Sponsored by
VGoodiez 420EDC
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
  • Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?

Law Canada MJ News

Moldy cannabis gummies, mislabeled pre-rolls recalled in Canada​


Regulated Canadian cannabis products recalled in February include potentially moldy THC-infused edibles, plus two different instances of pre-rolled joints with incorrect cannabinoid labeling.

The edibles recall involves one lot of strawberry-flavored THC Kiss Gummies produced by B.C.-based THC BioMed, 1,263 units of which were sold at a recreational marijuana retailer in Saskatchewan and directly to medical cannabis clients between December and February.

“The affected product may contain mold,” advised a Feb. 10 recall notice posted by Canadian cannabis regulator Health Canada.

THC BioMed received four complaints about the recalled lot, but no adverse reaction reports, according to Health Canada.

The recall comes shortly after another mold-related cannabis gummy recall in late January, affecting more than 330,000 units produced by TerrAscend Canada.

Two other February recalls involved incorrect cannabinoid content labelling, a relatively common cause of cannabis product recalls in Canada.

A Feb. 5 Health Canada recall notice for one lot of “Dancehall” pre-rolled joints from Peace Naturals Project’s Spinach brand affected 792 units that were sold in Quebec between January and early February.

Peace Naturals is a subsidiary of Cronos Group.

“A number of products in this lot were labelled incorrectly,” advised the notice.

“The affected products have labelled cannabinoid values that are lower than the actual cannabinoid values.”

The total THC and CBD values printed on the product labels were roughly 10% of their actual values, according to Health Canada’s notice.

No complaints or adverse reaction reports were received.

A Feb. 23 notice from Health Canada recalled 1,980 units of “Pineapple Cake” pre-rolled joints from We Grow BC’s QWEST brand.

The pre-rolls were sold between January and February and distributed by the Ontario Cannabis Store, which first posted the recall on Feb. 16.

Like the recalled Cronos pre-rolls, the recalled We Grow BC products had incorrect cannabinoid values printed on the labels, although the discrepancy was minor.

They erroneously listed total THC as 276.5 milligrams per gram, instead of the actual value of 277.5 milligrams per gram.

No complaints or adverse reaction reports were received by the producer or Health Canada.

Other Canadian cannabis recalls in 2021 have included moldy marijuana bud and melting all-in-one vape pens.
 

Canada: Registration Refused: How Adjudication In Ontario's Cannabis Licensing Regime Is Leaving Store Operator And Manager Hopefuls High And Dry​


Introduction​

The sale and use of cannabis in Ontario has been a hot topic in recent years, all the more so after the Cannabis Actlegalized the recreational use of cannabis on October 27, 2018, and the Cannabis Licence Act correspondingly legalized the retail sale of cannabis. Cannabis use in Ontario is only increasing, especially during the pandemic.Applications for cannabis stores also show no sign of slowing down. As of February 2021, Ontario had 430 licensed cannabis stores open for business and more than 940 applications were still awaiting processing. The demand for retail stores has been so great since the inception of the licencing regime that Ontario has been operating on a lottery basis.

While most cannabis headlines relate to this increase of pot shops in Toronto or the market moves of cannabis giants, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) quietly acts as a gatekeeper for managers and operators of retail cannabis shops. The Registrar of the AGCO is responsible for administering the Cannabis Licence Act, and reviews and approves or rejects applications for cannabis licences. This article discusses the licencing process for managers and operators and how the AGCO and the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal") has approached issues around individuals seeking a cannabis licence.

The cannabis licencing and hearing process​

Cannabis may only be sold at an authorized retail store run by a licenced retail operator. There are three kinds of cannabis licences: Cannabis Retail Manager (CRM) licences, Cannabis Retail Operator (CRO), both of which are individual licences, and retail store authorization for the store a retail operator intends to open.

CRO and retail store authorizations are generally granted together, as a CRO can only operate in a store that it opens. The main difference between a CRO and a CRM is that a CRO opens and operates a retail store whereas a CRM only manages a retail store that has already been opened by a CRO. While a licence is not required to work at a cannabis retailer, only a CRM or CRO can supervise or manage employees of a cannabis retail store, oversee or coordinate the sale of cannabis, manage compliance issues in relation to the sale of cannabis, or have signing authority to purchase cannabis, enter into contracts or make offers of employment.

There must be at least one CRM for each authorized store location unless a CRO is a sole proprietor or is in a partnership between two or more individuals and will be the licenced operator and performing the duties of a CRM for a particular store. None of the three kinds of licences are transferrable between licence holders, but recent amendments to the Registrar's Standards for Cannabis Retail Stores now allow CRO's and CRM's to oversee up to five cannabis retail store locations.

The AGCO's work is important: it ensures that only qualified persons are permitted to manage cannabis retailers and sell cannabis to the public. The AGCO's mandate should, in theory, boost

public confidence in the newly regulated retail cannabis market. As with other legislation for regulated industries, the primary goal of the AGCO in governing the retail cannabis regime is consumer protection.

If the AGCO decides to refuse an application, the Registrar issues a Notice of Proposal to Refuse. The applicant may then may file an appeal with the Tribunal for a hearing on the merits of the Registrar's proposal.

Similarly, the Registrar may issue a Notice of Proposal to Revoke a licence if a person is already licenced under the cannabis licencing regime but the Registrar has concerns about the person's ability to carry on business with the law, or with integrity, honesty or in the public interest.

After holding a hearing, pursuant to section 15(2) of the Cannabis Licence Act, the Tribunal may confirm or set aside the proposal of the Registrar and direct the Registrar to take any action specified by the Tribunal that it considers appropriate to give effect to the purposes of the Act, including attaching conditions to the licence. The Tribunal may also substitute its opinion for that of the Registrar when deciding to set aside the Registrar's proposal or decision. This provision appears to give the Tribunal broad power and significant latitude in making a decision.

If the Tribunal affirms the Registrar's proposal to refuse an application, the applicant may reapply after two years have passed since the refusal, and will be eligible for a licence if the applicant can show a material change in circumstances along with being otherwise eligible. If the Tribunal decides that the applicant should be registered, the applicant shall receive their licence.

Both the AGCO and the applicant have a statutory right of appeal to the Divisional Court from an order of the Tribunal.

Registration Pre-Conditions​

As with all licencing processes, there are prescribed requirements set out by the governing legislation that an applicant must meet in order to obtain a licence. Sections 3(4) and 5(4) of the Cannabis Licence Act pertain to eligibility for CRO and CRM licences, respectively. The language reads as follows:

An applicant is not eligible to be issued a cannabis retail manager licence in any of the following circumstances:

  1. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant will not, in acting as a cannabis retail manager, act in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty or in the public interest, having regard to the past or present conduct of the applicant.
  1. The applicant has been convicted of or charged with an offence under this Act, the Cannabis Control Act, 2017, the Cannabis Act (Canada) or the regulations made under any of them that is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph.
  1. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is carrying on activities that are, or would be if the applicant were the holder of a cannabis retail manager licence, in contravention of or not in compliance with a provision of this Act, the Cannabis Control Act, 2017, the Cannabis Act (Canada) or the regulations made under any of them that is prescribed for the purposes of this
  1. The applicant makes a false statement or provides false information in the
  1. Any other circumstance that may be
The Cannabis Licence Act's eligibility provisions are stricter than other statutes considered by the Licence Appeal Tribunal, making it unique in this respect. For instance, the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act at paragraph 6(1) and the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act at paragraph 10(1) state that "an applicant that meets the prescribed requirements is entitled to registration or renewal of registration by the registrar unless [.]". Similarly, the Liquor Licence Act at paragraph 6(1) states that "an applicant is entitled to be issued a licence to sell liquor except if [.]".

The Cannabis Licence Act does not use the language of entitlement except in certain circumstances; it uses the language of eligibility, stating that a person is not eligible in certain circumstances. This distinction affords the Tribunal significantly less discretion in making an order. According to the Goldlist decision, discussed below, the exercise is over when an applicant is found to be ineligible.

As with other hearings in regulated industries, the onus is on the Registrar to prove that the applicant does not meet the requirements of the Cannabis Licence Act. The standard of proof is "reasonable grounds for belief", which is less than "a balance of probabilities" but more than "mere suspicion". In other words, this is not a high bar for the Registrar to meet, and is lower than both the criminal and civil burden of proof.

Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions​

There is not yet a reported case involving a Notice of Proposal to Revoke a cannabis licence, and there are only two reported decisions in which a Licence Appeal Tribunal Hearing proceeded on the basis of a Notice of Proposal to Refuse a CRM or CRO. These decisions, discussed below, highlight the AGCO's strict scrutiny of applicants applying for CRM and CRO licences and demonstrate how the Licence Appeal Tribunal interprets the Cannabis Licence Act when an applicant requests a hearing of the Registrar's proposal.

Kyle Drake Hildebrand v. Registrar, Alcohol, Cannabis and Gaming Regulation and PublicProtection Act, 1996, 2020 CanLII 27346 (ON LAT)​

  • Overview
Mr. Hildebrand applied for a cannabis retail operator licence in February 2019. The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse the application pursuant to section 3(4)1 and 3(4)4 on the basis that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Hildebrand would not carry on business in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty or in the public interest, having regard to his past or present conduct; and on the basis that Mr. Hildebrand made a false statement or provided false information in his application.

