Skip to content

Client Update: Canada’s infant cannabis industry starting to require a patchwork quilt of governance: updates from Calgary, Edmonton & Nova Scotia

Kevin Landry

Edmonton wants “Cannabis Lounges”, Nova Scotia Landlords don’t want tenants to smoke marijuana in their rental homes, and Calgary City Council contemplates a private recreational cannabis system. The old adage of “Location. Location. Location.” is proving to be an important legal consideration; both with respect to where cannabis will be sold and where it can be consumed once legal.

Until now, much of the discussion on location has been focused on producers, which we discussed in the context of New Brunswick in our articles: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction- Provincial Acts and Regulations Under the Cannabis Act and Weeding through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations.

Edmonton wants to allow “Cannabis Lounges”; Vancouver doesn’t explicitly allow them, but has had cafés operating for decades

Proposed amendments to Edmonton’s Zoning By-law were heard by City Council on June 28, 2017. The amendment will permit “Cannabis Lounges” (public spaces to consume cannabis) as a commercial use for property. The amendment defines a “Cannabis Lounge” as follows:

Development where the primary purpose of the facility is the sale of Cannabis to the public, for the consumption within the premises that is authorized by provincial or federal legislation. This Use does not include Cannabis Production and Distribution. 

Vancouver’s by-laws indicate that current activities in the city are more so tolerated than legislated. Vancouver’s Zoning and Development by-laws currently only permit retail medical marijuana dealers and compassion clubs (which are non-profit and offer other health services on site). Nothing is legislated for recreational cannabis lounges in Vancouver despite inhabitants like the New Amsterdam Café, which has operated since the early 2000s.

Calgary’s City Council considered its Intergovernmental Affairs Committee’s recommended response to Alberta’s request for provincial engagement on June 24, 2017. The Committee’s report, which is found here, suggests Calgary engage its citizens, and urges the Alberta government to provide a regulatory framework in a timely fashion. The report suggests that Calgary would look to analogous businesses as a guide: “if the Province were to allow for public cannabis lounges, there are parallels that can be drawn to existing liquor-serving establishments”.

Nova Scotia landlords are concerned

In Nova Scotia, the Investment Property Owners Association of Nova Scotia (“IPOANS”) has issued a media release stating its opposition to the Cannabis Act‘s provisions permitting the personal growth of four plants per person, at least in leased units.

IPOANS cites concerns of tenants inhaling secondhand marijuana smoke and airborne toxins from marijuana plant cultivation as a main reason for their stance.

IPOANS’ press release raises an important legal question: can landlords prevent tenants from growing cannabis? Arguably so, given that section 9A(3)(a)(ii) of the Residential Tenancies Act (Nova Scotia) contemplates the imposition of reasonable rules:

Landlord’s rules

9A (3) A rule is reasonable if

(a) it is intended to

(i) promote a fair distribution of services and facilities to the occupants of the residential premises,

(ii) promote the safety, comfort or welfare of persons working or residing in the residential premises, or

(iii) protect the landlord’s property from abuse;

(b) it is reasonably related to the purpose for which it is intended;

(c) it applies to all tenants in a fair manner; and

(d) it is clearly expressed so as to inform the tenant of what the tenant must or must not do to comply with the rule. 

Calgary supportive of private recreational cannabis system

In a move that is somewhat expected given the privatized liquor industry in Alberta, it was suggested on June 24, 2017 that Calgary City Council support a private recreational cannabis industry.

Calgary City Council’s Intergovernmental Affairs Committee recommended in their response to Alberta’s request for Provincial Engagement that the Council:

Support a privatized framework for legal retail cannabis sales similar to the existing retail alcohol store model, contingent upon the sharing of tax revenues to compensate for the increased costs to the city. 

Among the reasons cited for the decision is that the City could exercise oversight while allowing “flexibility in regulating and administering retail locations in a way that considers local context.”

However, just because Calgary is in support of a private system doesn’t mean Alberta will have one. As the Province of Alberta’s website correctly lays out, the Province alone is responsible for the “retail model”, but both the Province and the Municipal government are jointly responsible for “retail location and rules”.

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