A permit application demonstrating SB-10 compliance in Ontario needs three things: a completed compliance summary form matching your municipality’s current template, a signed and stamped energy modelling report showing your chosen compliance path, and drawings whose HVAC, envelope, and lighting values match that model exactly. Choose your compliance path (prescriptive, ASHRAE 90.1, or NECB 2020 performance) before your design team locks equipment selections. Reviewers reject more submissions over mismatched numbers between the model and drawings than over any single missing document.
TL;DR:
- Choosing the correct SB-10 compliance path early ensures compatibility with your project type and avoids costly rework; prescriptive suited for simple buildings, modelled for larger or unconventional designs.
- Accurate, detailed documentation and matching model inputs with drawings are critical, as reviewers primarily verify traceability and consistency rather than software sophistication.
- Municipal variations in forms and submission requirements demand confirmation of current templates and signatures before modelling to prevent delays and rejections.
- Airtightness testing under NECB 2020 offers a formal credit, but requires upfront planning for testing methods, schedules, and certification, especially for projects pursuing this credit.
- Engaging an experienced engineer early, coordinating model assumptions, and aligning drawings with model inputs lead to faster approvals and fewer resubmissions during municipal review.
Table of Contents
- Which SB-10 Compliance Paths Are Available and When to Use Each
- The Forms, Signatures, and File Types Municipalities Actually Expect
- What Energy Models and Supporting Documentation Reviewers Scrutinize
- How Municipalities Differ and How to Avoid a Resubmission
- A Step-by-Step SB-10 Permit Package Checklist
- FutureGen’s Practical Experience: Common Fixes and When to Bring in a Design Professional
- Why Modelling Quality Matters More Now
- How FutureGen Helps With Permit-Ready SB-10 Deliverables
- Sources
- FAQ
Which SB-10 Compliance Paths Are Available and When to Use Each
Ontario’s Supplementary Standard SB-10 references three broad routes to energy compliance, and choosing wrong early costs weeks later. The path you pick determines what modelling software you need, what your mechanical designer has to document, and how much flexibility you retain if equipment selections change mid-design.
Prescriptive compliance works through fixed tables covering envelope assemblies, HVAC equipment efficiencies, and lighting power densities. It suits smaller Part 9 buildings and straightforward Part 3 projects where the design team is not chasing an unusual envelope assembly or a low-efficiency HVAC configuration. There is no energy model required, which sounds appealing until you realize prescriptive tables offer zero trade-off room. Undersize your wall insulation by a fraction and there is no envelope-versus-glazing trade to fall back on.
Modelled compliance covers two related methods. The Energy Cost Budget (ECB) method, built on ASHRAE 90.1, compares your proposed building’s annual energy cost against a code-reference baseline building with identical geometry. Toronto’s own SB-10 guidance leans on ASHRAE 90.1 and ECB documentation as the expected submission format for buildings that cannot meet prescriptive tables outright. The second modelled route runs through NECB 2020 performance tiers, which layer whole-building energy targets on top of, or instead of, component-by-component prescriptive checks.
The NECB 2020 update matters here because it introduces tiered performance levels and, for the first time, allows whole-building airtightness testing as a formal compliance credit rather than a design afterthought. That single change reshapes how mechanical and building envelope teams need to coordinate from day one.
Practical constraints worth flagging before you commit to a path:
- Buildings with unconventional fuel types (biomass, certain hybrid heat pump configurations) often cannot use simplified prescriptive tables and default to modelled compliance.
- Large mixed-use buildings with varied occupancy schedules almost always require modelled compliance because prescriptive tables assume uniform building types.
- Renovation and addition projects sometimes qualify for hybrid treatment, where existing areas follow one path and new construction follows another; confirm this with the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) before modelling begins.
- Projects straddling the 2024 Ontario Building Code transition dates may need to confirm which code edition governs their specific permit application, since transitional provisions tie code version to application and working-drawing dates.
Pick the path with your mechanical and envelope consultants at the schematic design stage, not after drawings are 90% complete.
The Forms, Signatures, and File Types Municipalities Actually Expect
Every SB-10 permit package hinges on a short list of documents, but which specific form version applies depends on your municipality and your chosen compliance path. Here is what typically has to accompany the permit application.
- The municipal SB-10 compliance summary form. Most Ontario municipalities publish their own version of this form. The City of Mississauga’s SB-10 form is a good example of the localized templates you’ll encounter, and it will not necessarily match what a neighboring municipality requires. Confirm the current version directly with your building department before submission, since outdated templates are one of the more common reasons applications bounce back.
