CCPR/C/125/D/2034/2011 fulfil its duty of care in respect of elderly people from a racially distinct origin (whose first language is Chinese), with special needs, to allow them the opportunity to present their case. The authors allege arbitrariness in the application of zoning by-laws and in the enforcement of the law on building permits.5 This arbitrariness is informed by a discriminatory motive, relating to their status as non-Caucasians in a neighbourhood that has no other visible minority. The family names of the neighbours who have been remonstrating about them are all of Caucasian origin, which further reinforces this argument. 6.4 The authors reiterate their allegations based on article 7 of the Covenant and provide medical evidence that supports the assertion that the visits by building inspectors have caused them physical and mental suffering that escalated into a heart condition and a transient ischemic attack.6 These medical conditions are not merely a collateral effect of suffering, but are directly attributable to the State party’s conduct. Finally, the inhuman treatment is exacerbated by the potential for demolition of the addition, which would effectively leave the authors homeless, as they would have to be evicted from the house in order for this to be carried out. Moreover, it would affect the entire structure of the house, and it would release asbestos which would make the rest of the house inhabitable. 6.5 Finally, concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the authors submit that there were no remedies available allowing them to raise their allegations of human rights violations, as the main proceedings were administrative in nature and were focused on a specific request for a building permit. Moreover, they submit that additional human rights remedies are not available to normal citizens, according to the standards of access to justice in the practice of Canadian constitutional law. Additional observations From the State party 7.1 In its observations of 28 June 2012, the State party informed the Committee of two new events reinforcing its allegations. In the first place, P.T., the new property owner of the house where the authors live, consented, on 16 January 2012, to an order contained in a judgment of the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice requiring the demolition of the addition. The State party informed the Committee that, pursuant to that judgment, the demolition would not be executed until P.T. had had a further opportunity to make an application for variances. Within this judicial proceeding, P.T. had the opportunity to present her evidence and cross-examine the other party’s witness, and prepared and served legal materials in opposition to the relief sought by the city council. Although she raised the issue of her parents’ health and age as an equitable consideration, no human rights claims were made in this proceeding or in any other domestic proceedings, despite the opportunity to do so. In exchange for P.T.’s consent to the relief sought by Toronto City Council, this judgment orders that the removal of the illegal addition must not be executed until P.T. has had a second opportunity to apply to the Committee of Adjustment to seek approval for the variances. Moreover, if the second application for variances is not granted by this committee, the judgment to which P.T. consented preserves her right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board and, eventually, to seek a second leave to appeal to the Ontario Superior Court. Furthermore, the State party informs the Committee that, on 8 February 2012, P.T. initiated a new proceeding for approval of the requested variances, albeit essentially the same requests formerly made by the authors. These requests do not match the consent given by P.T. in the above-mentioned judgment, where she represented her intention to seek variances either to legalize some portion of the addition built at the rear of the house (with the remaining portion not legalized to be removed), or alternatively, to authorize some new structure. Hence, P.T. has chosen to relitigate in regard to the same structure that is already in place and that was the subject of the previous administrative 5 6 The authors include, with their submission, mention of other cases of properties in the same street that were allowed “grosser” variances than those requested for their addition, and note that some of those variances were requested by the very neighbours who opposed the authors’ application. Medical report issued by Dr. Michael Ho on 10 October 2011; hospital records – “general internal medicine discharge summary”, dated 26 January 2011; medical report issued by the Mayo Clinic on 31 August 2011; and neurologist’s report dated 16 December 2011. 9