  • Decision
After a hearing on the issues, the Tribunal confirmed the Proposal to refuse Mr. Hildebrand's licence and directed the Registrar to carry out the Proposal on January 21, 2020. The Tribunal relied on both grounds listed above, noting that each ground was independent of the other and that failure to satisfy either ground is enough to refuse licensure. Chief among the Tribunal's findings were the following:

  • Hildebrand continued to drink and drive after multiple DUI convictions and violated his probation;
  • Hildebrand was vague in his answers [about his prior offences] in interviews with investigators and minimized the seriousness of his prior offences, indicating an unwillingness or inability to comply with the law; and
  • Hildebrand was not at the stage of his life where he had accepted his past and was able to self-regulate his actions in a way that ensured compliance with rules and regulations.
The Tribunal found that conditions would not be appropriate in this case. Mr. Hildebrand had made strides toward sobriety and had not committed an offence in over 2.5 years from the hearing, but he had failed in being candid, open and honest with the AGCO about his past in the application process. This insufficient disclosure, in addition to the conduct itself, was fatal to his application.

Goldlist v. Registrar, Alcohol, Cannabis and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996, 2021 CanLII 30519 (ON LAT)

  • Background
Mr. Goldlist applied for a cannabis retail manager licence in January 2020. The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse his application pursuant to section 5(4)1 only: that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Goldlist would not carry on business in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty or in the public interest, having regard to his past or present conduct.

  • Decision
After a hearing on the issues, the Tribunal confirmed the Proposal to refuse Mr. Goldlist's licence and directed the Registrar to carry out the Proposal on April 7, 2021.

The Tribunal did not take issue with Mr. Goldlist's disclosure in his application, although this was a point of contention during the hearing. The Tribunal based its decision to refuse Mr. Goldlist's application on only two factors: (1) its concern with the fact that Mr. Goldlist "broke in" to the illegal dispensary above his headshop run by his former business partner to evict the dispensary, seize video recordings, and empty the dispensary of its illegal product; and (2) that Mr. Goldlist is involved in outstanding civil litigation that may include allegations based in whole or in part "fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, or other similar conduct". The Tribunal concluded at paragraph 106:

"When combined with the other factors that cause concern in this case.my view is that while the appellant's civil dispute against AG remains outstanding, and until such time as the matter either settles or a judge makes findings of fact one way or another, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant will not, in acting as a CRM, act in accordance with the law or with integrity, honesty or in the public interest."

  • Critique
There are two glaring problems with this decision. First, the Tribunal considered and speculated upon matters which were not raised by the Registrar in either its Notice of Proposal, Amended Notice of Proposal, or Notice of Further and Other Particulars. The issue around the eviction or "break in" on the illegal dispensary was not raised in the Registrar's proposal. This presented a procedural fairness issue for Mr. Goldlist, who could not have known that these were issues he would have had to address during the hearing. The Tribunal, in relying upon the "break in" to refuse the application, did not give Mr. Goldlist the opportunity to respond and address those concerns during the hearing.

Second, and as alluded to above, both of the Tribunal's conclusions were based on speculation, not supported by evidence, and were therefore not the proper basis to ground the decision to refuse.

The circumstances of the alleged "break in" were not borne out with sufficient certainty on the record. The AGCO attempted to establish that Mr. Goldlist took the video recordings from the illegal dispensary to cover up his alleged involvement in the dispensary but presented no evidence to prove this allegation. Furthermore, Mr. Goldlist owned the building with his business partner and had been trying for months to get the dispensary evicted from the premises. Finally, Mr. Goldlist provided illegal cannabis to the police that evening and was successful in shutting down the operations of the illegal dispensary for a time. This incident was less a "break in" and more an eviction.

Regarding the civil dispute, it was clear on the record at the hearing that the Registrar did not properly admit evidence of these allegations, and as much was acknowledged by the Tribunal. While the Tribunal is permitted to admit hearsay evidence, a decision should not turn on the

existence of allegations of "fraud, misrepresentation, deceit or other conduct" where these allegations have not been borne out in court in the ongoing civil litigation, and where their existence is not a prima facie bar to registration under the Cannabis Licence Act. The Tribunal stated at paragraph 106 that "presumably the question about outstanding litigation is asked for a reason; that reason being that outstanding litigation involving fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or similar conduct may be relevant to whether a person qualifies for a licence". The Tribunal misunderstood the question on the application about allegations of "fraud, misrepresentation, deceit or other similar conduct" as being a bar to registration, when it is merely relevant.

At the very least, the Goldlist decision is perplexing. There was no nexus between the impugned past or present conduct and the ability of Mr. Goldlist to carry out his duties under the Cannabis Licence Act because the evidence was simply too speculative to be able to draw a nexus. The Tribunal went beyond the Proposal and the evidence to refuse Mr. Goldlist's licence.

The Goldlist decision is currently being appealed to the Divisional Court.

Comparing Hildebrand and Goldlist​

  1. Scrutinizing past conduct
In both Hildebrand and Goldlist, the past and present conduct of the appellant informed the Tribunal's decision to refuse the licence. In the Hildebrand case, the Tribunal's main concern lay with Mr. Hildebrand's active avoidance of disclosing of his previous convictions. The great strides he had made in the couple years leading up to the hearing did not overcome the concerns about disclosure and integrity.

The ACGO brought more of Mr. Goldlist's past conduct into issue than Mr. Hildebrand's, but the Tribunal ultimately based its decision on the two discrete grounds of the dispensary eviction and the ongoing civil litigation. Both of these decisions demonstrate that an applicant's total history comes under scrutiny during the application process, not just industry-related conduct. Any past offences, litigation, and failures to conduct oneself with integrity generally could be grounds to refuse an application.

Not all past conduct will be subject to such scrutiny. The Cannabis Licence Act at s 5(5) specifically states that a cannabis-related drug conviction prior to October 27, 2018 - the date the Cannabis Act legalized the recreational sale and use of cannabis - does not disqualify a person from being licenced under the Cannabis Licence Act. This provision affords persons who were formerly distributing cannabis in the illegal market to enter the legal market without a stigma attached to their prior conduct.

There is a disconnect between the Tribunal's basis to refuse Mr. Goldlist's and Mr. Hildebrand's applications and the fact that other persons with arguably more concerning past conduct have been granted CRM and CRO licences. Consider the application of Chris Goodwin, who was arrested 14 times and convicted 4 times for cannabis-related offences. Chris and his wife Erin were also the subject of high-profile dispensary raids in 2016. Mr. Goodwin got his retail manager licence since May 2020, and Ms. Goodwin got hers November 2020.

While it is encouraging that the Cannabis Licence Act does not bar the registration of persons with cannabis-related convictions pre-October 27, 2018, it is concerning that speculative conduct of an applicant without any recent convictions is not eligible for registration while a publicly defiant illegal dispensary owner is eligible for registration. Which applicant inspires more confidence in the public's eyes?

  1. The importance of disclosure
Both the Hildebrand and Goldlist decisions affirm the importance of disclosure in an application for a CRM or CRO licence. The application is the first test of honesty and integrity for applicants seeking registration in regulated industries generally. A false statement on an application is a nonstarter for eligibility. Even if an applicant's history involves some concerning conduct, it is better to disclose this information and explain it than shelter it and hope it goes unnoticed. Mr. Hildebrand was less than forthright in his application and paid the price. Mr. Goldlist was as forthright as possible, and it helped his case in that the Tribunal took no issue with his disclosure.

  1. Tribunal's discretion to grant a licence
There remains a lack of clarity on the extent of the Tribunal's discretion in considering whether to grant registration when the Tribunal finds that there are reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not act in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty or in the public interest.

In Hildebrand, the Tribunal considered whether granting registrations with terms and conditions was appropriate, but found that it was "not confident that the appellant can be monitored closely enough to ensure he is being truthful, nor do I have the confidence that he will take these [the proposed] requirements seriously. I find that conditions are not appropriate in the circumstances." This analysis suggests that the Tribunal had the ability to grant registration despite finding the applicant ineligible for registration if it had found that conditions existed to allay the concerns of the Registrar.

In Goldlist, the Tribunal found that the wording of the eligibility requirements of the Cannabis Licence Act means that the Tribunal has "no discretion to still grant a licence with conditions" if it found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant will not act in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty or in the public interest. This raises the question as to why the Tribunals powers are set out in section 15(2) if they are inapplicable once the Registrar has met its onus. The Tribunal's interpretation of its powers in Goldlist may be unduly narrow in light of its section 15(2) powers.

One must wonder if the Goldlist decision would have been different if the Tribunal had viewed its discretion more like the Tribunal did in Hildebrand. This may not have impacted the Tribunal's findings on whether reasonable grounds to refuse registration existed, but it may have allowed the Tribunal to grant the licence with conditions where it otherwise did not believe it could do so.

A lingering stigma​

The stigma of cannabis use has substantially abated in recent years but it has not been eradicated. Some Ontarians still associate the use of cannabis with criminality and do not wish cannabis retailers to set up shop in their neighbourhoods, citing "safety concerns" for local residents. These views are misguided. The cannabis licence regime is highly regulated and is just as safe an industry as the alcohol sales industry, for instance. While the black market remains strong in Ontario, much of this persistence can be attributed to the fact that consumers can purchase a more potent, less expensive product on the black market and that legal cannabis companies have marketing restrictions. Legal cannabis retailers should not be punished for the provincial government's failure to manage the black market or deliver a better product. In any event, illegal cannabis sale in a neighbourhood does not necessarily make that neighbourhood less safe.

When viewed on a statistical basis, alcohol is used far more heavily than cannabis, when used alone alcohol is more likely to hospitalize or kill a person than cannabis use on its own, and the risk of alcohol addiction is higher than that of cannabis. Yet the liquor licencing regime does not have such strict eligibility requirements. Are the current eligibility requirements too strict in light of the actual dangers of cannabis use?

It is possible that this lingering stigma plays into the AGCO's consideration of applications for retail licences. A flourishing legal cannabis market in Ontario is less likely when the AGCO needlessly proposes to refuse applications licences based on speculation about an applicant's past and current conduct.

While appropriate safeguards must be in place to protect the cannabis-consuming public, the standard that an applicant must meet to be licenced should not be substantially higher than that of liquor licencing or used car sales, for example. The Cannabis Licence Act's eligibility requirements should be reconsidered to put cannabis licence applications on the same footing as other regulated industries.

