North Thompson woman refused home insurance over cannabis plants loses human rights case
A North Thompson woman has lost a legal battle against more than a dozen insurance companies after she was refused coverage because she grew medical cannabis on her property.
According to a May 2 BC Human Rights Tribunal decision, former Interior Health nurse Dr. Lorelei Rogers was granted a Health Canada licence to grow up to 49 medical marijuana plants in 2018, but when she told her insurance company about it, they cancelled her insurance.
The decision said she then approached 14 insurance companies and told them she had been prescribed medical cannabis and was growing the plants but none would cover her, without a steep increase in cost.
In 2019, Rogers launched a BC Human Rights Tribunal case against Canadian Northern Shield, BCAA, Echelon Insurance, Family Insurance Solutions, Mutual Fire, Intact Insurance, Elite Insurance, Peace Hills General Insurance and Aviva Canada. She claimed the companies had discriminated against her based on her disability.
In what the Tribunal described as a "complex hearing" the companies submitted evidence from 23 witnesses and Rogers cross-examined 14 of them.
Rogers argued the insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to cross-examine her, but the Tribunal dismissed her request.
The decision said Rogers worked as a nurse for more than 20 years but stopped in 2014 due to her health.
She also has another Human Rights Tribunal case moving through the system where she claims her mental health issues were caused by a "toxic and unsafe workplace."
In 2016, she was prescribed medical cannabis and got a licence from Health Canada to grow up to 49 plants for personal use in 2018.
It was then that her insurance went from $880 a year to between $6,000 and $8,000.
The decision said she was growing the plants in a shed on her rural property.
However, faced with the steep increase in costs, instead of paying the premiums she got rid of her plants.
The insurance companies argued she could still grow up to four plants for herself, without it affecting her insurance, so therefore they weren't discriminated against her.
READ MORE: Thailand vows to tighten control on cannabis after smuggling cases involving tourists soar
However, the Human Rights Tribunal ruled her decision to grow her own medical cannabis was connected to her disabilities.
"Her disabilities are therefore a factor in any insurance company’s decision to deny coverage because of the amount of cannabis she was growing," the Tribunal ruled.
The insurance companies argued it would be an "undue hardship" for them to accommodate her by giving her an insurance policy at a greatly reduced rate.
To back up their argument the companies presented evidence from a chemical engineer, a former firefighter, and a certified fire and explosion investigator and instructor who was qualified as an expert on fire hazards in indoor cannabis cultivation.
The main issues were fire, mould and crime.
"These risks increase with the number of plants," the decision read. "Above four plants, the risks increase as more plants require 'more energy, more equipment, and produces more water vapour and heat.'"
Another expert with a PhD in fungal physiology testified that an average cannabis plant adds more than seven times the amount of water vapour released by an average house plant.
While Rogers said she should pay the same insurance as she did previously, the Tribunal disagreed.
"This is incompatible with the nature and purpose of insurance... human rights law does not require insurance companies to subsidize their clients by offering insurance at rates that are not commensurate with risk," the Tribunal ruled.
The Tribunal ruled that it would be an undue hardest for the insurance companies to giver her the lower rate, and dismissed her case.
Rogers also argued for damages because of the way she is alleged to have been treated by the companies.
"Dr. Rogers accuses companies of calling her a criminal... and says they criminalized her, put her in jail, defrauded her, and took part in a 'conspiracy to use arbitrary and discriminatory policies to deny homeownership to the most vulnerable in our society.' She characterized their conduct as 'rank indifference that borders on terrorism.' She alleges that she was 'defamed, falsely persecuted, denied a defence or appeal, and imposed a penalty that makes her homeless.' She likens insurance policies to 'vigilantism,'" the Tribunal said.
However, the Tribunal ruled her claims were "without any foundation" and were a "serious misrepresentation."
The Tribunal also pointed out it was her decision to take legal action against the 14 companies.
To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.
We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. SUBSCRIBE to our awesome newsletter here.
