CCPR/C/125/D/2034/2011 the State to review the facts and evidence, or the application of domestic legislation, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice, or that the court otherwise violated its obligation of independence and impartiality.4 5.13 Regarding the authors’ allegations under article 17 of the Covenant, the State party submits that none of the visits carried out by public officers involved entry into the authors’ home for purposes of inspection. The authors’ privacy and home were not interfered with in any material way, and every visit was duly authorized by law and was proportionate to the end sought by the Toronto City Council regulatory framework. 5.14 Regarding the authors’ allegations under article 26 of the Covenant, the State party argues that there is no evidence that the size of the property that the authors bought in 2006 (including the addition which existed at the time) was insufficient to meet their needs, or that they could not have built a somewhat smaller addition that would have met their needs while also complying with the applicable zoning requirements. The State party recalls that there is no evidence that other variances requested in the same neighbourhood as the authors, as they submitted, were requested by “Caucasians”. Additionally, in the allegedly similar cases referred to by the authors, the issue at stake was different, such as the maintenance of an existing wooden staircase at the rear of one building that had been built before the current zoning by-law was passed, the approval of an addition that was much smaller than the authors’ addition, or approval for parking spaces. These cases show that each zoning application is considered individually by a quasi-judicial body based on its unique facts, and complying with a zoning regulation which must be implemented in line with the Planning Act, as well as the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Finally, the State party emphasizes that the authors’ allegations about their differential treatment were based on incorrect descriptions of the facts of the communication, in order to give the impression that the variances they were seeking were more minor than they actually were. For example, they suggest that one of the key variances they were requesting was of only 45 centimetres over and above the depth of the previous addition on the house, but in fact their own expert stated that the depth of the house after the addition (23.8 metres) exceeded the allowance under the by-law by 9.8 metres. Their own expert also stated that the depth of the house after the addition extended over 2 metres (not 45 centimetres as claimed) beyond the depth of the original wooden structure, for which a variance was never obtained. Overall, the State party submits that the information provided in this case does not in any way support any distinction based on race, let alone racial discrimination. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 6.1 On 23 January 2012, the authors submitted that the State party had acknowledged that a two-storey structure was a pre-existing feature of the house that they bought, and that many of the houses in the neighbourhood had undergone significant renovations over the years. Moreover, they provided evidence, including an architectural drawing, which supports their claim that the new addition replacing the old addition is exactly 51 centimetres longer and that the State has misquoted the dimensions. 6.2 The authors note the numerous errors that affected the outcome and the merits of the administrative decisions against them. They also note that in their case there was never a full hearing before a higher court after the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, impeding a full revision of the legality of the administrative procedures, in violation of article 14 of the Covenant. 6.3 The authors claim that the national legal proceedings have prevented them from raising any substantive issues beyond the narrow four-test rule of section 45 of the Planning Act, so the State party never addressed whether the variances sought by the authors were necessary to accommodate their special needs as an elderly couple. The authors submit that, by failing to hear or address their allegations, the State party failed to ensure due process, to 4 8 See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 26.