Federal court | Human Rights Legislation
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Alleged disabilities of applicant’s son played no part in decision to call in mortgage
Applicant sought judicial review of decision of Human Rights Commission. Applicant was retired school teacher. He purchased home and secured mortgage from respondent bank. At later time bank called in mortgage loan under circumstances that led applicant to file complaint to commission against bank. Home was renovated to expand growing of allegedly approved medical marijuana. Commission found that several of terms of mortgage agreement were breached. Commission found that bank’s decision to call in mortgage was not based on prohibited ground of discrimination but was based on breach of contract. Commission concluded it was plain and obvious that there was no prima facie case of discrimination and applicant’s complaint against bank was dismissed. Application dismissed. Applicable standard of review was reasonableness. Parties had ample opportunities to make submissions. Decision was reasonable. Bank was made aware that changes made and proposed to be made were to accommodate growing of allegedly approved medical marijuana, but changes were substantial and were made without consent of bank. Changes had effect of considerably reducing value of property. Alleged disabilities of applicant’s son played no part in bank’s decision to call in mortgage. It was reasonable for commission to conclude that there was no discrimination against applicant.
McIlvenna v. Bank of Nova Scotia (Jun. 18, 2013, F.C., Roger T. Hughes J., File No. T-841-12) 229 A.C.W.S. (3d) 826.
Alleged disabilities of applicant’s son played no part in decision to call in mortgage
Applicant sought judicial review of decision of Human Rights Commission. Applicant was retired school teacher. He purchased home and secured mortgage from respondent bank. At later time bank called in mortgage loan under circumstances that led applicant to file complaint to commission against bank. Home was renovated to expand growing of allegedly approved medical marijuana. Commission found that several of terms of mortgage agreement were breached. Commission found that bank’s decision to call in mortgage was not based on prohibited ground of discrimination but was based on breach of contract. Commission concluded it was plain and obvious that there was no prima facie case of discrimination and applicant’s complaint against bank was dismissed. Application dismissed. Applicable standard of review was reasonableness. Parties had ample opportunities to make submissions. Decision was reasonable. Bank was made aware that changes made and proposed to be made were to accommodate growing of allegedly approved medical marijuana, but changes were substantial and were made without consent of bank. Changes had effect of considerably reducing value of property. Alleged disabilities of applicant’s son played no part in bank’s decision to call in mortgage. It was reasonable for commission to conclude that there was no discrimination against applicant.
McIlvenna v. Bank of Nova Scotia (Jun. 18, 2013, F.C., Roger T. Hughes J., File No. T-841-12) 229 A.C.W.S. (3d) 826.
