McIlvenna v. Bank of Nova Scotia, (2013) 432 F.T.R. 311 (FC)

• Judge: Hughes, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 17, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 432 F.T.R. 311 (FC);2013 FC 678

McIlvenna v. BNS (2013), 432 F.T.R. 311 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.051

Robert McIlvenna (applicant) v. Bank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank)

(respondent)

(T-841-12; 2013 FC 678; 2013 CF 678)

Indexed As: McIlvenna v. Bank of Nova Scotia

Federal Court

Hughes, J.

June 18, 2013.

Summary:

McIlvenna claimed that the Bank of Nova Scotia called in a mortgage loan on his house because there was cannabis growing on the property. McIlvenna filed a discrimination complaint, alleging that the bank's actions were discriminatory against people with a disability (his son), where such disability required the medicinal use and growing of cannabis. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint. McIlvenna applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 902

Discrimination - General principles - Discrimination defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7114 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7114

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Investigation of complaint (incl. report) - A bank called in a mortgage on the applicant's house because there was cannabis growing on the property - The applicant alleged discrimination because his son's disability required the medicinal use and growing of cannabis - The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint, holding that it was not linked to a ground of discrimination since the bank was enforcing its contractual rights - The applicant applied for judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The decision was not made on the basis of the complaint alone - An initial investigation was conducted, with submissions from both parties - A report was prepared - The parties responded - The decision was based on the report and responses - It was reasonable for the Commission to conclude that the bank was enforcing contractual rights and there was no discrimination - See paragraphs 12 to 23.

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review - Standard of review - A bank called in a mortgage loan on the applicant's house because there was cannabis growing on the property - The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of his son's disability (i.e., where such disability required the medicinal use and growing of cannabis) - The Canadian Human Rights Commission, after an initial investigation and considering the report, dismissed the complaint, holding that the complaint was not linked to a ground of discrimination since the bank was enforcing its contractual rights under the mortgage agreement - The applicant applied for judicial review - The Federal Court held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness - See paragraph 11.

Cases Noticed:

Hartjes v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 334 F.T.R. 277; 2008 FC 830, refd to. [para. 11].

Boiko v. National Research Council (2010), 362 F.T.R. 258; 2010 FC 110, refd to. [para. 11].

Valookaran v. Royal Bank of Canada (2011), 386 F.T.R. 136; 2011 FC 276, refd to. [para. 16].

Michon-Hamelin v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 869; 2007 FC 1258, refd to. [para. 18].

Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 879; 100 N.R. 241; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 20].

Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854; 204 N.R. 1; 140 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 20].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, sect. 41(1)(c) [para. 13].

Counsel:

Andrew Astritis, for the applicant;

George G. Vuicic and Cheryl A. Waram, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Hicks Morley, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Ottawa, Ontario, on June 17, 2013, before Hughes, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on June 18, 2013.