Conclusion​

Chris Goodwin, after his application was approved, said in a Facebook comment that "I hope me getting approved gives other people confidence to apply. A lot of people are. saying they didn't even bother cause [sic] they thought they'd get denied". The Goldlist decision does not give credence to Mr. Goodwin's comment; the past and present conduct of Mr. Goldlist did not rise to the level of ineligibility and he was denied.

As the retail cannabis regime ages and scores of new applications for CRM and CRO licences are submitted, the Registrar will continue to issue proposals to refuse registration. Legal representatives must be ready to assist the Tribunal in navigating the Cannabis Licence Act to give their clients a chance to pursue their passion. It is no surprise that the Licence Appeal Tribunal is grappling with this new legislative framework, but the Tribunal's strict application of the legislation to applications must be commensurate with the actual risks of cannabis sale. Most importantly, a clarified interpretation of the eligibility requirements in light of the Tribunal's powers to grant registration in the event of ineligibility is needed.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
 

Chef pushes cannabis boundaries with safety course for pot-infused cuisine ​

Chef Travis Petersen argues Canada is missing opportunity for cuisine tourism with strict rules around cannabis edibles.

Chef Travis Petersen has launched a sort of “Serving it Right” course for cooking with cannabis as a means of pushing along interest in what he sees an emerging culinary scene, even if it is ahead of Canadian regulations.

It is a two-hour course that covers the basics of what the cannabis plant and its active components are, the math involved in creating dosages, and responsibility around tolerance levels and serving.

While it isn’t legal for restaurants to cook cannabis-infused foods, chefs are cooking for guests who provide marijuana for private dinners, Petersen said, and some 250 culinary professionals have signed up for sessions he is teaching on a Canada-wide tour.

“This certificate is (about) safety, responsibility and methods,” said Petersen, who is also known as The Nomad Cook. “When you have this certificate, it doesn’t mean you can start serving cannabis in your restaurant, that’s still not allowed.”

However, “there is a window of opportunity and the world looks at Canada as a leader with cannabis,” Petersen said, which he argues is at risk of being lost.

He said since starting on this specialty in 2018, he has cooked for 4,600 guests. During a 2019 stint in Toronto, at least a dozen couples attending private dinners were American tourists who had travelled just for a cannabis-cuisine experience.

“We need to start offering our chefs the opportunity to work with this, and I understand if it’s not going to go into restaurants right away,” Petersen said. “But if we don’t continue being progressive with it, someone else is going to.”

There are educational outlets in other parts of the country. An Ontario firm, the Cannabis Cooking Co., advertises what it calls chef certification. A reporter’s emails to the company’s head chef went unanswered.

And in the U.S., the American Culinary Federation is offering certificate training for cooking with cannabis, according to the association publication We Are Chefs. That same publication referenced a poll by the U.S. National Restaurant Association that listed cannabis and CBD-infused food as its No. 1 and No. 2 top trends.

In Canada, however, restaurants would need to be licensed to produce edible products and follow all production regulations, including requirements for testing and packaging, according to Health Canada spokeswoman Tammy Jarbeau.

The regulations also carry a prohibition against the production of cannabis edibles in the same location as non-cannabis food, and packaged products must also carry an excise stamp.

While a chef could apply for a federal licence to produce cannabis-infused food, they wouldn’t be able to sell it without a provincial licence.

“Our edible regulations haven’t moved at all,” Petersen said. “They’re very strict, over-regulated.”

Petersen is looking for recognition from chefs’ organizations across the province, but that isn’t something B.C. can offer at this point, according to its B.C. Chefs’ Association president Edgar Rahal.

“Legally, we can’t do that, so that’s No. 1,” Rahal said in an interview. “But we like it, we get it, we talk about it,” he added about the idea of creating cannabis-infused cuisine.

“We basically support (Petersen) in that endeavour and (will) help him … open avenues,” Rahal said of the volunteer-run chefs’ association, which offers support, mentorship and scholarships to the profession.

Long-term, Rahal believes cannabis-infused cuisine will be a part of the culinary landscape, “but I can’t see it next week. I could see it probably five years down the road.”

Petersen launched his seminars in Victoria three weeks ago, held sessions in Vancouver and Kelowna earlier this month, and is carrying on to Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, London, Toronto and Montreal.

“These are culinary professionals, these aren’t cannabis people,” Petersen said of those registered so far.
 

How Canada is Addressing Marijuana Use At Concerts And Events​


This article discusses restrictions and items to be aware of with Cannabis in Canada and its related providences.

98682, VANCOUVER, CANADA, August 12, 2021 /EINPresswire.com/ -- Care for a toke or two while out seeing your favourite band? While the recreational use of cannabis is legal in Canada, bringing marijuana or smoking weed at a public concert or event is still a touchy topic. So what’s the big deal if you want to enjoy a little bud while out and about? Currently, The Cannabis Act (also known as Bill C-45) creates strict federal laws for controlling the consumption, growing, distribution, and possession of cannabis throughout Canada. Its main goal is to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth and prevent profits from happening within organized crime. And while each province and municipality is free to create, implement, and enforce its specific laws regarding marijuana at concerts and its derivatives, most provinces have a law that states that a person is not allowed to smoke or vape cannabis in publicly-owned spaces. So that begs the question, where can you have a toke and stroll in Canada without breaking the law? Here’s an overview of the most burning questions when it comes to smoking weed at concerts and consuming cannabis in public spaces.

Where Can I Smoke Weed in Canada?
If you want to know where you can smoke weed in Canada, and are not yet familiar with provincial laws you may want to ask yourself, “Would I be allowed to smoke tobacco here?” If the answer is no, then your safest bet is to not risk lighting up and getting caught. But there is an expectation to this rule. For instance, in the populous province of Ontario, the consumption of cannabis is legal in places where tobacco smoking is permitted. However, municipalities are granted the power to set and maintain their unique laws and cannabis standards. As mentioned earlier, what is allowed in one city may be prohibited in another. This means that policies regarding cannabis and festivals may also differ slightly, depending on varying provincial laws. This was demonstrated when the city of Vaughan, Ontario, implemented a bylaw prohibiting the use of recreational cannabis in all public places that would include cannabis use at concerts. At the same time, event planners of The Journey Cannabis and Music Festivals were busy organizing their events. When the municipal by-law was passed, it inevitably forced the three day-event to cancel immediately, leaving behind a loss of potential revenue and disappointed cannabis consumers. So what are some ways cannabis consumers and event planners can better prepare when it comes to cannabis use at concerts and festivals? Reading up on the current laws of each proGeneral Tips For Using Cannabis At Concerts And Events In Canada.

The most important thing for all marijuana concert-goers and event organizers to do in order to act responsibly in regard to current cannabis laws is to familiarize themselves with the local cannabis laws. Moreover, concert and event organizers should outline their cannabis consumption policies on their websites. They may even want to plan how to accommodate cannabis users. In this scenario, they may watch how other events are responding to the relatively new pot laws in their region and from there, provide consumption guidelines. Furthermore, event organizers may designate cannabis consumption such as smoking designated areas for their attendees. In the case that an event doesn’t clearly outline its consumption guidelines, a person is better off abiding by the laid-out provincial/municipal laws for tobacco consumption. If you are planning to attend a public concert or event in the near future you can check out the following breakdown of cannabis use at marijuana concerts and events in some provinces:

General Tips For Using Cannabis At Concerts And Events In Canada

The most important thing for all marijuana concert-goers and event organizers to do in order to act responsibly in regard to current cannabis laws is to familiarize themselves with the local cannabis laws. Moreover, concert and event organizers should outline their cannabis consumption policies on their websites. They may even want to plan how to accommodate cannabis users. In this scenario, they may watch how other events are responding to the relatively new pot laws in their region and from there, provide consumption guidelines. Furthermore, event organizers may designate cannabis consumption such as smoking designated areas for their attendees. In the case that an event doesn’t clearly outline its consumption guidelines, a person is better off abiding by the laid-out provincial/municipal laws for tobacco consumption. If you are planning to attend a public concert or event in the near future you can check out the following breakdown of cannabis use at marijuana concerts and events in some provinces:

The Bottom Line
There is no legal blanket statement when it comes to the public use of cannabis in Canada. Therefore, the most important thing for all marijuana concert-goers and event organizers to do in order to act responsibly is to familiarize themselves with the local cannabis laws. In the end, it’s better to be safe than sorry, so you may just want to take a good toke at home before heading out for the night.
 

Up In Smoke: The Astonishingly Low Percentage of Canadian Cannabis Actually Sold​

The cannapress is reporting (again) on the large amount of cannabis that has been destroyed by licensed Canadian producers.

This summer, the cannabis specialty trade press discovered a story that has been floating around in the press, if not Canadian corporate cannabis company reports, for some time now.

Namely, that the amount of legally grown cannabis in the Canadian industry that is destroyed, and has been since the advent of adult legalization, is as shocking, in its own way, as adult-use cannabis reform might have seemed just a decade ago.

According to Marijuana Business Daily, a top trade media company, the amount of destroyed cannabis in Canada has been growing steadily since the fall of 2018—or the start of the Canadian recreational market. Between October and December of that year, in fact, Canadian producers destroyed just over 11 tons of cannabis. The next year, in 2019, a full 15 percent was destroyed. In 2020, that amount rose again to 20 percent of all dried cannabis produced for the market.

Indeed, according to MJBiz, Canadian cannabis producers have sold less than 20 percent of their output since the beginning of adult use legalisation in the fall of 2018.

Vice reported in September of that year that for every kilogram of legal cannabis consumed in the previous year, eight kilograms were destroyed.

