Skip to content

Health Canada provides draft guidance on personal production of cannabis for medical purposes

Kevin Landry and  Emily Murray

On March 8, 2021, Health Canada released draft guidance on personal production of cannabis for medical purposes (“Guidance Document”).  At present, the Guidance Document is being circulated for public comment for a 60-day period ending May 7, 2021.

Why is public consultation being sought?

This consultation is a step towards addressing the growing concerns regarding misuse of Canada’s access to cannabis for medical purposes framework (“Framework”).  Health Canada maintains that it is “committed to protecting patients’ rights to reasonable access to cannabis for medical purposes and recognizes that most patients are using the program for its intended purposes.” It also recognizes, however, that “abuse of the medical purposes framework undermines the integrity of the system that many patients and health care practitioners rely on to access cannabis to address their medical needs.”

Health Canada identified several growing areas of concern with respect to potential misuse of the Framework that it intends to address with the Guidance Document:

  • The progressive increase in the daily amounts being prescribed to people seeking Health Canada approval to produce medical cannabis on their own or through a Designated Person (as defined in the Cannabis Regulations).
  • Increases in activities that do not comply with the Framework such as unauthorized individuals permitted access to personal and designated growing sites, unmet security obligations, unauthorized outdoor production, and plant counts beyond authorized amounts.
  • Increased drug and weapon charges against personal and designated producers who were using the Framework to support large-scale illegal production and sale.

The Guidance Document compiles information on the Framework into one place and “sets out, for the first time, proposed factors that Health Canada may consider in making decisions to refuse or revoke a registration on public health and public safety grounds”.

What factors will be considered by Health Canada in refusing or revoking a license for personal production?

Health Canada still maintains the ability to consider all relevant factors, including public health and safety grounds, in making decisions to issue, renew, or revoke licenses under the Cannabis Regulations but has provided examples of other factors that may be considered:

1. Amount of daily authorized cannabis by the health care practitioner and information to support the amount authorized:

    1. Is the authorized daily amount of cannabis supported by credible clinical evidence and/or published treatment guidelines?
    2. Is the amount of daily authorized cannabis considered reasonable, after taking into account the route of administration and potential for product loss from processing activities?

2. Non-compliance or history of non-compliance with the Cannabis Act and Cannabis Regulations by the Designated Person, including the relevant circumstances:

    1. What is the overall history of non-compliance, including the number, nature and severity of previous instances of non-compliance? How much time has elapsed since the last non-compliance, and how has the person responded to previous non-compliance?
    2. Is the Designated Person growing, or have they grown, more than the amount authorized by the registration?
    3. Is the Designated Person taking, or have they taken, reasonable steps to ensure the security of the cannabis in their possession?
    4. Is someone other than the Designated Person tending, or has someone other than them tended, to the cannabis plants?
    5. Is the Designated Person “selling or renting”, or has the Designated Person “sold or rented”, their registration?
    6. Is there, or has there been, an apparent, intentional effort on the part of the Designated Person to circumvent the Cannabis Act or Cannabis Regulations such as obstruction of Health Canada inspectors?

3. Criminal activity and/or diversion of cannabis:

    1. Is the production site linked, or has it been linked, to the diversion of cannabis, a controlled substance or a precursor, or to criminal activities?
    2. Is the Designated Person, the owner of the production site, or an individual with another direct link to the site or operation involved in the diversion of cannabis, a controlled substance or a precursor, or have they been involved in or do they contribute or have they contributed to such diversion?
    3. Is the production site linked, or has it been linked, to organized crime? Is the Designated Person, the owner of the production site, or an individual with another direct link to the site or operation associated with organized crime or have they been associated with organized crime?

4. Heath care practitioner is or has been involved with criminal activities or has been subject to disciplinary review or action by a licensing authority in relation to their prescribing practices with cannabis or controlled substances:

    1. Has a provincial licensing authority investigated or disciplined the health care practitioner in relation to their prescribing practices with cannabis or other controlled substances?
    2. Is or has the health care practitioner been involved in or contributed to activities prohibited by or conducted in contravention of the Cannabis Act or the Controlled Dugs and Substances Act?
    3. Is or has the health care practitioner been a member of a criminal organization as defined in subsection 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code, or is or has been involved in, or contributes or has contributed to, the activities of such an organization?

This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Cannabis Group.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a mortgage brokerage and mortgage administrator in New Brunswick

July 7, 2016

On April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…

Read More

Copyright does not monopolize facts – documentary filmmakers’ claim against book author and publisher fails

June 29, 2016

In May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…

Read More

Solicitor-client privilege vs the Canada Revenue Agency: the SCC speaks

June 10, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…

Read More

Why can’t we be friends?: Lessons on corporate dissolution from Smith v. Hillier

May 30, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…

Read More

Client Update: Supreme Court of Canada dismisses appeals in punitive damages cases

May 26, 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…

Read More

Client Update: Pension update: Countdown to Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans

May 17, 2016

On May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…

Read More

Pension Primer: Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) in Nova Scotia

April 22, 2016

By Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…

Read More

Client Update: Perrin v Blake reaffirms the law on contributory negligence and recovery of damages

April 14, 2016

In a case where there is a contributorily negligent plaintiff and two or more negligent defendants, can the plaintiff recover 100% of her damages from any of the defendants? The answer in Nova Scotia is…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top