CCPR/C/125/D/2034/2011 The facts as submitted by the authors 2.1 The authors have lived in Canada since 1975. In June 2006, their children purchased a retirement house in Toronto for the authors, an elderly couple with several medical conditions. The house was a three-storey semi-detached house with a two-storey wooden auxiliary building at its rear and a wall shared with the neighbouring house. The authors decided to refurbish the house and replace the wooden auxiliary building at the rear with a masonry structure (referred to hereinafter as “the addition”), without a building permit having been issued. 2.2 The authors learned from an “order to comply”, issued by the municipal authorities, and posted on the front door of the house in September 2006, that a building permit was required for the addition. Hence, the authors hired an architectural and engineering firm to obtain a permit. The firm wrote to the city council on 18 September 2006. On 15 January 2007, the city council issued a notice of “zoning by-law compliance” in relation to the application filed by the architects on 7 December 2006. On 16 January 2007, the city council issued a notice of “zoning non-compliance” in relation to the same application. Despite the authors’ request to the city council for full disclosure of all relevant documents in the zoning review file, and the Ontario Municipal Board’s order for disclosure requiring the city council to produce all documents, the authors never obtained any documents from the city council. 2.3 On 19 February 2007, the authors’ daughter, as the authorized agent, submitted a minor variance application to the Committee of Adjustment seeking approval of the addition and permission to construct a rear fire escape. A hearing was scheduled for April 2007, but on the day of the hearing, and without prior notice being provided to the authors’ daughter, the Committee of Adjustment granted a request that the city council had made for a deferral, despite the objection of the applicant. The hearing was rescheduled for November 2007. The authors’ daughter then also made a written request for a deferral. The Committee of Adjustment denied it and proceeded to hear the matter in her absence, deciding on 27 November 2007 to reject the application. 2.4 The authors appealed before the Ontario Municipal Board. The appeal was scheduled to be heard in May 2008, and without notice being provided to the authors, the Board granted a request that the city council had made for a deferral. The matter was rescheduled for August 2008, for which the authors’ daughter sought a deferral on the basis of the city council’s incomplete disclosure of documents and requested an order for disclosure from the Ontario Municipal Board. The latter granted that request, making an order for disclosure, and rescheduled the appeal for December 2008. The Ontario Municipal Board issued its decision on 10 December 2008, after a hearing on the substance, carried out in the absence of the authors’ legal representative. It denied the appeal. The authors’ daughter asked for permission to raise concerns about a reasonable apprehension of bias and requested recusal by the sole adjudicator of the Board, which was denied. 2.5 According to the authors, the planning authorities did not consider their special needs in the determination of their right to make variances on account of their health and well-being. The Ontario Municipal Board’s error – misidentifying the minor variances requested – was acknowledged in its decision issued on 8 April 2009, at the ex parte request of the city council, without consulting the authors. However, this decision simply corrected an error in the original decision concerning the third requested variance, and in all other aspects the decision was not further amended. This amending decision was granted at the request of the city council, and in the absence of the authors. The Board gave no reasons for making the correction. 2.6 The authors filed a second motion seeking leave from the Divisional Court to appeal the Ontario Municipal Board’s amending decision. The motion was heard by a single judge of the Divisional Court, who found that the decision was legal and fair, and that there was no error of law casting doubt upon the correctness of the Ontario Municipal Board’s original decision as a whole, because it had given “multiple reasons” for its decision. The authors note that the Court did not take into account the provincial policy statement making it compulsory for authorities deciding on planning issues to meet the housing, health and well-being requirements of people with special needs such as the elderly and persons with 2