Is Large-scale Destroying of Canadian Cannabis Really a Surprise?​

The answer to this question is, of course, a resounding no. There have been reports of such activities going on in both the industry-watching blogosphere and other sources for some time now. Indeed, it was in the fourth quarter of 2018, just as Germany was trying to decide on a much-stalled domestic bid (and yet another lawsuit against the same arose, pushing the decision back until April 2019), when the first indications of this kind of waste made itself known.

This includes the remarkably prescient decision of then CEO of Canopy Growth, Bruce Linton, to suddenly decide, after the firm had been in the running for German cultivation, to switch gears and buy the only (synthetically sourced) manufacturer of dronabinol in Germany.

Beyond cryptic reports and strangely unconnected moves by the largest companies, there are several reasons for this massive destruction of crops—some of which are surprising—and some of which are not.

On the unsurprising side—a great deal of legally grown cannabis had to be destroyed because of contaminants—both from mould and aphid infestation. This has everything to do with the stability of the seeds being used as well as production techniques. Indeed, such issues were also seen on the European side of the conversation, leading to the mandatory radiation of all cannabis brought in from both Canada and Holland.

It has also led, certainly in Germany, to distributors searching a bit further afield for sources of cannabis. Many Canadian cultivators that planned on exporting product to Germany have often gone south (at least in Europe). If not to Israel.

Beyond this, of course, the reality is that the legal cannabis market’s biggest competitor has been and continues to be patient and nonprofit grows. The ability of patients to grow their own has been a constitutionally guaranteed part of the discussion since the turn of the century. Indeed, it is what the legal industry itself was birthed by and from.

Yet in all of this, of course, there looms the bigger discussion—and this is perhaps the most surprising part of all of this. The leeway and lack of complaining from investors who have taken stock in companies, which have literally thrown billions of dollars into this conversation for at least the last eight years is still quite remarkable. This includes the smaller, retail investors as well as larger, corporate entities that bought into the existing industry.

There have been, of course, slews of investor lawsuits against the industry—most of which are largely unsuccessful.

Just as in the railroad rush, or the gold rush before it, economic booms are far from guarantors of either wealth creation or market efficiency.

In the case of the cannabis industry generally, there has been a great deal of money thrown at a certain group of companies, which have established global brands. Earnings per share return to investors, however, have been dismal from the get-go.

What Next for the Industry?​

One thing is for sure. This level of agricultural and financial waste will not continue unabated. The market itself is, while still highly fragmented and inefficient, much more efficient than it was.

Cannabis, after all, is an agricultural commodity. Just like tomatoes.

And just like all agricultural commodities, no matter their ultimate destination, there are market economics that drive cultivation through end use. Cannabis is still in the process of normalization, which affects every aspect of the market.

In the short term, as global markets begin to truly integrate, especially with the advent of full and final reform, it is inevitable that such waste will occur in both state and national markets.

In the longer term, however, such waste will diminish, rightly labelled as completely unsustainable in every possible way.
 
.... its because black and grey markets are so much cheaper... i get HP's for $399-$499 delivered by canpost and that's 'grey market' which has been going on for over a decade...

...ive never bought 'legal' weed yet but largest quantity you can get is 3.5g and they asking at least $35+


...oh yea and were all aloud to grow 4 plants per house hold

EDIT: if you are paying more than $50-60/oz than your over paying because theres a shit ton of product available...
 

Canada’s Canopy agrees to pay $297 million for right to buy US marijuana edibles maker Wana​


By Matt Lamers, International Editor
October 14, 2021

(This developing story was last updated at 1:22 p.m. ET Thursday.)
Canopy Growth has struck a deal to buy leading U.S. edibles maker Wana Brands for $297.5 million in the latest wager by a large Canadian producer that the United States will eventually legalize marijuana.

Smiths Falls, Ontario-based Canopy said the proposed acquisition is conditioned on “federal permissibility of THC in the U.S.”

Boulder, Colorado-based Wana is the No. 1 cannabis edibles brand by market share in North America.

Through a licensing agreement with Ottawa, Ontario-headquartered Indiva, privately held Wana also controls most of the Canadian edibles market.

Canopy’s announcement comes as Canadian companies have been striking deals this year totaling hundreds of millions of dollars to position themselves in the fast-growing cannabis markets south of the border.

The Canadian deal-makers include Cronos Group, Organigram and Tilray.

U.S. companies involved in the transactions include MedMen Enterprises, PharmaCann and Colorado-based CBD company Balanced Health Botanicals.

Canopy said it entered into definitive agreements with Mountain High Products, Wana Wellness and The Cima Group, collectively known as Wana.

The Canadian company is paying $297.5 million upfront in cash for call options to acquire 100% of each of the three Wana entities.

Canopy would not immediately purchase Wana outright in order to comply with stock market rules that bar Canadian companies from investing in businesses that violate U.S. federal law.

Once the United States lifts the federal ban on marijuana, Canopy would make a payment equivalent to 15% of the fair-market value of the Wana entities – in cash, shares or a combination of both – at the time the options are exercised.

Canopy may make additional deferred payments to each Wana entity as of the 2½- and five-year anniversary of the initial cash payment.

Canopy will have no economic or voting interest in Wana until it exercises its rights to acquire each Wana entity.

“As we establish Canopy Growth as the world’s leading cannabis company, acquiring the #1 cannabis edibles brand in North America will serve to strengthen our market position in both Canada and the United States,” Canopy CEO David Klein said in a news release.

missibility, and in Canada we’ll be adding the top-ranked cannabinoid gummies to our industry-leading house of brands.”

Nancy Whiteman
In the news release, Wana co-founder and CEO Nancy Whiteman said: “We have met many partners along the way over the past 11 years, but none have felt like the best and right fit until today.”

Canadian edibles sales amounted to 91.7 million Canadian dollars ($74.2 million) in the first half of 2021, according to new data released by Statistics Canada.

That means edibles, including beverages, accounted for just over 5% of all sales in the recreational market.

In a note to clients about Canopy’s plan to buy Wana, U.S. brokerage firm Cowen said it was “encouraged” by Canopy’s diversified strategy to enter the U.S. “with strong long-term footing upon federal permissibility given the more favorable operating environment relative to Canada.”

Cowen said Wana manufactures and sells gummies in Colorado, while licensing intellectual property in another 11 states:
“The deal is an attractive complement to (Canopy’s) existing positioning with (Acreage Holdings) and (TerrAscend) which, while they do have their own wholesale branding, also have retail footprints that Wana will likely leverage as the pure-play brand looks to further penetrate the New York and New Jersey markets.”

Canopy shares trade as WEED on the Toronto Stock Exchange and CGC on the Nasdaq exchange.
 

THE CURRENT SITUATION FOR BC’S CANNABIS SMOKING LOUNGES​


It’s been a rough road since day one and the pandemic has made the struggle even harder; cannabis consumption sites, also known as lounges, do not have it easy. As one could imagine, a virus that attacks the respiratory system is a serious threat to a smoking lounge. With that in mind, here’s a look at the current situation for BC’s cannabis smoking lounges; the legalities surrounding them, the effects of the pandemic, and an update on who’s still in operation.

The legalities of cannabis lounges​

Here’s a crazy concept: if you’re going to legalize cannabis, you need to give people a place to use it. Cannabis was legalized in Canada in 2018, but there are still no regulations for smoking lounges. Every cannabis lounge that has ever opened its doors has done so in a gray area of the law; This is because they provide a service that is both illegal and necessary. However, this might not be the case for much longer…



Provincially licensed cannabis lounges?​

This past August, the Union of BC Municipalities announced that the province is looking into cannabis consumption spaces. “The BC Cannabis Secretariat plans to engage broadly with key stakeholders, including UBCM’s Cannabis Policy Technical Working Group, in the fall, with formal public and stakeholder engagement in 2022.” Although nothing has been decided or announced, UCBM has publicly stated some policy changes that we can expect. According to the statement made by UBCM, the following measures must be met:

  • prohibit indoor smoking and vaping in public establishments;
  • prohibit minors in cannabis consumption spaces;
  • address drug-affected driving;
  • prevent involvement of organized crime;
  • discourage co-use of cannabis and alcohol; and
  • require local and Indigenous government recommendations prior to the province authorizing cannabis sales.

BC’s Cannabis Smoking Lounges During the Lockdown​

At the beginning of the lockdown, cannabis businesses were not deemed essential. But rational voices descended and that quickly changed. Cannabis dispensaries remained open through the lockdown so that they could serve the public. For smoking lounges, the choice to stay open or shut down was left to the discretion of each organization. At first glance, one might have thought the decision was simple. In reality, it had never been harder to make. The arguments to stay open were just as convincing as the ones to shut down. After all, if people are going to buy weed, they need a place to smoke it…

Why stay open?​

  • Providing a safe space to use cannabis is a community service that people depend on. During the lockdown, smoking at home was only possible for a limited number of people; especially if there were children in the household.
  • For some, shutting down would have meant never opening again. Operating in a gray area of the law means limited access to resources and business solutions, including government subsidies and benefit programs. Any of the organizations that shut down were on their own financially.
  • Maintaining air quality is a concern that smoking lounges know very well. Dealing with smoke and cleaning the air are a major part of operations, thus, most of these places are equipped with industrial air scrubbers. By adjusting the floor plan, patron capacity, and filter change schedule, operating safely during covid could be doable.

Why shut down?​

  • Less risk of exposure to covid-19, for both the staff and lounge patrons.
  • The community safety unit was tasked with enforcing the rules of the provincial health order. Before the pandemic, they used to shut down unlicensed cannabis businesses. Staying open could have provided both the excuse and opportunity for enforcement action. Reopening a lounge that was shut down by the province is a lot different than if you closed it yourself.
  • Staying open during the lockdown brought up concerns surrounding liability. The province responded by promising to protect essential businesses from all covid related liability. Because one could argue that lounges are illegal, they were valid concerns about this. On paper, it looked good, but when it got down to it, would the province protect unlicensed smoking lounges?

