CCPR/C/125/D/2034/2011 attend. The Ontario Municipal Board set a new date for a hearing, on 1 December 2008. Before that hearing, the Board had issued a procedural order, with the parties’ consent, ordering the exchange of all evidence necessary for the hearing before 1 September 2008, in order to decide the applicability of the four-part test included in section 45 of the Planning Act. On 1 December 2008, the hearing took place before the Vice-Chair of the Ontario Municipal Board, but the authors were not able to call their expert witness, who again was not able to attend due to vacation. Moreover, the authors were not able to attach a planning report, as they had not complied with the deadline for the exchange of evidence. During the hearing, the authors’ agent raised several procedural objections, related to the production of evidence and other formal requirements, which the Ontario Municipal Board found “irrelevant”, “technical” and “very circular”. In reaction to the Board’s findings, the authors’ agent asserted that the Vice-Chair of the Board was biased, and asked her to recuse herself, apparently based on her dissatisfaction with the procedural rulings. The Vice-Chair of the Municipal Board denied this request, because she thought she had dealt with the authors’ allegations in a patient and fair manner. The authors and their agent then left the hearing, despite being informed that since the hearing was peremptory, it would proceed regardless of their continued participation. Subsequently, the Ontario Municipal Board heard evidence from the city council’s expert planning witness. On 10 December 2008, the Ontario Municipal Board denied the variances sought by the authors, finding that the addition had been constructed without a building permit, was overbuilt, and extended unacceptably far into the back yard. In the decision, the Board also found that the addition was not consistent with the relevant policies of the city council’s Official Plan or the zoning by-law, and did not represent appropriate land development. 5.4 On 8 April 2009, the Ontario Municipal Board amended the above-mentioned decision, correcting a technical error in the description of the third requested variance, which was not a key concern to the Board. On 29 December 2008, through a “notice of motion”, the authors had sought leave to appeal the Ontario Municipal Board’s decision before the Divisional Court, raising thirty grounds, most of which related to procedural deficiencies and included general reference to infringement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In her oral argument, the authors’ agent claimed that the Ontario Municipal Board had misapprehended the evidence, denied the authors a right to natural justice, and was biased against the authors. On 18 December 2009, the Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal, basing its decision on the fact that the amending order, issued on 8 April 2009, had no impact in any material way on the outcome of the administrative proceedings. With respect to the allegations concerning bias against the authors, the Divisional Court found that they were not adequately and sufficiently substantiated. The authors then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. On 24 March 2010, the Court of Appeal for Ontario transferred the proceeding back to the Divisional Court for reconsideration of the leave motion by a panel of three judges. On 7 January 2011, that panel dismissed the motion to vary the first decision of the Divisional Court, denying leave to appeal. The panel objected to the authors’ accusations against public officials and challenges to their integrity without a minimum of substantiation, affecting the dignity and civility of these procedures. Overall, the panel concluded that the factual error in the description of the addition did not constitute a jurisdictional error or an error of law, that there had been no denial of procedural fairness and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias. This judgment also awarded costs in the amount of Can$7,500 to Toronto City Council, due to the unfounded allegations of misconduct against the council’s planning witness and legal counsel. On 18 July 2011, the authors’ attempt to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario was dismissed. 5.5 In November 2009, and after two orders to comply with the zoning by-law had been issued against the authors, Toronto City Council began municipal prosecution activities. On 23 March 2011, and in the face of divided case law in this area, the City Prosecutor exercised prosecutorial discretion to withdraw the charges. Subsequently, and after the two decisions of the Divisional Court that denied the authors leave to appeal, lawyers for the city council and the Acting Director of Toronto Building wrote letters demanding that the addition be removed. In light of the ongoing non-compliance with the demand letters, the city council issued a “notice of application” in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, dated 5