CCPR/C/125/D/2034/2011 their case. The Ontario Municipal Board’s decision was based on the single expert report of one party, violating its own rules of practice and procedure, which allow the adjudicator to grant all exceptions and measures that are required to ensure that the issues are “determined in a just manner”. They further submit that their right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal was violated, because, among other things, the sole adjudicator conducting the hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board did not disqualify herself despite the authors’ perception of reasonable apprehension of bias or prejudice, and because this hearing was affected by outside influence, pressure, and intrusion. As an example of the latter, the authors submit that a group of neighbours and a local councillor wrote letters to oppose the application made by the authors. Moreover, one of the representatives of this group of neighbours directly interacted with the Ontario Municipal Board in a way that showed bias against the authors.1 4.2 The authors also submit that the administrative proceedings were characterized by arbitrariness or manifest error, amounting to denial of justice, such as the issuance of two contradictory compliance orders or the unequal treatment compared with other variances sought by neighbours in the same area. Additionally, the authors submit that the Ontario Municipal Board’s decision of 10 December 2008 applied the tests in the Planning Act for minor variances to manifestly wrong material facts. 4.3 The authors reiterate that the State party has violated the principle of nondiscrimination, in detriment of their position as an elderly couple belonging to an ethnic minority group. They submit that the State party has failed to accommodate their special needs in the application and enforcement of the planning and building legislation, without considering their physical and mental condition. Furthermore, the State party has failed to guarantee the authors equal and effective protection against racial discrimination, as committed by the authors’ neighbours and by public authorities, such as the local councillor or the adjudicator of the Ontario Municipal Board. 4.4 The authors also reiterate their claims under article 17 of the Covenant, because there have been 26 inspections, attempted inspections, searches, or site visits, carried out without the authors’ consent, the proper statutory authorization or a judicial warrant, disrupting the authors’ privacy, family and home. The authors also submit that a potential partial demolition of their dwelling would entail a further violation of article 17 of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 3 October 2011, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication and requested that it should be declared inadmissible on the grounds of abuse of the right to petition, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and failure to substantiate claims. 5.2 The State party notes that the authors continued and finished building the addition despite the initial “order to comply” issued on 6 December 2006. The authors applied for variances, despite the possibility that the Committee of Adjustment might reject the application. The city council’s planning division prepared a report for the Committee of Adjustment recommending that the variance application be rejected because such variances were not minor, nor were they consistent with the general intent of the applicable by-law or the Official Plan. Within these proceedings, a hearing was originally scheduled for 11 April 2007, which was deferred at the request of the authors’ agent, their daughter P.T. The hearing was rescheduled for 21 November 2007. Again, P.T. requested a deferral as she was out of the country. The Committee of Adjustment proceeded with the hearing and Y.F.R.T. gave evidence. On 27 November 2007, and by a unanimous decision, the Committee of Adjustment refused to grant the variances, because they did not meet any part of the four-part test included in section 45 of the Planning Act. 5.3 The authors appealed against the decision of the Committee of Adjustment to the Ontario Municipal Board. Within these proceedings, a hearing was scheduled for 5 August 2008, but neither the authors nor their agent nor their expert land use planner were able to 1 4 The authors provide a copy of the transcription of the hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board.