Cannabis Culture – Open​

Vancouver‘s Cannabis Culture Lounge is currently open but they have reduced their hours of operation. In order to reduce the possibility of Covid exposure, surface sanitation and the staff cleaning schedule has increased significantly. In addition, Patrons are asked to wear masks but are able to remove them when sitting at their table. Because they do not run a food service, the staff are not checking for vaccine passports. For the most part, it would seem it is business as usual at this BC’s cannabis smoking lounge.

Victoria Cannabis Buyers Club aka VCBC – Closed​

The Victoria Cannabis Buyers Club is a non-profit compassion club, strictly focused on medical cannabis. From pediatric to palliative care, they will help anyone with a valid, incurable medical condition. Membership with the VCBC includes free access to their private indoor smoking room. In over 25 years of operation, the VCBC has kept this space available for members, regardless of the legal consequences. From the city, the province, WorkSafeBC, and The Vancouver Island Health Authority, many have tried to shut it down but every attempt has failed.

At the start of the pandemic, the board of directors voted to close the safe consumption room. Due to the high volume of immunocompromised members, the organization felt that anything less would not have been responsible. The risks were too significant and could not be circumvented. As of today, the room is closed.

Sometimes it can be really hard to find a place to smoke a joint, especially when you can’t at home. Whether it’s for medical recreational purposes, unregulated cannabis lounges provide a safe place to consume cannabis. Through all the challenges and the pandemic, it looks as though BC’s Cannabis Smoking Lounges are here to stay.
 

Canadians bought CA$1.3 billion of dried cannabis in first half of 2021​


By Matt Lamers, International Editor
October 20, 2021


Canadian dried cannabis sales, Canadians bought CA$1.3 billion of dried cannabis in first half of 2021
Dried cannabis still rules Canada’s regulated recreational market, but its dominance over other categories is waning, new data shows.
Spending on dried cannabis amounted to approximately 1.3 billion Canadian dollars ($1 billion) in the first half of 2021, according to Statistics Canada’s sales figures, or about 73% of spending in all categories.
That’s down from 80% in the previous half and closer to 90% in early 2020, when edibles and vapes hadn’t fully been rolled out in the market.
Of the CA$1.8 billion in spending on legal cannabis from January through June:
  • Extracts and concentrates sales at retail were CA$291.7 million, or 16.4% of total spending.
  • Spending on edibles (minus beverages) reached CA$68.1 million, or 3.8% of total spending.
  • Beverages spending was $23.6 million, or 1.3% of total spending.
  • Spending on dried cannabis reached CA$1.3 billion, or 73% of total spending.
Statistics Canada said it did not disclose spending on cannabis oil, seeds or plants to meet certain requirements of the Statistics Act.
Medical cannabis spending was also omitted, but MJBizDaily previously reported that Canadian medical cannabis spending was CA$242 million in the first half of this year.
According to cannabis analytics firm HiFyre’s most recent monthly report, British Columbia-based Pure Sunfarms ruled the Canadian flower market in September, followed by Organigram and Canopy Growth Corp.
Do you have a ticket to MJBizCon in Las Vegas, October 19-22?
Tens of thousands of cannabis executives already have reservations for the most anticipated event of the year:
  • 1,100 exhibits for cultivators, manufacturers and retailers.
  • 70+ presentations, plus a keynote by Shark Tank’s Daymond John
  • Networking and partnerships

Auxly Cannabis had the No. 1 market position in vapes, while Indiva topped the edibles market.
Hexo Corp. controlled the lion’s share of the still-small cannabis beverage segment that month.
Pure Sunfarms tops flower
Pure Sunfarms CEO Mandesh Dosanjh isn’t surprised flower’s dominance is waning, given the emergence of increasingly popular 2.0 products, referring to cannabis products such as edibles and vapes.
He said other jurisdictions with mature cannabis markets provide a window to future sales.
“We knew that was going to take a bite out of the apple from Years One and Two, as (edibles, vapes and other) segments grew and as people started to understand those products,” he said in a phone interview.
Dosanjh said dried flower accounting for 80%-90% of overall sales was unsustainable.
“(Flower sales) are falling to levels we’re very comfortable with, and where we expect it to be. When you look at flower and pre-roll together, could it go lower than 70%? It could. The overall market, however, continues to grow,” he said.
Dosanjh expects the flower segment to continue to grow in absolute dollars, even if the share of overall sales falls, as the overall regulated market continues to see monthly records.
Pure Sunfarms has steadily gained market share in Canada while large competitors spent billions on mergers and acquisitions, only to lose share.
Dosanjh attributed the success of Pure Sunfarms to applying sound, fundamental business practices.
“Understand the consumer. Try and do a couple of things, if not one thing, very, very well, before you start to think about spreading yourself thin,” he said.
“We really did that on the flower side of the business.
He said the company focused on the cannabis consumer, especially regular ones, by offering quality products at “prices that people should expect to pay for cannabis.”
“We just told our story,” he said. “The consumer is smart. They understand what we’re doing.
“We knew that, by winning over (consumers) with our product, we’d win over the hearts of budtenders and store operators.”
“That’s what allowed us to lay down the train tracks of organic growth and come behind it and build out our team nationally, to continue that momentum.”
Indiva leads edibles
Sales of edibles and beverages remain relatively low compared to other mature markets, but they’ve steadily gained share despite stringent packaging regulations.
A package of cannabis edibles is currently capped at 10 milligrams of THC.
Niel Marotta, CEO of Canadian market leader Indiva, told MJBizDaily that edibles are doing slightly better than the data suggests because Quebec still mostly bans the products. (Quebec, the second-biggest consumer market in Canada, banned the sale of recreational cannabis edibles before legalization.)
The only way to legally sell edibles in the province is through medical channels.
Edibles and beverages were about 5% of the market in the first half of this year.
“We think it will be much bigger. The category itself should continue to outpace the growth in the market, which it is currently doing,” Marotta said.
Indiva is another instance of a licensed producer that gained dominant market share in an important cannabis category without spending hundreds of millions of dollars on M&A.
“We’ve always had capital discipline. Having the right team in place,” Marotta said. “CPG experts run our facility in London. They know how to make food products at scale. They know what it takes. We don’t get infatuated with shiny equipment.”
Licensing agreements also were key for Indiva.
“The second piece of the puzzle is very different from the other LPs,” Marotta said. “We did licensing agreements, primarily with U.S. brands. Mainly Bhang and Wana (Brands).
“We didn’t necessarily need to reinvent the wheel. Our operations, procedures, the way we make the products, the recipes, that’s all part of the licensing agreement.”
The MJBizDaily interview with Marotta was conducted before Canopy Growth ponied up $297.5 million in cash for the right to buy U.S. marijuana edibles maker Wana Brands once the United States legalizes marijuana.
Canopy is not among the top-five producers of edibles and vape brands in Canada.
“Anyone can make a chocolate. Anyone can make a gummy. But will it meet the consumer’s needs and desires? Will it delight the customer? Will people recommend it to their friends? I think that’s what we have with Bhang and Wana. They’re great products,” he said.
“By dominating in the edibles space, it’s made us a very relevant LP.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Crime boss or champion of the poor? Pot activist awaits sentencing ​

The raid and the charges were the first locally under Canada’s new Cannabis Act.

Was Windsor pot activist Leo Lucier the “head of a sophisticated criminal operation” or a compassionate Windsorite selling cannabis to those suffering pain while also raising funds to help the poor in his community?

Those were the two sides presented by the prosecution and the defence to an Ontario Court judge who must now determine a fitting sentence after Lucier, 51, was found guilty of setting up a business that illegally, and openly, sold the mind-altering weed.

As a result of Lucier entering a guilty plea in August, the federal prosecutor on Friday asked the judge to withdraw the same Cannabis Act charges that had been laid against four co-accused.

The other four were arrested during a police raid on Nov. 2, 2018, at Compassion House, located in a small Tecumseh Rd. strip mall west of Ouellette Ave. Lucier, who was absent when the other “volunteers” were arrested at the business he owned and headed, surrendered himself to city police the following day.

The raid and the charges were the first locally under Canada’s new Cannabis Act , which came into law just two weeks earlier with the federal legalization of recreational pot use by adults.

“The laws were very much in a grey area at the time,” said defence lawyer Elizabeth Craig, citing a media report during that period in which even Windsor’s police chief was “unsure of what the laws were.”

With Ontario’s relatively slow response to implementing a retail regime under the new federal legislation, Craig explained that Compassion House’s aim was to help the many struggling at the time to access medical marijuana

To make purchases at Compassion House, Craig told Justice Mark Hornblower, customers had to fill out membership forms attesting to being 19 and older. Lucier “never intended to profit from the business,” she added, with proceeds going towards helping community organizations and those in need.

When the police ordered the business to stop selling cannabis, Craig said the response was to offer rolled marijuana joints in return for food and other donations. In those days, she said, Lucier had raised more than six tonnes of food and more than 300 coats, which he then distributed to food banks and the local mission and youth centre.

“Charitable behaviour does not absolve Mr. Lucier for criminal behaviour, responded federal prosecutor Armando D’Alessandro. Stories at the time by the Windsor Star and other news outlets on Lucier’s good deeds, which Craig showed the judge to illustrate her client’s philanthropy, only “glamourized the status of a drug dealer,” he said.

D’Alessandro said police seized “an astounding amount” of cannabis products in the raid, including about 2.4 kilograms of cannabis, as well as such items as pot-infused gummy bears, cookies and oils.

Emphasizing the need to deter others, the Crown is seeking a $20,000 fine and forfeiture of everything seized in the raid, including about $4,000 cash. The defence called for a fine in the range of $1,000 to $2,500. Craig told the Starthe defence is contemplating an argument over the Crown’s forfeiture demand. The judge’s decision is expected in November.

