Miles v. The Landlords (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 19
Date Issued: January 28, 2025
File: CS-001030
Indexed as: Miles v. The Landlords (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 19
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Julian Miles
COMPLAINANT
AND:
The Landlords
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi
On their own behalf: Julian Miles
Counsel for the Respondents: Corey J. Bow, Daniel Shim, Articling Student
Date of Hearing: February 5 – 8, 2024
Location of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Julian Miles was a tenant in a basement suite of a building owned and occupied by the Landlords. Mr. Miles alleges the Landlords discriminated against him on the basis of his mental and physical disability contrary to s. 10 of the Human Rights Code because they did not allow him to smoke marijuana inside the building and ended the tenancy. Mr. Miles says that he has mental and physical disabilities that he treats by smoking marijuana.
[2] The Landlords deny discriminating. They dispute that Mr. Miles has a disability-related need to smoke marijuana. They say they did not stop Mr. Miles from using marijuana and only requested he not smoke inside or near the house because the smoke impacted the health of their son, who has asthma. They also say they ended the tenancy for non-discriminatory reasons because the Landlords’ family member was moving into the rental unit.
[3] In this decision I must decide whether Mr. Miles has established, on a balance of probabilities, that he has a disability-related need to smoke marijuana and was adversely impacted in tenancy.
[4] The parties called witnesses and introduced evidence over the course of a four-day hearing. The parties subsequently provided closing submissions in writing. While I do not refer to it all in my decision, I have considered all of the evidence and submissions of the parties. This is not a complete recitation of that information, but only what is necessary to come to a decision.
[5] For the reasons that follow, I find that Mr. Miles has not established that he has a disability-related need to smoke marijuana. Therefore, Mr. Miles has not established a breach of the Code, and I dismiss the complaint.
II PRELIMINARY ISSUE – PUBLICATION BAN
[6] On January 8, 2024, the Tribunal ordered that the Tribunal will not publish the names or identifying information of the Landlords or their children in any material or decisions it publishes.
[7] At the hearing, the Landlords asked that the Tribunal’s order be expanded so that no one publish the names of the Landlords or their children. I heard from the parties, and I found it appropriate to do so. Therefore, I ordered that no person shall publish the names or identifying information of the Landlords or their children in any materials until the publication of the Tribunal’s Final Decision.
[8] I said the Landlords are at liberty to make an application extending the publication ban permanently with their closing submissions. The Landlords have done so requesting a permanent extension of the publication ban. Mr. Miles opposes the extension.
[9] In my view, the circumstances that gave rise to the publication ban have not changed. This is a complaint that arises from Mr. Miles’ tenancy at a place where the Landlords and their minor children continue to reside.
[10] Rule 5(7) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure is clear that privacy interests of minors outweigh the public interest in access to the Tribunal’s proceedings. I find that naming the children in this case would impact their privacy interests, involving their place of residence and home life. Similarly, naming the Landlords could serve to identify the children through association.
[11] I find that extending the publication ban of the Landlords’ and their children’s names and identifying information has a minimal impact on the openness of the proceedings. The public can understand the nature of the complaint, the parties’ arguments, and my decision without knowing the identities of the Landlords and their children.
[12] For these reasons, I allow the extension of the publication ban order and order that no person shall publish the names or identifying information of the Landlords or their children in any materials.
III BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE
[13] Mr. Miles was a tenant in the basement suite of a single detached house. The Landlords purchased the property in 2013 and became Mr. Miles’ landlords. The Landlords reside in the main level of the house. At the time they moved in they had two children under three years of age. A third child was born in 2017.
[14] Mr. Miles says he is a person with physical and mental disabilities and smokes marijuana for medical reasons. He says that on December 21, 2018, he and the Landlords argued about a party Mr. Miles wanted to host where his guests would be smoking marijuana. During this conversation Mr. Miles shared with the Landlords that he had a prescription to purchase and use medical marijuana. The Landlords allowed Mr. Miles to host his party and smoke marijuana but asked that he and his friends smoke outside the building.
[15] The parties agree that the relationship between the Landlords and Mr. Miles deteriorated after December 21, 2018. They say there were numerous arguments and confrontations over the following weeks.
[16] The Landlords issued a Notice to End Tenancy for Landlord’s Use on January 23, 2019. On February 8, 2019, Mr. Miles sent a letter to the Landlords stating he found a new place to live and would be moving out early. The tenancy ended on February 16, 2019, in accordance with the Notices.
IV ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[17] To prove discrimination, Mr. Miles must establish that: (1) he has a protected characteristic, in this case a mental and physical disability; (2) he experienced an adverse impact in his tenancy; and (3) his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. BC (Education) , 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.
[18] Because Mr. Miles asserts that smoking marijuana is treatment for his disabilities, he must also establish that he had a disability-related need to smoke marijuana.
