CCPR/C/125/D/2034/2011 proceedings. Contrary to the authors’ statements, there is a significant difference in size between the previous addition and the one that is the subject of the present communication. Specifically, there is a difference in built depth of about 2.4 metres (not 51 centimetres as alleged), which is readily apparent from the photos available in the records. These developments reinforce the arguments that the communication is inadmissible both for nonsubstantiation and for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Domestic remedies should be pursued with due diligence, as stated by the Committee. 7 Additionally, the State party recalls that the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies, as should be clear from this new information, given that the illegal addition is still standing and is once again back at the initial stages of the land use planning process and subject to review before the administrative and ordinary justice systems. 7.2 According to the new information provided, the present communication should be found an abuse of the right of submission. According to the State party, the authors have provided wrong information to the Committee, attempting to understate the depth of the addition in question relative to the previous structure, and have failed to inform the Committee of key developments, including the consent order agreed to just before the authors’ supplemental submission on 17 January 2012. P.T.’s consent to the order of removal described above strongly suggests that the present communication does not disclose any serious claims of violations under any of the articles of the Covenant, and the new opportunities for access to justice suggest that the authors do not in fact have any serious concerns about the fairness of the process. 7.3 Regarding the merits of the communication, the State party submits that the authors have chosen to demolish the old addition to their house and build a new one, losing the benefit of the “legal non-conforming use” applicable to cases where structures are in place prior to the zoning by-law coming into force. In the present case, even with an addition the same size as the old one, the home would have exceeded the maximum depth permissible under the zoning by-law by 60 per cent. If the city council’s planning division were to acquiesce to the proposal of new structures simply because they were the same size as structures that had been there previously, this would perpetuate non-compliance with the zoning by-law. The State party reiterates its initial submission to the effect that while property owners may be able to obtain minor variances in some cases through administrative procedures, these are based on an individualized consideration of the facts of each case which takes into account whether the proposed addition is consistent with the intent behind the applicable zoning by-law. From the authors 8.1 On 24 August 2012, the authors submitted additional comments, informing the Committee that they were no longer represented by counsel. 8.2 On 12 January 2015, the authors submitted that, on 16 December 2013, they had finally obtained a zoning approval and a building permit. However, they claim that the State party is attempting to inspect the addition, and has filed several requests for judicial orders to enter the house and inspect the two-storey addition to ensure that the construction and use of the building are in conformity with the building permit issued. The authors also inform the Committee that these judicial orders are currently under appeal. 8.3 The authors provided a copy of the judgment of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, dated 7 August 2015, concluding that Toronto City Council is entitled to carry out an inspection of the property in order to satisfy itself that construction has been carried out in compliance with the Building Code and the permit plan. Moreover, the judgment ordered the authors to provide the permit plan, to describe the construction performed, and in the event of non-compliance with the previous orders, to authorize the city council to uncover such portions of the construction that are relevant for the pertinent inspection. 8.4 On 28 and 29 July 2016, the authors claimed that Toronto City Council had taken action, since 27 July 2016, to carry out the enforcement orders for forced inspections and 7 10 Human Rights Committee, A.P.A. v. Spain, communication No. 433/1990, para. 6.2; and Vargay v. Canada (CCPR/C/96/D/1639/2007), para. 7.3.