CCPR/C/125/D/2034/2011 met the requirements of article 14 (1) of the Covenant.2 Since Canadian domestic bodies have already dealt with the claims and evidence now before the Committee, the State party recalls that it is not the role of the Committee to re-evaluate the facts and evidence unless it is manifest that the domestic tribunal’s evaluation was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 3 The authors have argued that their right to equality of arms at the Ontario Municipal Board was violated because they were denied disclosure, cross-examination of the city council’s expert witness and the possibility of filing their own expert report. The State party submits that the Ontario Municipal Board quashed the summons of the city council’s zoning examiner because the evidence that the authors sought to introduce related to non-binding rulings that were irrelevant. Moreover, the Ontario Municipal Board issued a “production order” that required each party to produce an “affidavit of documents” setting out the documents that each party intended to rely upon at the hearing. At the end, however, the authors failed to abide by their disclosure obligations, as they failed to provide the city council with their own expert report, failing also to comply with the procedural regulations before the Ontario Municipal Board. 5.10 Concerning the authors’ allegations that they were denied the possibility of crossexamining the city council’s expert witness, the State party challenges the representation of what actually occurred. Rather than cross-examine the city council’s expert witness, the authors chose to leave the Ontario Municipal Board’s hearing, waving their right to scrutinize the expert witness’s statement. The State party submits that the Ontario Municipal Board treated the authors’ application as it would treat the application of any other party who left a duly convened hearing without a sound reason and having failed to present any evidence. 5.11 The State party submits that domestic venues addressed the procedural issues raised by the authors in a fair and reasonable manner. Moreover, the Vice-Chair of the Ontario Municipal Board was not “openly hostile”, but instead was patient, spending a whole hearing to consider the procedural requests that had been brought with no notice. Furthermore, the State party challenges the allegation that the Ontario Municipal Board’s decision was affected by direct influence, pressure and intrusion from outside parties and by political interference. Indeed, the records of the Board’s decision show that it was based on the merits and not on opposition by some neighbours and a city councillor to the variances, or because the city council sent lawyers to support the decision of the Committee of Adjustment, which is a regular occurrence. Overall, the allegations of discrimination or of particular animosity against the authors, as visibly belonging to an ethnic minority, were manifestly ill-founded, as confirmed by the decisions of the Divisional Court. 5.12 Furthermore, the State party submits that the administrative proceedings were based on appropriate factual foundations and did not amount to a manifest error. It challenges the alleged contradiction between the notices to comply of 15 and 16 January 2007. While the first notice may have contained some administrative errors, it did not amount to a violation of article 14 (1). The second notice was complete and was designed to assist the applicants in determining what steps to take in respect of their building project, which at that time was under construction. Moreover, the authors have alleged that the Ontario Municipal Board’s decision was arbitrary, on the basis that the Board has approved other larger variances. The State party submits that every application for a variance is considered on its own unique facts. Indeed, according to a review of the records of Toronto City Council going back to 1954, no approval has ever been given in the Harbord Village Heritage Conservation district to build an addition as large as the one built by the authors. The city council’s expert planner explained that the depth of the houses on the block in question is generally uniform, and that none of the houses (with additions included) extends as deep as the authors’ house. Finally, the State party submits that even if the Ontario Municipal Board made a mistake regarding the description of one of the variances sought by the authors, which was later amended at the request of Toronto City Council, this error would not have affected the outcome, as confirmed by the decision of the Divisional Court. The State party also recalls the jurisprudence of the Committee, according to which it is for the courts of 2 3 Human Rights Committee, Y.L. v. Canada, communication No. 112/1981. Van Den Hemel v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/84/D/1185/2003), para. 6.5. 7