FOURTH SESSION Communication No. 17/1977 Submitted by: Z. Z. on \5 November 1977 Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada Date of decision on inadmissibility: 18 July 1978 (fourth session) Unsubstantiated allegations—Racial decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, dated 19 December 1977, dismissing his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is also enclosed. He calls for a new trial, which would be presided over by an im­ partial non-anglophone judge, which would treat him equally before the law and which would take into ac­ count all evidence tendered and the legal arguments sub­ mitted. discrimination Articles of Covenant: 14 (1) and 26 The author of the communication (initial letter dated 15 November 1977 and further information furnished under cover of letters dated 3 January and 3 June 1978) is a 40-year-old Canadian citizen of Yugoslav origin. The author claims to be a victim of systematic discrimination by the courts in Canada, contrary to ar­ ticles 14 and 26 of the Covenant and purports to support his claim by submitting a dossier of court records per­ taining to a civil damage suit brought against him for breach of contract, including the judgement of the County Court of the Judicial District of York, Ontario, rendered in December 1976, and the judgement of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Ontario. The A thorough examination by the Committee of the dossier submitted by the author has not revealed any facts in substantiation of his allegations, and the com­ munication is thus found to be manifestly devoid of any facts requiring further consideration. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: The communication is inadmissible. Communication No. 26/1978 Submitted by: N. S. on 19 January 1978 Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada Date of decision on inadmissibility: 28 July 1978 (fourth session) Non-exhaustion of domestic discrimination remedies—Indian—Racial The author calls for assistance to obtain justice and his reinstatement. He alleges that he is a victim of viola­ tions of articles 2, 7, 14, 17 and 26 of the Covenant. Article of Optional Protocol: 5 (2) (b) The author of the communication (initial letter dated 19 January 1978 with enclosures and further letter dated 25 April 1978) is a 45-year-old Indian citizen residing in Canada, who worked for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Government of Canada, from 19 March 1973 until he was dismissed from his post as a teacher in a pubhc school on 10 December 1976. He claims that he was dismissed because of his race and religion and that he failed in his recourse to the Public Service Staff Relations Board because the Adjudicator was biased, ignored evidence and rendered a decision based on preconceived views. After the expiry of the time-limit for appeal the author applied to the Federal Court of Appeal for an extension of the time to appeal. Extension of time to appeal was not granted and his application was dismissed on 14 November 1977. The author concludes that, accord­ ingly, he has exhausted domestic remedies. Before considering a communication from an in­ dividual who claims to be a victim of a violation of the Covenant, the Committee shall ascertain, under article 5 (2) Ф) of the Optional Protocol that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies. In the present case the author failed to avail himself in time of the remedy of appeal. Further, the communica­ tion does not disclose the existence of any special cir­ cumstances which might have absolved the author, ac­ cording to the generally recognized rules of interna­ tional law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal. He cannot, therefore, be considered to have exhausted the remedies available to him under Canadian law. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: The communication is inadmissible. 19