misrepresents but that is costly, most developers have deeper pockets than purchasers, and there is a good chance that Caveat Emptor will be applied by the courts,especially since a floorplan is usually attached to the purchase offer documents (at least in the units I have bought) and you surely could not argue that if the floorplan clearly shows the "bedroom" as not being on the outside and having no window compared to the other bedroom, I would think a judge would likely rule against the purchaser.

 

[yaz16]

Does it really matter?? Some layouts would make alot more sense if the bedroom(s) wasn't split with the living rooms.

Is not having a window health hazardous or somehow inhuman? I understand per definition from cmhc what is considered a "bedroom" and what is not, but i disagree. Instead for me as long as the dimensions are at least 9 x 9 with a closet , that could be considered a bedroom.

For me having a window would be nice but if it did not , it wouldn't be a big deal. I rather have a wider living room or give some window room to the kitchen or washroom (ventilation purpose)

 

[CMoney]

Caveat Emptor is very rarely applied in courts these days. It does not represent Canadian Law anymore. You would probably have to go back to the 80's before you would see a decision based on that maxim. There are very well defined responsibilities for both the seller and the buyer in contract law. Simply put the seller must deliver goods of the right quantity and description and at the agreed time and the buyer must accept the goods and pay for them as agreed. I think the operative word here is description. Let me give an example:

Dwelling: Clearly advertised by developed as a two bedroom unit. Layout drawings indicate as such.
Purchaser: Purchases unit from developed full well knowing one of said bedrooms does not contain a window.
Contract executed: Developer delivers dwelling, purchaser accepts and pays.

All good so far. Now what if the purchaser decides he wants to rent out a room in his apartment? Oops. He is not legally allowed to use that room as a bedroom. His insurance company advises him as such. Maybe he carries all the liability should something happen to that person in the event of a fire...that's no good. That is an example of damages - lost rent. Maybe the purchaser decides he wants to sell the unit and when he listing it their agent tells them it must be listed as a 1 bedroom + den and not a 2 bedroom. That might have an impact on resale price. What is the damage to the purchaser? Well maybe RE has gone up in price since they bought it so there could be considered that no material loss is incurred. However an appraiser might be able to establish (or several appraisers most likely) that if that room had a window, and could be considered a legal bedroom, the property value would have been $10k more, for example. That is a loss to the purchaser.

The purchaser was delivered the goods but the seller described them in such a way that was misleading. The goods were unable to function as described. Is it reasonable to expect that the laymen (purchaser) would have sufficient knowledge of the building code to recognize the dwelling as containing a non-conforming bedroom? No that is probably not a reasonable expectation. The layout drawings say "Bedroom", there is a pretty picture of a bed in there, a laymen would think of it as a bedroom (despite having no window) Would the developer be EXPECTED to have such proper knowledge - you betcha.

Contract law can get pretty complicated and yes, in this situation, most likely expensive to fight if it were going to go past arbitration and to Court. The developer could tie you up for years with stalling motions. Anyway it would never get to that because in this situation your loss is likely less than $25k. You can't reasonably claim that the entire purchase price is a loss. So if you are going to take a $25k loss to provincial court and let a developer bleed you dry through your lawyer - good on you. I see this as a small claims court situation though if you are being reasonable about damages (if any). And in the above example, if you could establish credible losses, you would probably have a decent chance of winning.

 

[interested]

I am not a lawyer so let me preface with that comment.

that said, I would suggest in your example a judge would say you knew you were getting a bedroom without a window. This conforms to the building code as described so the developer was not misleading you saying it was a 2 bedroom.

You the purchaser who wanted to rent out that bedroom should have informed yourself prior to making the "investment decision".

In order to win, I believe the purchaser would have to show that the developer went out of his way to mislead, and if the definition according to the building code is that this silliness in my view of indirect light is a bedroom, then it would be patently unfair to the developer to say he was misleading when he was simply describing what is the code or law for building in Ontario.

Please understand, from my post, I think these bedrooms are not bedrooms but that is solely my personal opinion.
The purchaser would be hard pressed to say he was misled when the floorplan showed there was not a window. And in this case, there is nothing non conforming to my understanding about the developer saying it was a bedroom.

So I suspect this would not be won by the purchaser and the likelihood of winning in my view would be less than 50%.

The other issue is: Is the developer expected to be an expert on insurance law. I think not. Is the develper guilty of calling what the code says is a 2 bedroom a 2 bedroom when perhaps CREA has a different definition. I don't believe so. Different definitions, that is all. Again, the developer would have done nothing wrong.

I am also not a developer and find the practice frankly disgusting. I think there should be the utmost trust in a relationship such as this. It should not be adversarial. The developer should be trying to build something the purchaser wants, not misrepresenting it as at the end of the day it is just grief for both parties. No one wins. The developer gets a black eye and people who inform themselves don't deal with him in the future. The purchaser is unhappy as he feels he has been misled.

