Allegations of ill-treatment following the rejection of a property refurbishment, inadmissible as domestic remedies not exhausted and procedural claims unsubstantiated

Facts

The authors are two Canadian nationals who have lived in Canada since 1975. In 2006 the couple purchased a property in Toronto and refurbished the exterior with a masonry structure without a building permit. Later, the city issued an order to comply notice for the refurbishment, however their appeal to have this thrown out was later denied. 

The authors claim a violation of article 7, 14, 17 and 26 of the Covenant on the basis that their appeal was denied due to their skin colour not being white (and the neighbourhood being predominantly white). The authors further allege that their right to privacy has been violated due to the visits to their home which they consider intrusive and arbitrary, and that the fact that these were conducted in winter raises a violation of article 7.

Admissibility

The Committee found the communication inadmissible on the following basis:

• The authors failed to exhaust domestic remedies for art. 6, 7, 17 and 26. 
• The authors failed to substantiate their claim based on article 14, paragraph 1.