CCPR/C/125/D/2034/2011 disabilities. This motion seeking leave was dismissed without consideration on the merits. The authors then sought relief from a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside or vary the decision of the single motions judge of the Divisional Court. The panel decided that the motions judge’s decision had not constituted a decline of jurisdiction. The panel did not give any reasons for rejecting the authors’ submissions in relation to the first motion. Moreover, the authors had submitted to the motions judge that there had arisen a reasonable apprehension of bias from the Board, considering the fact that visible minorities faced discrimination in Canada, as was recognized by the case law of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. 2.7 On 1 February 2011, the city council sent a letter to the authors, demanding that the addition be removed, since “the appeal rights respecting the addition’s non-compliance with the zoning by-law have now been exhausted”. In the same letter, the municipal authorities stated that if the removal had not been started before 25 February 2011, the city council would refer the matter to legal counsel to commence proceedings to seek a court order authorizing the city council to carry out the removal at the authors’ expense. The city council intended to enforce a demolition of the addition (representing a substantial part of the authors’ house) in the middle of winter in Canada. On 7 March 2011, the city council began proceedings to enforce partial demolition, by court order, at the authors’ expense. The authors note that this is not a new procedure that could allow for further revision of the substantive decision and does not grant the authors further rights of appeal. Rather, it is just an application made by the municipal authorities to enforce a decision already made. It is simply about the methods and costs of enforcement. The complaint 3.1 In their initial complaint, the authors submit that the State party has violated their rights under articles 7, 14, 17 and 26 of the Covenant. 3.2 The authors claim that the fact that they are non-Caucasians in a generally Caucasian neighbourhood explains why their minor variance applications were rejected, as evidenced by the testimony of S.D.P.T. in which he claimed that his neighbours had launched a “not in my back yard” type of campaign. The neighbours responsible for this campaign had opposed the authors’ application in writing from the beginning, since they wrote to the Committee of Adjustment to oppose the granting of the minor variances and to seek demolition of the addition. This differential treatment afforded to the authors was not based on reasonable and objective criteria, resulting in discrimination. 3.3 The authors also allege a violation of their right to a fair trial, especially in regard to the reasonable apprehension of bias from the Ontario Municipal Board and the fact that its decision was based on the allegations of one party only, without further corroboration of the facts with the evidence available in the file. 3.4 Moreover, the authors claim that the State has violated their right to privacy, and the prohibition on arbitrary or unlawful interference with one’s home, because they consider the inspection visits to their home to be intrusive and arbitrary. 3.5 Finally, the authors claim to have been subjected to inhuman treatment, since these visits and the proceedings in general have affected them physically and mentally. The treatment is also considered to be inhuman with regard to the fact that the demolition is supposed to take place during winter in Canada, when temperatures are extremely low. Additional comments from the authors 4.1 In submissions dated 31 March 2011 and 17 May 2011, the authors insist that the State party has violated article 14 of the Covenant, by denying them access to all documents in the file held by the municipal authorities concerning their claims, in order to prepare and present their case on appeal, which, in contrast, were fully available to the other party. Moreover, they submit that they were arbitrarily denied the right to crossexamine the city council’s zoning examiner whose expertise had been central to the assessment of their case, and who had been summoned to the hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board. The authors also submit that they were denied the right to file crucial evidence, such as an independent expert’s report, which was central to the determination of 3