Skip to content

Changes to Canadian cannabis licensing application process

Kevin Landry

Health Canada has announced changes to the cannabis licensing regime. These changes come ahead of the release of the cannabis edibles, extracts, and topicals amendments to the Cannabis Regulations expected to be released in the Canada Gazette Part II prior to October 2019.

The changes

Effective May 8, 2019 there are changes for both new and existing applicants for licenses to cultivate, process or sell cannabis for medical purposes:

New applicants for licenses will be required to have a fully built site at the time of their application in addition to satisfying the previously established application criteria.

Existing applicants will undergo a high-level review in the order in which they were received, and applications that pass this review will receive a status update letter indicating that Health Canada has no concerns with the existing application.

Amendments to Cannabis Licensing Application Guides

The new application process requirements can be seen in the updated Cannabis Licensing Application Guide.

Specifically, there is now a requirement in the Cannabis Licensing Application Guide to “submit a site evidence package with visual evidence to demonstrate the completion and functionality of their facility” within ten business days of the Cannabis Tracking and Licensing System (“CTLS”) application in order for the application to be considered.

Further, “the application will only be processed once both the document portion of the application is submitted within the CTLS and the site evidence package is submitted and received by Health Canada“.

Contents of site evidence packages

The site evidence package Health Canada requires is distinct for micro and standard license applicants as well as medical sales applicants and must meet the submission requirements in section 7.1.1 of the Cannabis Licensing Application Guide:

Micro

Standard

Medical Sales

Guided video tour of the entire site (including both indoor and outdoor areas) highlighting the entire site perimeter and all storage areas.

Guided video tour of the entire site (including both indoor and outdoor areas), highlighting all security features of the site perimeter, operations areas (including all grow areas) and storage areas. All devices must correspond to their location as indicated on the site plan (including all floor plans).

Guided video tour of the entire site (including both indoor and outdoor areas) including all operations areas (including grow areas) and storage areas.

Photographic overview of each side of the defined site perimeter.

Photographic overview of each side of the defined site perimeter.

 

Close-up images of the surfaces (including walls, floors, ceilings and joints) of all operations areas (including grow areas) and storage areas demonstrating they meet the requirements of section 84 of the Cannabis Regulations.

Visual footage showing entire physical barrier for the site and all storage areas.

 

Visual recording device footage that includes the front, back and sides of the defined site perimeter (e.g. east, west, south, and north walls). Complete coverage may be best demonstrated by displaying multiple visual recording device feeds that capture an individual walking around the perimeter.

A video of an individual entering and moving through different areas of the facility demonstrating the intended production process flow through the facility.

Footage from all visual recording devices in each operations area (including the entry and exit points of the grow areas) and all storage areas.

Video would be expected to have sufficient resolution to clearly visualize the area without pixilation, capture the entirety of the areas identified with no blind spots or obstructions, and demonstrate the recording devices ability to capture the information in both low light or night conditions.

In addition to the new requirements with respect to the site evidence package, Health Canada has supplemented previous guidance on the regulatory requirements to be met surrounding Good Production Practices and physical security measures by issuing each item as a standalone guide.

Health Canada states that these changes come in response to feedback from applicants about wait times for applications. Health Canada stated that more than 70% of applicants that passed Health Canada’s paper-based review over the past three years were not ready to begin operations, and did not submit evidence to demonstrate that they had a fully built and compliant facility.

Health Canada is also working to establish service standards for the review of applications to improve wait times and predictability for applicants.


This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above information, and how it applies to your specific situation, please contact a member of our Cannabis group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top