Built for building officials & plan examiners

Cleaner submissions in. A record you can verify.

Most review time is not spent deciding. It is spent chasing what is missing and re-establishing what an applicant meant. BlinKode works on both ends of that: the same source for everyone behind the permit, here now, and review of the work against the code, coming soon.

Chief building officialsPlan review supervisorsPlan examinersPermit techniciansInspectors
Book a demoRequest a trial

The evidence

A city audited its own permit process

Toronto's Auditor General published what happens before a technical review even begins. These are the City's findings about the City's process, not our numbers.

38%
of applications were delayed at intake, before an examiner opened the file
~236,000 applications, 2018–2023
21%
reached plan review still missing required documents
detailed review of 58 permit files
36%
of reviewed files were missing the records needed to show the review was done
detailed review of 58 permit files
68%
of plan-review staff said they use no checklist when reviewing plans
Part 9 review policy unchanged since 2003

Source: City of Toronto, Office of the Auditor General, Audit of Intake and Plan Review of Applications for Building Permits (2024). Denominators differ per finding; each is stated above. We cite this audit because it is public, specific and recent, not because Toronto is unusual. BlinKode is built for the people behind every building permit across Canada.

The review desk

What slows a review down

The friction on the regulatory side is mostly inherited from the design side: incomplete packages and undocumented reasoning.

Incomplete packages drive the clarification loop
A missing dimension or an unstated assumption turns a review into correspondence. The queue absorbs the delay long before anyone decides anything on the merits.
Interpretations live in people, not in the record
How a requirement was applied on a past file often sits in an examiner's head. That makes consistency across the office hard to hold, and harder to hand over.
The trail is thin when a file is challenged
On an appeal or a dispute, reconstructing what was reviewed, against which edition, and on what basis is slow work.

Outcomes

What you get

Here now, each with its source.

The original text with what each article points to
The same source for everyone behind the permit
CodeEase to find and cross-reference, never to review
DocHub: your municipality's permit documents, organised and searchable

The fit

What BlinKode brings to the review side

The same cited reference your applicants work from, here now. Review of the work against the code, coming soon.

CodeEaseHere now
One cited reference for the office

The same Master Cards your applicants read: the original text, an explanation, a diagram, a decision chart and the referenced standards. A shared source lets an interpretation be stated once, applied consistently and handed over.

DocHubHere now
Your municipality's documents, organised

DocHub: municipal permit documents, organised and searchable. The forms, checklists, fee schedules, by-laws and bulletins a municipality publishes for a permit, kept as the originals and read in place.

CodiagProComing soon
The whole package, before a file is assigned

Codiag will read a package against the code and name each requirement not met, with its source. When an applicant attaches its report, you can check it against the code rather than take it on faith.

BlinKode does not approve anything. That stays with the building official. BlinKode does not decide. The people who do this work do.

Talk to us about the review side

We are looking for one or two building departments to shape how this works in practice, before we decide what it looks like for everyone else. Book a demo: twenty minutes online, to show it and to hear how your office works.

Book a demoRequest a trial

Free for 30 days, no card. We email you when it is ready.