- The prescriptive compliance checklist, when applicable, listing each envelope, HVAC, and lighting value against the SB-10 table it satisfies.
- The ECB or NECB modelling report, stamped by the professional engineer or qualified designer who produced it. This report needs to state the compliance method used, the baseline building assumptions, and the final energy cost or consumption comparison.
- Mechanical and electrical schedules that mirror the equipment efficiencies, capacities, and control strategies fed into the energy model. Reviewers cross-check these line by line.
- Envelope and glazing schedules showing U-values or RSI values and solar heat gain coefficients (SHGC) that match the model’s thermal assumptions, not just nominal manufacturer ratings.
On signatures: the mechanical designer, typically a professional engineer (P.Eng.) practicing in Ontario, signs and stamps the energy modelling report and the mechanical schedules. Some municipalities also want the architect of record to co-sign the SB-10 summary form to confirm the envelope data reflects the issued-for-permit drawing set. The stamp has to appear on the report itself, not just referenced in a cover letter, and it needs to be current and legible on the copy submitted, whether that copy is a scanned PDF or an original wet stamp depending on the municipality’s e-permit rules.
File formats vary by AHJ. Most municipalities accept PDF summaries for the model report and forms, but some, particularly for larger Part 3 buildings, request native energy model files (such as .eQuest, .DOE2, or IES-VE project files) so their own reviewers can verify inputs independently rather than trust the printed summary. Ask the AHJ directly whether native files are expected before you finalize your submission package, since generating and cleaning up a native file for submission after the fact adds unnecessary delay.
What Energy Models and Supporting Documentation Reviewers Scrutinize
Municipal reviewers are not reading your energy model for style. They are checking whether the numbers in the report trace cleanly back to the drawings, the specifications, and the assumptions stated in the model summary. That traceability, more than the sophistication of the software used, determines whether your submission clears review on the first pass.
The primary outputs any modelled compliance report needs to show are the proposed building’s annual energy consumption or cost, the reference baseline building’s equivalent figure, and the resulting percentage improvement or ECB pass/fail result. Some AHJs also request peak demand figures and, less commonly, an estimated carbon dioxide equivalent output, particularly for buildings pursuing additional municipal green building requirements layered on top of SB-10.
The inputs behind those outputs are where reviewers spend their time:
- HVAC system type, capacity, and rated efficiencies (COP, EER, AFUE, or seasonal equivalents) for every piece of equipment serving the building.
- Service water heating system type and efficiency, since SB-10 and NECB 2020 both treat this as a distinct energy end use from space heating.
- Envelope U-values or RSI values for every distinct assembly type, roof, above-grade wall, below-grade wall, and slab, rather than a single blended average.
- Fenestration area, orientation, and SHGC by facade, since a model that lumps all glazing into one average orientation routinely draws reviewer questions.
- Internal loads (occupancy density, plug loads, lighting power density) and the operating schedules tied to each space type.
- Climatic data matched to the correct weather station for the project’s location, since Ontario spans several climate zones and using the wrong weather file skews results.
Airtightness deserves its own attention under NECB 2020, because it introduces whole-building airtightness testing as a formal credit path rather than a prescriptive assumption. If you plan to claim an airtightness credit, your permit package needs a testing plan specifying the test method (typically a blower-door test per an accepted standard), the target air leakage metric, the anticipated testing window during construction, and who is responsible for submitting the results to the AHJ. Waiting until occupancy to think about this test plan is a common and avoidable mistake.
Pro Tip: Build a single model summary table that lists every input value next to its source drawing or specification sheet number. Reviewers who can verify a claim in thirty seconds rarely send it back for clarification; reviewers who have to hunt for it usually do.
Documentation best practice comes down to traceability. Label model thermal zones using the same names as your architectural drawing set, note any simplifications you made when combining spaces into a single zone, and keep a running assumptions log. Mismatched zoning between the model and the drawings, along with vague internal-load assumptions, are recurring sources of reviewer queries that a five-minute naming fix at the modelling stage would have prevented. For projects with complex HVAC distribution, coordinating HVAC design inputs with the energy model from the outset avoids the rework that comes from discovering a mismatch after drawings are issued.
How Municipalities Differ and How to Avoid a Resubmission
Ontario municipalities all operate under the same provincial Building Code, but each sets its own SB-10 form layout, submission checklist, and sometimes its own supplementary energy requirements above the provincial minimum. That variation is the single biggest source of preventable delay in SB-10 submissions.