[19] For the reasons that follow I find that Mr. Miles has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that his consumption of marijuana is connected to his disability. Therefore, I find Mr. Miles has not made out a prima facie case of discrimination.
[20] First, the Landlords dispute that Mr. Miles presented sufficient evidence at the hearing to prove that he has disabilities within the meaning of the Code .
[21] Disability is not defined in the Code and whether a complainant has established this element is determined on a case-by-case basis. The Tribunal interprets the term broadly to better achieve the purposes of the Code : British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk , 2017 SCC 62 at para. 31. The Tribunal considers “the individual’s physical or mental impairment, if any; the functional limitations, if any, which result from that impairment; and the social, legislative or other response to that impairment and/or limitations”, with the focus being on the third element: Morris v. BC Rail , 2003 BCHRT 14 at para. 214. Medical evidence is not required in order for a person to prove they have a mental disability; however, some evidence will need to be provided to prove the existence of an impairment, disorder, or illness: Gichuru v. Purewal , 2017 BCHRT 19 at para. 275.
[22] Mr. Miles says he is a person with depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), migraines, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and autism. I note that Mr. Miles stated he is not alleging a disability-related need to smoke marijuana because of autism and therefore it is not necessary to consider whether Mr. Miles has autism.
[23] The Landlords say Mr. Miles has provided little evidence in support of having disabilities.
[24] I find that Mr. Miles has not established that he has a disability protected by the Code .
[25] Mr. Miles has provided little evidence about his disabilities. He says he was diagnosed by a psychologist as having depression, OCD, and anxiety in 2007. Mr. Miles did not provide any documentary evidence of this diagnosis. Mr. Miles did not provide any evidence about experiencing migraines and says in his closing submissions that he does not currently experience migraines. He says he self-diagnosed himself with PTSD and believes he has PTSD because he has had traumatic experiences in his life. The only documentary evidence from a health professional that supports that Mr. Miles has a disability is a letter from a psychologist dated November 13, 2023, stating Mr. Miles met the diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder.
[26] I also heard from Mr. Miles’ family friend and partner. They both testified that Mr. Miles appeared to have “lots of emotions.” However, I place little weight on this evidence because they are lay witnesses who provided subjective observations of their interactions with Mr. Miles. I find this is an insufficient basis to establish a disability.
[27] Even if I had found that Mr. Miles has a disability under the Code , there is little evidence before me to support Mr. Miles’ assertion that his smoking marijuana is related to a disability.
[28] Mr. Miles says that in September of 2018, he had a phone call with a nurse practitioner in Ontario and opened a customer account with a dispensary in Alberta. Mr. Miles submitted the registration document dated September 5, 2018, which shows the name of the nurse practitioner and a daily dosage of 2.0g of marijuana.
[29] The Landlords argue, and I am persuaded, that the evidence that Mr. Miles registered to purchase marijuana through a dispensary is not necessarily evidence of a disability or disability related need to smoke marijuana. There is no indication of what symptoms the dosage of marijuana is intended to treat or what disability, if any, Mr. Miles has been diagnosed with. While Mr. Miles testified that the nurse practitioner prescribed him medical marijuana to treat his anxiety and depression, there is nothing to support Mr. Miles’ assertion.
[30] Mr. Miles’ evidence is that other than a phone conversation with a nurse practitioner for the purpose of registering with a dispensary, he self-medicated without the supervision or guidance of a medical professional. Mr. Miles testified that he smoked regularly and increased his consumption in 2018. He testified that he increased his daily dosage to about 4.0g without consulting a medical practitioner and would regularly smoke when he felt like it. He said that he had been prescribed anti-anxiety and anti-depression medication but found that smoking marijuana helped him more than medication and “made life better.” Mr. Miles said he smokes marijuana to manage symptoms of depression and anxiety, but he also testified that he smokes recreationally because he enjoys the feeling.
[31] I find the evidence about the impact marijuana has on Mr. Miles’ disabilities and quality of life is too vague to prove that smoking marijuana is related to his disability. While I appreciate that Mr. Miles enjoys smoking marijuana and believes he derives some health benefits from smoking, the subjective evidence of how Mr. Miles feels when smoking is insufficient to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Miles has a disability-related need to smoke marijuana. Similarly, I find the subjective observations of Mr. Miles’ partner who testified that Mr. Miles appeared more relaxed and in a better mood when using marijuana to not be determinative. There are many substances that can make a person experience pleasure or temporarily alleviate feelings of depression or anxiety. This does not mean that they are necessary to treat a disability.
[32] I find Mr. Miles has not established that he has a disability-related need to smoke marijuana. Therefore, he has not met his evidentiary burden, and I dismiss the complaint under s. 37(1) of the Code .
V CONCLUSION
[33] Based on all the evidence, I do not find the Landlords breached the Code and discriminated against Mr. Miles. Accordingly, I dismiss the complaint.
Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member