Article content continued

“A reasonable person would agree that this evidence was crucial because it lends credence to the applicant’s position that his son’s growing of medical marijuana may have been a factor in the bank’s decision to call in the mortgage,” Boswell wrote.

Boswell’s decision came some seven years after Robert McIlvenna of Sudbury applied for a line of credit increase for renovations to the home where his son, his daughter-in-law, and their three children resided.

After the work began, an appraiser attended the premises and learned that the son had a license to grow and consume medical marijuana. The second story addition to the house, he also discovered, was to accommodate the marijuana plants required in the treatment of the son’s disabilities.

Not only did the bank deny the increase, but it demanded immediate repayment of the mortgage because McIlvenna had violated its terms. To accommodate the cannabis, McIlvenna had made extensive renovations to the home, which were 40 per cent complete at the time the bank re-appraised the property. The terms of the mortgage required McIlvenna to keep the property in good condition, inform the bank of planned improvements, provide a plan and not deviate from the plan. The Bank alleged that McIlvenna had breached these conditions, reducing the value of the house by $47,000, or $8,900 less than the balance owing.

McIlvenna countered that the bank had called the mortgage only because “it learned that there is cannabis growing on the property.” He filed a complaint with the commission. In 2012, the commission dismissed the complaint, but ultimately the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the decision and referred the case back to the commission.