Why the variation exists is straightforward: SB-10 sets the technical compliance standard, but the summary form that documents compliance is an administrative tool each building department designs for its own workflow. A form built for Mississauga’s e-permit system will not necessarily match Toronto’s expectations, and a template downloaded from a municipal website in 2023 may already be superseded.
Three steps consistently cut down on resubmissions:
- Confirm the current form version directly with the AHJ before modelling starts, not after the report is finished. A quick email or portal check against a stale downloaded template is far cheaper than reformatting a completed submission.
- Run a pre-submission internal check comparing every HVAC, envelope, and lighting value in the model summary against the issued-for-permit drawings, line by line, before the package goes out.
- Coordinate sign-offs early. If both the mechanical engineer and the architect need to sign the SB-10 form, get both signatures lined up before the submission deadline rather than chasing them after the reviewer flags a gap.
File version control matters more than most teams treat it. Name files with a clear revision date and compliance path (for example, “SB10_ECB_Rev3_2026-02.pdf”) so that when a reviewer references “the version you submitted,” everyone on the project team is looking at the same document.
Practice guidance from municipal building departments consistently points to the same conclusion: submissions with well-documented, traceable model assumptions and aligned drawing sets move through review with materially fewer correction cycles than submissions where reviewers have to chase down inconsistencies. Early liaison with the AHJ, even an informal pre-submission conversation, tends to surface municipal quirks before they become formal review comments.
A Step-by-Step SB-10 Permit Package Checklist
Once your compliance path is chosen and modelling is complete, assembling the permit package in the right order saves the reviewer time and saves your team a resubmission cycle. Work through this list before you upload anything to the municipal e-permit portal.
- Confirm you have the current SB-10 compliance summary form for the specific municipality, dated and version checked with the AHJ.
- Attach the signed and stamped energy modelling report (ECB or NECB performance) or the completed prescriptive checklist, whichever path applies.
- Include mechanical and electrical schedules matching every efficiency and capacity value used in the model.
- Include envelope and glazing schedules with U-values, RSI values, and SHGC matching the model’s thermal zone inputs.
- Attach the airtightness testing plan if any airtightness credit is being claimed, naming the test method, target metric, and testing window.
- Confirm architectural drawings reference the same zone names used in the energy model.
- Bundle native model files separately if the AHJ has indicated it wants them, and annotate any proprietary or sensitive input assumptions rather than leaving reviewers to guess at them.
For file naming and order inside the e-permit system, lead with the SB-10 form, follow with the stamped modelling report, then schedules, then supporting drawings, then the airtightness plan. Most portals process documents in the order uploaded, and reviewers appreciate not having to hunt for the summary form buried behind fifteen drawing sheets.
| Package item | Who provides it | When it’s needed |
|---|---|---|
| SB-10 compliance summary form | Mechanical designer / P.Eng. | Every submission |
| Stamped energy model report | P.Eng. (mechanical or energy consultant) | Modelled compliance path only |
| Prescriptive checklist | Mechanical designer | Prescriptive path only |
| Mechanical/electrical schedules | Mechanical/electrical engineer | Every submission |
| Envelope/glazing schedules | Architect or building envelope consultant | Every submission |
| Airtightness testing plan | Energy consultant or mechanical designer | Only when claiming airtightness credit |
Coordinating drawing sets with model inputs is often the weakest link in a rushed submission; the power distribution and mechanical coordination process tends to expose these mismatches earlier when electrical and mechanical teams review drawings jointly rather than in isolation.
FutureGen’s Practical Experience: Common Fixes and When to Bring in a Design Professional
An experienced engineering consulting firm has coordinated mechanical, electrical, and plumbing design packages for commercial and residential projects across Ontario, with SB-10 documentation included in many commercial permit files. That volume surfaces the same handful of fixable problems again and again.
The recurring fixes that prevent reviewer questions before they get asked:
- Aligning HVAC equipment efficiency inputs in the energy model exactly with the specification sheets issued in the mechanical drawing set, rather than using catalog defaults that drift from the actual selected equipment.
- Breaking envelope data into granular assembly types instead of a single blended U-value, since reviewers checking Part 3 buildings routinely ask for facade-by-facade detail anyway.
- Running an informal pre-submission check with the AHJ on form version and expected file formats before the package is finalized, which catches municipal quirks a downloaded template will not reveal.