About $3,000 of the cash seized, said Craig, was donations being collected for funeral expenses for a local family in which a brother killed his brother, a young man who was a Compassion House volunteer.

Helping crime victims with funeral expenses was just one of the ways that Lucier was giving back to the community, she told the court.
 

Harsh reality setting in for cannabis merchants as pot shops multiply​

As cannabis sales plateau in Ottawa, some are predicting a major market correction​

If you're looking for legal weed in Ottawa's Glebe neighbourhood, you don't have far to travel.

There's the Prohibition era-themed High Ties at the corner of Bank Street and Second Avenue, one of the company's seven Ottawa-area dispensaries.

Locally owned The Good Cannabis Company occupies the former Mrs. Tiggy Winkle's toy store between Third and Fourth avenues.

You'll find Superette's second Ottawa location near the busy corner of Bank Street and Fifth Avenue.

A mere 130 metres to the south, Plateau's tiny storefront stares across Bank Street at the much larger One Plant dispensary, due to open soon on the ground floor of a new seniors' complex

That's five cannabis retailers in fewer than five short blocks, but it's hardly an anomaly. The stores are multiplying at a dizzying rate across the city, often setting up shop a stone's throw from their competitors. On Wellington Street W., two dispensaries, High Ties and True North, are next door neighbours.

That intense clustering is causing concern over the growing homogeneity of Ottawa's high streets, but it's also prompting another question: How can so many competitors selling essentially the same product at essentially the same price possibly survive in such a crowded market?

A CBC analysis shows they probably can't, and many industry insiders agree a correction is coming.

They include the interim president and CEO of Ontario Cannabis Store (OCS), the Crown corporation that manages wholesale distribution to all bricks-and-mortar cannabis retailers in the province.

"Ontario's open market is expected to grow in the months ahead, with 1,000 retail stores expected to open their doors by September 2021," David Lobo wrote in an annual market report released this spring. "Unfortunately, this rapid growth will likely result in some retailers being faced with increased competition and a crowded marketplace, which could result in some closures and market right-sizing."

"There's going to be a shakeout," agreed one store manager in Ottawa who wasn't authorized by his employer to speak to the media.

According to the latest information available from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO), the provincial agency that regulates the retail cannabis industry, 42 stores are now open or "authorized to open" in Ottawa. Ten more are "in progress" and the public notice period has ended for another 22.

That's a dramatic increase from the three dispensaries that opened in April 2019, winners of a provincewide lottery for then scarce retail licences.

With lots of demand and little competition, the lucky few who got into the game early reaped enormous rewards, according to Trina Fraser, partner at Ottawa firm Brazeau Seller Law.

"They were seeing daily sales that were huge … in some cases up to $30,000 a day, it was crazy," Fraser said.

But the boom hasn't lasted. As the province loosened the licensing process and more retailers entered the market, sales in Ottawa, and across the province, levelled off.

According to the latest available sales figures from OCS, total quarterly sales in Ottawa had plateaued at about $13 million by the end of March 2021, when there were only 28 stores open in the city. There are now many more, and there's no indication sales have risen to match.

(Provincewide, retail cannabis sales from April 1 to June 30, 2021 rose 18 per cent compared to the previous quarter, but the number of stores in Ontario increased by 46 per cent over the same period. OCS has not published local sales figures for that quarter.)

While it's difficult to say how much of that levelling off is due to the COVID-19 pandemic or changing consumer habits, many within the industry believe a major market correction is looming.

"Everybody expected … we would reach a point of oversupply and then have some sort of a correction," Fraser said. "There's going to be some consolidation of brands where we're going to ultimately see some of the larger chains grow and gobble up some of the smaller stores in desirable locations, and then there will be some that will just outright fail."

As he prepared for Friday's official opening of Purple Meadow Cannabis on Rideau Street, manager Peter Gauthier was well aware of the stiff competition along the dense downtown strip and in the nearby ByWard Market.

"It's obviously a worry when you're starting a new business, especially with many others offering the same thing," Gauthier said. "We're going to see how the next couple years go and hopefully get to ride the wave."

But for many of those who have already tested the water, it hasn't exactly been smooth sailing.

"It's actually been a very weird time to be an operator in retail," said Superette CEO Mimi Lam, citing both the pandemic and the sudden glut of direct competitors. "To say that there hasn't been an impact would be a lie."

Lam, who lived in the Glebe while attending Carleton University, said the company made a deliberate decision to locate its second Ottawa store there.

"That's a neighbourhood that's close to my heart," she said. "From Day 1 I wanted to open there."

But by the time the store opened in early June, some competitors had already set up shop down the street, and others were on the way.

Under the current framework, retail licence applicants have no way of knowing how many others are planning to open in their vicinity until those applications reach the public notice period. Lam said that created an "information vacuum" for companies like Superette.

"Everyone was able to all of a sudden apply to become an operator, but no one really knew where another operator or another store might be, and so everyone was just heads down and signing up [for] these leases," she said.

Around the corner at Plateau, product, purchasing and training lead Sam Hunt agreed it probably would have been beneficial to know that One Plant was moving in across the street.

"I can't imagine that would have been the plan, to have a competitor so close," he said.

Hunt said Plateau's strategy is to differentiate the locally owned company from its bigger, more brightly lit rivals by offering a shorter, simpler menu and personalized service that's laser-focused on each customer's unique needs.

"Just as there are three or four different fast-food restaurants on a street, there can be three or four different cannabis stores on a street, as long as they're each meeting a need that the consumers are dictating," he said.

Lam said her store, too, is trying to set itself apart by being "not just another dispensary but a retail experience," selling Glebe-themed T-shirts and other knick-knacks alongside its wide array of pot products and accessories.

But Fraser said no matter how hard retailers try to stand out from the crowd, she's already dealing with clients who are looking to sell franchises or escape from expensive commercial leases.

"They're looking to get out. They're not at the point of failure yet, but they probably see the writing on the wall," she said. "A cannabis retail licence now is not really worth much."

The abrupt rise in the number of bricks-and-mortar cannabis retailers in Ontario — by June 30 there were 834 stores in 160 communities, according to OCS's latest tally — can be traced back to December 2019, when the province decided to throw the market wide open.

Now, any applicant who meets the provincial requirements can obtain a retail licence, and with the exception of a 150-metre buffer zone around schools, can set up shop anywhere that's zoned by the municipality for commercial use.

Neither the province, nor any municipality that has opted into the system, has any say over where the stores go, including their proximity to competitors.

In Ottawa, that's led to a high concentration of cannabis retailers not just in the Glebe, but also in Centretown, along Rideau Street, Montreal Road and in the west end.

The two wards with the most stores — Somerset (17) and Rideau-Vanier (11) — also happen to have the city's lowest median household incomes.

While the AGCO and OCS celebrate the ever-shrinking distance the average Ontarian now must travel to reach their nearest cannabis retailer, not everyone's so pleased.

"The province is often hands-off, and then communities and cities face the challenges of poor planning," said Rideau-Vanier Coun. Mathieu Fleury.

Fleury led the charge to limit the concentration of payday loan outlets in his part of the city, and said he'd like to see similar restrictions for cannabis retailers.

"We don't want to see a monoculture of businesses in one area," Fleury said. "From an overall health and wellness of a commercial district, you want diversity."

That could mean granting cities more power to decide where cannabis retailers can go, as is the case in Alberta, where applicants must first seek the approval of the local development authority before obtaining a retail licence from Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis.

Calgary's land-use bylaw, for example, "requires separation distances to limit the sale of cannabis near ... other cannabis stores to manage potential environmental, social and aesthetic impacts; and to ensure opportunities for other businesses."

By contrast, legislation in Ontario prohibits municipalities from passing any bylaw that distinguishes cannabis dispensaries from any other kind of retailer.

Experts believe the more likely outcome in Ontario, where the province has so far been reluctant to cede any control over the industry, is that cannabis consumers will have the final say.

"They'll make their choice as to which one in their vicinity they favour, and the others will have a hard time surviving," Fraser said.
 

Landlords of renegade CAFE pot shops move to have charges dismissed​

'It's basically the city trying to make their problem, my problem,' frustrated property owner says'​

cafe-coffee-shop-and-illegal-dispensary-on-fort-york-blvd-in-toronto.jpg

The landlord of CAFE's flagship location at 66 Fort York Blvd. in Toronto has seven charges pending against him under Ontario's Cannabis Control Act. (Instagram)


They're the illegal cannabis shops that just won't quit. And now the City of Toronto's latest tactic in its battle with the CAFE chain might be doomed, with a businessman complaining it's become a pot mess and he's caught in the crossfire.

Since the first branch of CAFE — short for Cannabis and Fine Edibles — opened downtown in 2016, police and city officials have been trying to shut down the business, which doesn't have a provincial dispensary licence or adhere to federal law.

Raiding the renegade weed store's now four locations, seizing their supplies of bud, changing the locks, welding the doors shut and, finally, piling huge concrete slabs in front of the entrances to bar access — none of it has worked. Each time, the same stores have reopened.

In its latest attempts to force closed the sleek coffee shops that double as illicit pot dispensaries, the city is resorting to the courts, where it's heaped charges on the landlords who own the buildings where CAFE operates. The provincial Cannabis Control Act makes it illegal for a landlord to "knowingly permit a premises" to be used to sell illegal weed.

"We've gotten to a point where we need to rely on the court process to deal with this," Carleton Grant, executive director of the city's licensing and standards division, told CBC Toronto last month.

For individual landlords, the charges carry a potential maximum penalty of a $250,000 fine and two years in jail for a first conviction, and then $100,000 per day in fines plus two years in jail for subsequent convictions.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-cafe-cannabis-dispensaries-1.5217307
But the provincial cannabis law also provides a defence to any landlord who takes "reasonable measures to prevent the activity," and one of CAFE's landlords, who's facing seven charges, told CBC this week that he's tried everything he can to get rid of his scofflaw tenants, and the city refuses to help.

