Is It Normal for a Permit Application to Get Sent Back?

Yes. Receiving examiner comments does not mean your application was rejected. It means the examiner reviewed your package and identified specific items that require clarification, additional information, or revision before approval can be granted. This is the standard examination process — not an exception to it.

The distinction matters because the word “rejected” implies a fundamental problem with the project. In reality, most examiner comments address specific technical details — a missing dimension, a drawing inconsistency, a code reference that needs to be called out explicitly. These are fixable in days, not weeks, if the firm handling the file responds promptly and correctly.

What turns a manageable 2-to-3-round revision process into a months-long delay is not the complexity of the comments — it is the response time and the quality of the revisions. A firm that queues revision requests internally and responds in 3 weeks instead of 3 days adds months to every file it handles.

The Pre-Screen Bounce — When Your Application Never Reaches an Examiner

Before an application enters the examination queue, most GTA municipalities run a pre-screen to verify that the submission is complete. A pre-screen bounce is different from examiner comments — it means the application was turned back before any technical review occurred. The clock resets entirely.

Common pre-screen failure reasons:

Incomplete documentation. Missing application forms, absent engineering, no fee payment, or a drawing set that omits required components (site plan, elevations, cross-sections). Every municipality publishes a submission checklist. Every item on that checklist must be present.

Wrong PDF formatting. Toronto requires a single flattened PDF submitted via its Intake Portal. Mississauga has specific file naming requirements. Vaughan’s ePermits portal has its own upload structure. Submitting in the wrong format — even with complete drawings — can result in a bounce.

Missing municipal-specific forms. Mississauga and Brampton require an Applicable Law Checklist at submission. Burlington requires a Zoning Clearance Certificate. Hamilton requires specific fire safety forms for secondary suite applications. These are not optional and are not waived on the first submission.

Incorrect fees. Permit fees are calculated based on construction value, floor area, or project type depending on the municipality. An incorrect fee calculation results in a bounce. Some municipalities require the fee to be confirmed before submission; others calculate it during pre-screen.

Common Examiner Comments and What They Mean

Missing dimensions. Drawings that show layout without comprehensive dimensioning — room sizes, setback distances, ceiling heights, door and window sizes — will always generate comments. Every drawing must be fully dimensioned, and dimensions must be consistent across all pages of the set.

Structural details not matching architectural. If the architectural drawings show a beam in one location and the structural drawings reference a different location, the examiner flags the inconsistency and cannot approve either page until it is resolved. Coordination between architectural and structural pages is the applicant’s responsibility.

Site plan inconsistencies. Setback dimensions on the site plan that differ from the survey, lot area not stated, north arrow missing, scale not indicated — any of these generates a site plan comment. Site plans must be drawn from a current survey, to scale, with all required annotations.

Zoning non-compliance. If the proposed work does not comply with the applicable zoning bylaw provisions, the examiner will note the specific provisions and the nature of the non-compliance. This may require a design revision to bring the project into compliance, or a committee of adjustment application if a variance is needed.

Engineering not stamped. Structural, mechanical, or plumbing drawings that require a P.Eng. stamp but are submitted unsigned or with an incomplete seal will be flagged. The stamp must be current, the engineer must be licensed in Ontario, and the stamp must appear on every page of the engineering scope.

Fire separation details insufficient for secondary suites. Examiners reviewing secondary suite applications are specifically looking for compliant fire separation details — the assembly specification, the fire rating, the door rating, the fire stopping at all penetrations. Generic drywall notes without assembly specifications will generate comments.

Why Do Some Firms Take Weeks to Respond to Comments?

The answer is almost always a queue. Firms that operate with a single drafter or a small team manage revision requests on a first-in, first-out basis. Your file goes to the back of the line when comments arrive. It comes back to the front when the team gets to it — which may be 2 to 3 weeks later.

Meanwhile, the municipality’s clock is not running. The examiner is waiting for your response. Every day between receiving comments and resubmitting is a day added to your permit timeline — not the municipality’s. The delay is entirely on the applicant’s side.

A firm with sufficient capacity to treat revision responses as time-sensitive — rather than as queue items — compresses the revision cycle from weeks to days. On a file that goes through 3 revision rounds, the difference between a 3-day response and a 3-week response is 18 weeks of unnecessary delay.

How to Avoid the Comment Cycle

Submit a complete package on the first try. The most effective way to reduce revision rounds is to submit a thorough, complete, correctly formatted package on first submission. Every missing item is a guaranteed comment. Every inconsistency is a guaranteed comment. Completeness at submission is not a bonus — it is the baseline.

Respond to comments within days, not weeks. The revision response timeline is the most controllable variable in the permit process. A firm that treats comment responses as urgent — not as queue items — delivers permits faster on every file.

Have engineering integrated from the start. Engineering that is coordinated with the architectural drawings from day one produces fewer inconsistencies than engineering that is added to an existing architectural set after the fact. Coordination is faster and produces a cleaner package.

Know the municipality’s specific expectations. Examiners at different municipalities flag different things. A firm that submits to the same municipality regularly knows which details each examiner looks for — and includes them in the first submission rather than waiting for the comment.

For a full breakdown of what goes into a complete permit package, see our building permit drawings page. General contractors can find information about how we handle revisions on accounts in our For Contractors section. Common permit process questions are answered in our FAQ.