WPC  #c O .Tk+ NiF5A] .ɣ] v TY&N5*n> e^c`zbDy6$x $`w巠oPyI j)j\cPc^ϗR"[~-?,r1!58KȏJ s \q)vRRxb^K4ހܒ$G_*XBi$p&UqX1#vrȡQ#L-zy7fE6&,NbÃFk.ZŁZg xrKG˯LՒsn-]>'4)DO':%fMO3CzEQuLkR _vuu-w]>,lW"ۖxTt\͵ >ኤN\2'Aiqև}xTLToR U>P 0N 0< 0i? 0n 0(? D+g AM  0 #! UN % M ( NF ^ H w4T 4  m \  `&Times New Roman' Lacika v. Canada, Communication No. 638/1995, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/55/D/638/1995 (1995).(38/1995 (1995)."Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , 4Heading 3 S p^S   XXX p^S<:Default Para< :Normal (Web) S =jS =jSӁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(26E$  !..      X+XXXX+XXX+  ($'dxd A<< c#|x($..      X\XXXX\XXX\HP LaserJet 4000 Series PS0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX=;) E [ D[D[as()+00U  !..      X+XXXX+XXX+  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  _Lacika_Ԁv.Canada  CommunicationNo.638/19953November1995_CCPR_/C/55/D/638/1995ADMISSIBILITY  $  Submittedby:Edward_Lacika_   Allegedvictim:Theauthor p Stateparty:Canada H Dateofcommunication:13September1993  p   TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenanton 4 CivilandPoliticalRights,Meetingon3November1995,  Adoptsthefollowing:    Decisiononadmissibility  D!  4  ?+4 44 <DL!X?  1.TheauthorofthecommunicationisEdward_Lacika_,aCanadiancitizen,currentlyresidinginOntario.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyCanadaofarticles14and26oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.  Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor:   '#& 2.1In1989,theauthorandhiswifeenteredintoapurchaseandsaleagreementwithaconstructioncompany,GeraniumHomes(Cobourg)Ltd.Byconsentofbothparties,theclosingdateoftheofferwas15September1989.Onthesaiddate,theauthorinformedhislawyerthathewasnotgoingto_honour_Ԁtheagreement,sincethehousewasbuilttosubstandardworkmanshipspecifications.Theauthorhadcommissionedtworeportsfrom @-(, twobuildinginspectionfirms.ThecontractorinturnhadobtainedthecorrespondingOccupancyPermitfromtheBuildingInspectorofCobourg,aswellasanapprovedinspectioncarriedoutbytheNewHomeWarrantyProgram.2.2On19September1989,aletterfromthecontractorinformedtheauthor'slawyerthatthecontracthadbeenterminatedandthattheauthorhadforfeitedhisdeposit.2.3Theauthorrequestedahearingbeforeatribunal(TheCommercialRegistrationAppealTribunal)onthebasisofthedamagestheinspectionscarriedoutbytheNewHomeWarrantyProgram(8September1989)andtheBuildingInspectorofCobourg(13September1989),hadcausedhim.Heallegedthattheinspectionsweremanipulatedanddidnotrevealfourbreachesofthebuildingcodeandtwentythreeotherdeficienciesinthehouseinterior,thatthewaterserviceswerenotconnected,etc.Thissubstandardworkmanshipwascriticizedinthereportstheauthorhadcommissionedfromtheindependentfirms.Inthisrespect,hestatesthatthetestimonypresentedbytherepresentativeoftheNewHomeProgramMr._P.L._,duringthehearingheldon18January1991,wascontradictory.Theauthor'sclaimwasfortheforfeiteddepositandvariousdamages,amountingtoasumtotalofthirtyfourthousandsixhundredandsixtythreedollars.2.4Thehearingwasheldon19January1990,andtheDecisionandOrdertodismisstheclaimwereissuedon28March1990.TheappealwasheardanddismissedbytheDivisionalCourton18January1991;noorderastocostswasissued.Theappealdidnotdealwiththeallegationofdiscriminatorytreatment;amotionhearingforleavewasheldanddismissedbytheAppealCourtofOntario,on27May1991,withnocostsorreasonsgiven.On20February1992,theSupremeCourtofCanadadismissedamotionforextensionoftimeandanapplicationforleavetoappeal;withoutgivingreasons.    Thecomplaint  :    3.Theauthorallegesthatthehearingsinhiscasewerebiased.Inthisrespect,hesubmitsthattherespondents'lawyerswerenotevenpresent,allegedlybecausetheyknewthatnoquestionsweregoingtobeputtothem.Theauthorfurtherallegesthatthedismissalofhisrequestforanondiscriminatoryhearingwasaviolationofhisrights,whichshowsthattheSupremeCourtofOntarioandtheSupremeCourtofCanadahavenointerestinprotectinghumanrights;theirattitudeissaidtoviolatearticles14and26oftheCovenant.IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee: %0!$ 4.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRightsCommitteemust,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornotitisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.4.2TheCommitteeobservesthattheallegationsofdiscriminationandbiasonthepartoftheCanadiancourtshavenotbeensubstantiatedforpurposesofadmissibility:theyremainblanketallegationsanddonotinanywayrevealhowtheauthor'srightsunderarticles14and @-(, 26oftheCovenantmighthavebeenviolated.Therefore,theCommitteeconcludesthattheauthorhasfailedtoadvanceaclaimwithinthemeaningofarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.5.TheHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecides:(a)thatthecommunicationisinadmissible;(b)thatthisdecisionshallbecommunicatedtotheauthorand,forinformation,totheStateparty.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlytobeissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartoftheCommittee'sannualreporttotheGeneralAssembly.]__