 

[CMoney]

I am not sure I follow the last comment.

First what is the definition of a bedroom? This is not a subjective question. It is in fact legally defined in the building code in terms of what characteristics a bedroom must have. For a multi story res apartment a bedroom mustcontain a window. The only relevant definition is given by this Code. It doesn't matter what you're uncle Paul defines it as or what CREA defines it as.

Second - no the developer is not expected to be an expert on insurance law. He is expected to know both the Fire Code and the Building Code, however. Both would state that in a multi strory res apartment this room is not a bedroom. Also when the developer obtained a permit it would state how many bedrooms this particular unit had. If the permit says one thing and the layout says another - well there is a case that can be made here.

"You the purchaser who wanted to rent out that bedroom should have informed yourself prior to making the "investment decision"."

The purchaser did inform themself. They studied the plans. Those plans were incorrectly labelled and deceptive. Again you are trying to apply Caveat Emptor where it does not apply. The seller has a much more onerous obligations in contract law. If I sell you a car and promise you it goes 0-60mph in 3.4s and then you get it to the track and it does it in 13.7s do I owe you anything if I included a schematic of the car in our contract that clearly states the engine is 120h.p.? Caveat Emptor!!! If you wanted to race this car you SHOULD have knows you would never get that acceleration from a 120h.p. engine...The point I am getting at is the burden is on the seller to accuratly represent what is being sold. Period.

 

[interested]

I was referring to Avatarreb's point in post#20.

I apologize CMoney, I am trying to read your post #21 again and it would appear you are saying that post #20 is not correct for downtown TO condos (larger than 600 sq. meteres).

As I prefaced, I am not a lawyer and don't claim to have understanding of the building code. I was just trying to point out with my original post that any condo I have bought has given a floor plan. If a builder says a room with no window is a bedroom/den or even a bedroom, I just really don't understand how one can say they were deceived if they initialled the floor plan.

Now, if no plan was provided, and the person was told there were 2 bedrooms, and one of them was what you and I are calling a den, there I would agree more.

Perhaps it is caveat emptor but it seems to me that one would be wilfully bllind saying that they did not know that a builder calling a room with no windows a bedroom knowing this when buying it would be able to claim that the bedroom was not a bedroom. If I was listening to this (again with no legal knowledge) I would say to the purchaser, sorry, you knew there was no window when you bought it. If you wanted to rent it out, you should have done some due diligence before buying.

But I acknowledge, I may be wrong.

 

[CMoney]

Yes I am saying post#20 is not correct. There are different requirements for different types of construction. A residential home has different Code requirements from say a high rise res, or a commercial building, or a senior living building, etc... Article 9.7.1.3 does not apply to buildings that exceed 600 sq.m or exceeding three stories in height.

it seems to me that one would be wilfully bllind saying that they did not know that a builder calling a room with no windows a bedroom knowing this when buying it would be able to claim that the bedroom was not a bedroom.

Wilfully blind? This thread has been active here for over a year and from the content of the comments NO ONE fully understands what exactly a bedroom is. That speaks volumes to my point. You are saying the laymen purchaser should know that legally that room is not a bedroom simply by virtue of the fact that it was not pictured as a legal bedroom as defined by the building code. How is that purchaser supposed to know that fact short of taking an intensive course on the building code or ordering a copy for $100+ and interpreting it correctly. You are setting a standard of knowledge for a LAYMEN that is simply not achievable.

Sellers are entitled to be their own lexicographer but only within the limits of the law. Going beyond that is misleading and perhaps fraudulent. The accepted definition of a bedroom is in the code. Period. Yes the buyer received the goods they initialled but you are not accepting the point that those goods were not labelled correctly. Any builder that is trying to market units such as 1 bed + den as a 2 bedroom are walking a fine line to reap additional profits in my opinion. I tried to search Ontario provincial court cases for an issue like this but so far nothing. Anyone have a specific example where this happened to them?

I would be curious to see what a contract lawyer has to say about this.

 

[CMoney]

A canadian court case: (does not involve a situation between a purchaser and a seller)

Mavrogiannis, Re, 1995 NSUARB 24

[18] On July 5, 1994 Wayne Webber, County Building Inspector, inspected the property and noted a number of deficiencies including a need for more mechanical ventilation and no window in one bedroom. A second bedroom was described as windowless and too small and was not to be used as a bedroom.

 

[interested]

CMoney,
I guess we will have to wait for a case or 2 to see what a court would rule.

As I said, it may be academic since too costly to litigate. And small claims court I would think would hardly be legal precedent and binding on divisional court.