"It's basically the city trying to make their problem, my problem," Mohsen Ghelichkhani said. "This is such a clusterf--k."

'Nobody gets back to us, except giving us more tickets'​

Ghelichkhani owns the premises of CAFE's flagship store at 66 Fort York Blvd., a live-work condo unit in CityPlace. He claims he tried evicting his tenants via Ontario's Landlord and Tenant Board, but the LTB balked when it saw that the dispute was about a commercial operation.

Then he tried to hire a bailiff to force out CAFE, he maintains, but the bailiff wouldn't take up the case because the lease they signed five years ago is a residential one, and residential disputes have to go to the LTB.

"Then I go back to the city and I'm like, 'Well, what am I supposed to do now?'... I flat out said, 'Tell me what to do? And I will do it. It's as simple as that.' And you know, nobody gets back to us, except giving us more tickets," Ghelichkhani said.

city-enforcement-staff-install-giant-concrete-slabs-to-try-to-block-entry-to-cafe-on-fort-york...jpg

City workers placed huge slabs of concrete in front of CAFE's CityPlace outlet in July 2019, part of a cat-and-mouse game between law enforcement and the chain of pot cafés. (CBC)

"They've come up with zero solutions. I mean, they've tried themselves as well. They've put concrete blocks, security, police officers, raids, change the locks, change the door. And now they throw their hands up in the air and then just go 'OK, well, we're going to put pressure on you.'"

He said his understanding is that while he still owns the property, because of a closure order imposed by law enforcement when they raided CAFE back in 2018, "the city has had possession of the property. So they're really giving themselves tickets."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jon-galvano-cafe-dead-mexico-1.6028213
"That plays a big part in any alleged inaction of the landlords," Ghelichkhani's lawyer Noel Gerry told CBC News.

Gerry noted the charges alleging his client allowed the property to be used as a rebel weed store date from after the city and police technically took control of it.

"It's actually an offence [for landlords] to enter the premises. They're barred from entry."

Landlords cite Charter of Rights​

And if that isn't enough of a hill for prosecutors to climb, in court this week, Gerry said Ghelichkhani and another CAFE landlord he's representing, Ali Gillani, will be seeking to have their cases dismissed on Charter of Rights grounds, because it's taken so long to get to trial.

Trials in provincial court are supposed to wind up within 18 months of charges being laid, otherwise the delay is deemed presumptively unreasonable.

Of Ghelichkhani's seven Cannabis Control Act charges, three date back to 2018 and three to 2019. Gillani, the landlord at CAFE's 104 Harbord St. location near the University of Toronto, is facing five counts, two of which date back to 2018, while two are from 2019 and one is from January 2020.

The COVID-19 pandemic complicates the math somewhat, because the CAFE landlords had trials scheduled for last year that had to be cancelled when the courts closed.

Gillani, through Gerry, declined a request to comment on his charges. He has had a years-long association with one of the main people behind CAFE, Wesley Weber, and was the COO, CFO and a director of a now-defunct cryptocurrency company Weber co-founded called Incryptex. Before starting the company, Weber racked up an extensive criminal record including convictions for forgery, fraud, counterfeiting and cultivating marijuana.

Besides Gillani and Ghelichkhani, there are also four counts pending against 2694605 Ontario Inc., which owns the premises CAFE operates from at 1321 St Clair Ave. W., and another four counts against 10956392 Canada Inc., landlord for the CAFE store at 932 Bloor St. W.

The charges against the former company are set for a court hearing next week. A lawyer for the latter company didn't reply to an email asking whether he would try to get his client's charges dismissed on Charter grounds.

For corporate landlords, the maximum penalty is $1 million for a first offence and $500,000 a day for subsequent ones.

City won't comment on cases​

The City of Toronto wouldn't comment specifically on the CAFE charges because of the ongoing court cases, but in a general statement said that it "continues to take enforcement action against illegal cannabis storefronts" in the city.

"This includes conducting investigations, issuing closure orders, barring entry into premises, conducting seizures and search warrants, and laying charges."

As the court cases drag on, CAFE has continued to operate. At its peak, the city has estimated, it was bringing in $50,000 a day per location.
 

FROM LEGACY TO LEGAL, THE CANNABIS MARKET BELONGS TO WHO?​


Three years ago, Canada legalized cannabis, but the market did not come with products familiar to most Canadian customers. Beloved small growers and their brands could not make Health Canada‘s initial cut, including a shortlist of former licensed producers. A shift from legacy to legal industry occurred, but license holders don’t own the industry because the cannabis market belongs to consumers.

Legacy cannabis — the black market — was slowly shut down after legalization. After establishing regulations, the shift restricted most product and brand promotion, limiting consumer connection and knowledge. Producers also struggled to maintain quality for a reasonable price.

And so, customers became harder to satisfy in part because of regulations. Beyond quality, however, industry experts think the legal market completely lacks brands and high-quality products to attract customer appeal.

A brand house rolls up a piece of Big Cannabis​

Old-school home growers, on the greener thumb, have spent years sussing quality. Whereas, for three years, Canada’s legal cannabis industry has struggled to overcome a plague of bad bud. Product is put on shelves dead after irradiation and typically left to dry out in monotone clunky cardboard-cocooned containers. During a phone call, Trang Trinh, the founder of TREC Brands, agreed that the legacy market is an asset while also urging that customers are key.

What I noticed is that everyone was focused on funding capacity and pumping dollars into infrastructure and no one was focused on selling to the end consumer. And what I learned during my days working with really large clients and companies at Deloitte, and what I learned from all of these transactions, is that people always come first.
Trang
Click to expand...

Raid after raid, brands fell from the free market​

However, many Canadians were left deserted after decade-old traditional, legacy market brands were wiped out three years ago, raid after raid. Industry experts agree that companies spent millions of dollars on infrastructure that simply functioned as a sponge for investors. Therefore, it’s evident that the legacy market’s role continues to be suppressed rather than adequately replaced by Big Cannabis.

Labels in Canada’s market remain sorely short of colour and information, speckled instead with overstated warnings. These shortfalls disengage consumers from the legal market, encouraging them to fall back on legacy, tradition and the brands and small businesses consumers used to love.

TREC is acquiring Agripharm with hopes of growing in the Canadian market. Over the last three months, they captured a 1 percent hold on the dry flower market in BC, Alberta, and Ontario, doubled from six months prior. They plan to integrate vertically, backwards into the Canadian market to more than double a revenue currently on pace for $10.5M in 2021. But does their success rely on the cannabis market, which truly belongs to the consumers?

Consider that legacy market producers are known to establish an independent network and dip. Additionally, that Agripharm is one-third owned by Canopy Growth. And small growers have launched off of and away from Canopy in the past.

Is the legacy market a foundation for Big Cannabis?​

El Hasho, known formally as Mike Imposimato, is a legacy market hash producer (hashishin). El Hasho is a well-recognized figure in the hash and solventless cannabis extracts industry. Co-founded by El Hasho, alongside John Fowler and Scott Walters, BIG (Blaise Independent Growers) processes cannabis under an agreement with Agripharm, a licensed cannabis producer. This is one example where legacy growers and processors act as a key in a market sorely lacking experience. As such, Trang agreed that Imposimato — alongside other extract artists — accounted for a piece of their decision.

That is one component that inspired the transaction [with Agripharm], but the deal also checks a lot of other boxes for us.
Trang
Click to expand...
Three current owners comprise the licensed producer her company plans to acquire in the coming months. And still, details regarding management and ownership have yet to be completely sussed in the transaction. Regardless, Canopy Growth Corporation, Organa Brands, and Green House Genetics collectively own Agripharm and have become shareholders of TREC (Trust, Respect, Ethics, and Compassion) with a 35 percent claim. But will vertical integrations promote strength in the partnership, or will acquisitions encourage experts from the legacy market to move into their own business?

TREC will actually commercialize the products, meaning that we will facilitate the listings with the boards and sell to retail partners, and also from a marketing perspective, get consumers to pull.
Trang
Click to expand...
To satisfy customers, they hope to rely on brand development and their new partners to produce quality products. A new report by Deloitte, HiFyre, and BDSA suggests 86% of consumers are willing to pay a premium for better products and that craft cannabis climbed 158% since 2020. Due to regulations, though, high-quality cannabis takes considerable effort to produce. Furthermore, brands do not yet play a role in the market according to Deloitte’s report.

Another recent study proved that consumers unknowingly make decisions based on terpene profiles. So, quality is quintessential, and the secret behind repeat customers is finding a perfect ratio between THC ratio, aromatics, and effects. Terpenes, however, face many unfortunate restrictions before they can reach a consumer’s palate. Improved product management and distribution can solve the issue of year-old, oxidized cannabis, except in provinces that host their liquor board as a centralized middle-man.

In early October, a cannabis retailer in Pemberton, BC, noted extracts produced under Agripharm brands — alongside several other products — were sold out on the BC Cannabis Stores Wholesale Website, the solitary access point for BC stores. To be fair, though, Agripharm is located in Creemore, Ontario.


CGC-canopy-growth-WEED-nasdaq-price-Nov-2021.png

Canopy Growth Corporation (CGC, WEED). November 17, 2021.

Buying power, a cannabis market big or small belongs to the consumers​

In any case, consumers might see more legacy market producers at least enter the legal market if access was more convenient for consumers. In the event they do, a brand house might have a chance at success relative to Canopy’s independent track record of dumping dollars. But will customers make the same transition, or will their traditions and sales be dedicated to the legacy of the free market?