Energy modelling accuracy and traceable assumptions matter more to reviewers than the sophistication of the modelling software used. A model with well-documented inputs that match the drawing set clears review faster than a technically elaborate model with loose or unexplained assumptions.
This principle shapes how engineering deliverables are structured: signed and stamped modelling reports, coordinated mechanical and electrical inputs, and drawing sets checked against the model before submission rather than after a reviewer comment forces a rework cycle. For projects with unusual HVAC configurations, mixed occupancy, or tight permit timelines, bringing in a design professional who has already coordinated dozens of these submissions across different Ontario municipalities tends to save far more time than it costs.
— Sanjay
Why Modelling Quality Matters More Now
NECB 2020’s performance tiers and its whole-building airtightness testing option changed the calculus for anyone preparing SB-10 submissions in Ontario. Prescriptive compliance still exists, but it is increasingly the exception rather than the default for mid-size and large commercial buildings, because performance tiers reward design flexibility that prescriptive tables simply cannot offer.
For 2026 submissions, three priorities stand above the rest. Get envelope data granular and accurate from the schematic design stage, not as a retrofit before permit submission. Decide early whether airtightness testing fits your construction schedule and budget, since retrofitting a testing plan after drawings are issued is far messier than planning for it upfront. And choose your compliance path before HVAC equipment selections are locked, because switching paths mid-design usually means remodeling from scratch.
The teams that submit clean, first-pass SB-10 packages are the ones that treat energy compliance as a design input from day one, not a documentation exercise tacked onto the end of the drawing process.
How FutureGen Helps With Permit-Ready SB-10 Deliverables
FutureGen Consulting is the direct alternative to piecing together SB-10 compliance documentation from separate consultants who never quite talk to each other. Where a fragmented approach leaves HVAC schedules, envelope data, and the energy model assembled by three different parties who each work from their own assumptions, FutureGen coordinates mechanical, electrical, and modelling inputs under one engineering team from the start.
That coordination shows up directly in the permit process: fewer resubmissions because the model, schedules, and drawings are checked against each other before the package goes out, and faster municipal review because reviewers can trace every input back to its source without chasing clarifications. FutureGen’s HVAC System Design Services cover the equipment selection, load calculations, and P.Eng.-stamped documentation that feed directly into your SB-10 energy model, and the same team can coordinate the mechanical schedules and drawing sets so nothing drifts out of alignment between design and permit submission.
If your project is heading toward a permit application and you need a stamped energy modelling report, coordinated mechanical drawings, or help confirming which compliance path fits your building, consider engaging an experienced engineering firm to scope your SB-10 package before your design timeline tightens.
Sources
Every SB-10 submission should be checked against the current official sources rather than a secondhand summary, since code editions and municipal templates both change over time.
- National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings 2020 – National Research Council Canada
- Ontario
- Ontario Building Code Supplementary Standard SB-10 Form — Mississauga
FAQ
What Is SB-10 in the Ontario Building Code?
SB-10 is the supplementary standard in the Ontario Building Code that sets energy efficiency requirements for buildings, giving applicants a choice between prescriptive compliance tables and modelled compliance methods based on ASHRAE 90.1 or NECB 2020. Which path applies depends on building type, size, and HVAC configuration.
Who Has to Sign the SB-10 Compliance Form?
The mechanical designer, typically a professional engineer licensed in Ontario, signs and stamps the energy modelling report and mechanical schedules. Some municipalities, including Mississauga, also require the architect of record to co-sign the summary form confirming envelope data matches the issued drawings.
Does Every Municipality Use the Same SB-10 Form?
No. Each Ontario municipality publishes its own SB-10 compliance summary template, and the version you need can change over time, so confirming the current form directly with your building department before modelling starts is the safest step.
How Does NECB 2020 Change SB-10 Compliance?
NECB 2020 adds performance tiers above baseline compliance and allows whole-building airtightness testing as a formal credit, giving design teams more flexibility than older prescriptive-only approaches but requiring more detailed model documentation.
What Does FutureGen Charge for SB-10 Energy Modelling Support?
Pricing depends on project scope and building type, so current rates are available directly through FutureGen’s HVAC System Design Services page rather than a fixed published figure.
How Long Does Municipal Review of an SB-10 Submission Typically Take?
Review timelines vary by municipality and building complexity, but submissions with traceable, well-documented model assumptions and drawings that match those assumptions consistently move through review with fewer correction cycles than packages with inconsistent inputs.