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


 
 

Client Update: Adopting the changes – amendments to the New Brunswick Family Services Act lead to opening of sealed adoption records

June 4, 2018

Vasu Sivapalan and Meg Collins On May 5, 2017, An Act Respecting the Opening of Sealed Adoption Records (“Act”) received royal assent, leading to significant changes for birth parents and adoptees across the province. As…

Read More

Client Update – Protecting the innocent in property insurance: recent amendments to Nova Scotia’s Insurance Act limit “criminal or intentional act” exclusion clauses

May 29, 2018

Jennifer Taylor Recent amendments to the Nova Scotia Insurance Act are designed “to protect the financial interests of an innocent person when the person’s property is damaged by another person with whom that person shares…

Read More

Countdown to Cannabis: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter: The legalization of cannabis: 7 reasons why employers should take notice

May 24, 2018

Brian G. Johnston, QC Cannabis legalization is coming. The legislation is expected to pass by July with legalization becoming effective by September. Employers should take notice because: 1. There is already a lot of cannabis…

Read More

Client Update: Negligence: what is reasonably foreseeable?

May 24, 2018

Janet Clark and Sean Seviour A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada clarifies determination of what is “reasonably foreseeable”: Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v J.J., 2018 SCC 19.  The case involved two…

Read More

Client Update: Limitation periods & denial of LTD benefits: the NSSC decision in Cameron

May 9, 2018

Jennifer Taylor & Michelle Chai A recent Supreme Court decision tackled two issues that have proven complex in Nova Scotia law: summary judgment and limitation periods. The Plaintiff in Cameron v Nova Scotia Association of…

Read More

Client Update: Medical marijuana found to be undue hardship in safety sensitive positions – the problem of residual impairment

May 1, 2018

Brian G. Johnston, QC The Arbitrator in Lower Churchill Transmission Construction Employers’ Association and IBEW, Local 1620 dismissed a grievance on April 30, 2018 concluding: The Employer did not place the Grievor in employment at…

Read More

Client Update: Benefits plans really do not have to cover the sun, the moon and the stars (and medical cannabis)

April 13, 2018

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan Employers, and benefit providers on their behalf, make policy decisions as to what drugs or benefits (including monetary limits) will be covered by benefit plans. The Board of Trustees in…

Read More

Client Update: Court Confirms: Credibility is a Key Factor In Personal Injury Awards (Ryan V. Curlew, 2018 NL SC)

April 10, 2018

Erin Best The decision of Justice Handrigan in Ryan v. Curlew is the first motor vehicle accident personal injury decision to come out of the Newfoundland and Labrador courts in quite some time. The case…

Read More

Client Update: Does your business need a spring privacy tune-up? Breach reporting and Europe’s GDPR are about to hatch

April 6, 2018

Rob Aske The arrival of spring should bring thoughts of renewal… to your privacy practices. Breach reporting under PIPEDA Canada’s federal privacy law known by the acronym PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act)…

Read More

Client Update: Untenable tenure: discrimination complaint from Indigenous professor dismissed

March 22, 2018

Chad Sullivan Overview An Indigenous law professor filed a human rights complaint against the University of British Columbia claiming the university discriminated against her in failing to consider her less traditional scholarly work as akin…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top