Another legacy market network is currently drafting into Canada’s legal industry that carried several unlicensed brands in the shadows throughout the gantlet of legalization. Those familiar with El Hasho might recognize the brand house, Ghost Drops.

At the end of the day, albeit grand with opportunities, stock options are not traditional or viable in a cannabis market that belongs to consumers and patients. Any brand house’s success will rely on the craftsmanship of farmers, hashinins, and extract artists. So is any brand house or distributor in the right laneway to preserve and express those terpenes despite a haze of regulation and law, or will a farm-gate cannabis model better fit the market?
 

LANDLORDS, TENANTS AND CANNABIS: SOME IMPORTANT THINGS TO KNOW​


Landlords tend to have a lot of rules around cannabis, smoking, and vaping. Here are some important things to know for tenants.

First and foremost, landlord-tenant relations tend to be laid out in provincial legislation. So depending on where you live in Canada, you should check out your province’s or territory’s legislation tenancy act. It should have further details on using cannabis as a tenant. For example, British Columbia‘s Residential Tenancy Act allows no-smoke clauses to extend to smoking cannabis.

Though different parts of Canada have different rules, there is also a lot of overlap between tenancy acts from region to region. Because of this, there are some general guidelines to know if you’re renting. First, whether you can smoke cannabis or not depends on your landlord. If your tenancy agreement states that you can’t smoke, then you have to follow that rule. But, these agreements do not necessarily extend to other forms of consumption. For the most part, if you’re just eating edibles or taking cannabis oil, landlords cannot forbid you from doing so.

There do exist some exceptions to this rule of thumb, though. In Saskatchewan, landlords can legally ban the possession of cannabis. So again, if you want to know more specific details, it is best to consult your province’s/territory’s tenancy act.

What About Medical Uses, Vaping, or Growing?​

To get the easy one out of the way first, rules around growing are similar to ones around smoking. Landlords can forbid tenants from growing anything on their property, which extends to cannabis cultivation.

As for medical marijuana, rules vary a lot more. For example, in New Brunswick, medicinal cannabis follows the same rules as recreational cannabis. If your medicinal usage involves smoking cannabis, landlords can ban you from using it, but they cannot stop non-smoke forms of consumption. Whereas in B.C., due to legal precedents, the province deems access to medicinal marijuana as a basic right and landlords have a duty to accommodate a person’s medical needs.

Finally, for vaping, rules tend to sit in a grey area. Some provinces and territories extend smoking rules to vapes. But in other places, there are no concrete legal clauses around it. In such cases, it’s usually up to the landlord to decide whether vaping is allowed or not. And if there’s a lack of clarity in your tenancy agreement, it would be best to talk to them to clear things up.
 

Quebec To Require COVID-19 Vaccine for Cannabis Purchase​


Health officials in the Canadian province of Quebec announced last week that vaccinations will be required to purchase cannabis at state-controlled retailers.


By
A.J. Herrington

https://cannabisnow.com/quebec-to-require-covid-19-vaccine-for-cannabis-purchase/#
https://cannabisnow.com/quebec-to-require-covid-19-vaccine-for-cannabis-purchase/#

Buying cannabis in Quebec will require a COVID-19 vaccine, according to a directive issued by the province’s government last week. Health Minister Christian Dubé announced on January 6 that customers purchasing marijuana at government-funded stores must show proof of full COVID-19 vaccination. The health minister said that an effective date for the vaccine mandate to purchase cannabis would be determined by government officials once all citizens have had a chance to receive a third shot of the vaccine. Dubé encouraged those who would be affected by the measure to roll up their sleeves and get the shot.

“If the unvaccinated aren’t happy with this situation, there is a very simple solution at your disposal,” Dubé said at a press conference covered by Fox Business. “It is to get vaccinated. It’s free. If you don’t want to get vaccinated, stay home.”

Quebec Rolling Out Vaccine Passport System​

The new directive expands a vaccine passport system that requires three shots. Currently, those aged 50 and older can access a booster shot by the government, which plans to expand eligibility for boosters to all adults as soon as next week.

The vaccine mandate for cannabis applies to government-funded or state-owned businesses known as crown corporations that sell marijuana or alcohol. According to a report from CTV Montreal, Yann Langlais Plante, a spokesperson for the Société des alcohols du Québec (SAQ), told reporters that the organization’s retailers would enforce the new vaccine requirement “as we have done with all other efforts deployed since the beginning of the pandemic.”

Dubé’s comments were similar to those made by French President Emmanuel Macron only two days earlier. In an interview, Macron said that he wanted to make life as difficult as possible for those who still have not received the COVID-19 vaccine.

“I really want to piss them off, and we’ll carry on doing this—to the end,” Macron told the newspaper Le Parisien on January 4, as translated by the BBC.

The French president added that the government would not resort to harsher measures, such as forced vaccinations or arrests, but access to public places would be limited for the unvaccinated later this month.

“I won’t send [unvaccinated people] to prison,” he said. “So we need to tell them, from 15 January, you will no longer be able to go to the restaurant. You will no longer be able to go for a coffee, you will no longer be able to go to the theatre. You will no longer be able to go to the cinema.”

Opposition Says Quebec Government Has ‘Lost Control’​

Quebec opposition leader Dominique Anglade of the Liberal Party said that the administration of the province’s premier, François Legault, was making decisions based on politics instead of science and argued that the government has “lost control.”

“All of this is creating a lot of anxiety in the population, and François Legault is nowhere to be seen this week,” Anglade said after Legault failed to attend a press conference last week.

François Vincent, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business’s vice-president for Quebec, is against expanding the vaccine passport system to include additional retail businesses. He noted that companies already facing personnel shortages and difficulties hiring would bear the brunt of enforcing the vaccine mandate.

“The strategy is to get people to get vaccinated, but you’re asking the private sector to do the job without giving them the tools,” Vincent said.

Despite the pushback, Cheryl Milne, a constitutional lawyer and executive director of the Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights at the University of Toronto, said that the vaccine requirements would likely survive any potential challenges on legal grounds. She noted that buying cannabis in Quebec would still be available to the unvaccinated from privately-owned retailers that are not required to enforce the mandate.

“Obviously, they’re thinking they need to step up pressure on people who are refusing to be vaccinated,” Milne said. “It’s untested at this point, but so far the courts, when looking at vaccine mandates or restrictions on liberty rights such as travel, have mostly sided with the provinces, who are trying to ensure vaccine compliance or public health measures to stop the spread of the virus.”

Amir Attaran, a professor with both the faculty of law and the school of epidemiology at the University of Ottawa, agreed with Milne, noting that there are no laws preventing the Canadian government from requiring most members of the public to be vaccinated.

“The governments in Canada have yet to lose a lawsuit” about vaccine mandates, Attaran noted. “As long as they set up a mechanism whereby persons having a medical or religious reason not to vaccinate are accorded reasonable exemptions, then they’ve demonstrated fundamental justice.”
 

Canada might be home to the world’s first airport dispensary​


A cannabis retail shop could soon open at the airport in Prince George British Columbia, making it the first cannabis store to open in any airport worldwide.


Cannabis retailer Copilot has met the regulatory requirements set by Transport Canada and the Province of B.C. and is now seeking a city license to open its doors for business.

On January 11, the city council approved the first two readings of a bylaw amending the airport’s zoning regulations to allow cannabis sales.

According to a local news outlet, the readings were passed unanimously with little discussion. Copilot’s application must undergo a third reading as well as a public hearing before the council makes a final decision. A date hasn’t yet been announced.

The cannabis retail store would be geared toward those travelling within Canada because travellers are allowed to bring as many as 30 grams of cannabis on domestic flights as long as they are of legal age.




The store would not cater to those travelling abroad because it is illegal to carry cannabis across federal borders. The Copilot store would be located in a non-secure area of the airport terminal, which would make it accessible even to those who aren’t travelling.

Easing travel-related stress​

Copilot was founded by Owen Ritz and Reed Horton, who were classmates at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. The men were also teammates on the track team, which travelled to various meets.

They noticed that, while many people rely on cannabis to ease travel-related stress, cannabis isn’t available in airports, even in jurisdictions where its consumption is legal.

That realization prompted them to launch their business initiative. “We started reaching out to airports in February 2020 and got some really good feedback,” Ritz tells Leafly.

He said the airport in Prince George appealed to them in part because it is relatively small, which gives it a community feel. “From Day One, the Prince George Airport Authority (PGAA) stood out,” he said. “They were keen.”

Prince George Airport Authority receptive​

“[Ritz and Horton] had a solid business plan that met our expectations for new business partners,” PGAA president and CEO Gordon Duke said, explaining why he was receptive to leasing Copilot retail space. “We welcome the opportunity to work with Copilot to expand the services available to our passengers.”

Duke told Leafly via email that many passengers already consume a variety of substances, including alcohol, to ease stress during their journeys. He also noted that the store would provide employment for local citizens.

“We believe cannabis stores will be common in Canadian airports in the coming years,” he continued. “This is a legal enterprise in Canada and, provided the appropriate education and responsible consumption is strongly encouraged, there will be little or no impact to travellers,” shares Duke.

But not everyone is enthusiastic. The RCMP doesn’t support the application because, in its view, such a store would have a negative impact on Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) staff at security screening, who oversee packing and weights for domestic flights.

The RCMP also cites as a concern potential issues for connecting international flights at land borders where cannabis is not legal.

Still, Ritz and Horton are optimistic about Copilot’s prospects. “We are relatively new to the industry and this is our strong suit,” Horton tells Leafly.

He noted that Copilot has investors and advisers who have ample experience in the industry. Their lead investor is Marc Lustig, founder and CEO of CannaRoyalty Corp.

“Owen and I want to see cannabis retail stores in airports across Canada and, one day, the United States,” Reed said. “We really believe in the concept.”

This post was updated on January 19, 2020, with comments from the Prince George Airport Authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsored by
VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top