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Health Canada provides draft guidance on personal production of cannabis for medical purposes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On March 8, 2021, Health Canada released draft guidance on personal production of cannabis for medical purposes (“Guidance Document”).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


 
 

Good Faith Fisheries: New case on Crown consultation & regulation of Aboriginal fisheries

March 22, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Why is this case a big deal? It started with two salmon. Now, after several years of litigation, the Nova Scotia Provincial Court in R v Martin, 2016 NSPC 14 has stayed proceedings against…

Read More

Atlantic Employers’ Counsel – Winter 2016

March 10, 2016

THE EDITORS’ CORNER Michelle Black and Sean Kelly One day, the line between mental and physical disabilities may not be so pronounced, but, for now, distinctions are still drawn between Employee A with, for example, diabetes and…

Read More

Hiring the “Right” Employee

February 24, 2016

By Lisa Gallivan Employees can be your biggest asset, if you hire the right people. This can often be one of the biggest decisions that you make as a business owner or employer. The “right” employee…

Read More

Bye, Bye Canadian P.I.?: What Apple’s fight against the FBI means for the protection of Personal Information in Canada

February 23, 2016

By Burtley Francis and Kathleen Leighton Order Up: Apple, P.I. Recently, the public safety versus personal privacy debate has been brought to main headlines. Apple is facing a court order (available here) requiring the company to assist the FBI in the investigation of…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2016 Proxy Season

February 12, 2016

In preparing for the 2016 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to and interactions with your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Left Sharks and Copy Cats: The Super Bowl’s Impact on Protecting a Brand

February 5, 2016

By Burtley Francis and Michael MacIsaac You remember Left Shark… The Super Bowl is a lot of things to a lot of people and is arguably the most anticipated event of the year that is not a holiday…

Read More

The Labour Relations of First Nations’ Fisheries: Who gets to decide?

February 2, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Summary The Canada Industrial Relations Board recently held that it had no jurisdiction as a federal board to certify a bargaining unit comprised of fisheries employees of the Waycobah First Nation. The decision…

Read More

Can an employer prohibit tattoos and piercings?

January 21, 2016

By Peter McLellan, QC In the 1970s the issue for employers was long hair and sideburns. In the 1980’s it was earrings for men. Today the employer’s concerns are with tattoos and facial piercings. What are…

Read More

Settling for it: Two new NS decisions on settlement agreements and releases

January 15, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Introduction It sounds simple: Two disputing parties, hoping to resolve their disagreement without drawn-out court proceedings, will mutually agree to a settlement on clear terms; release each other from all claims; and move…

Read More

Labour and Employment Legislative Update 2015

December 23, 2015

2015 ends with changes in workplace laws that our region’s employers will want to be aware of moving into 2016. Some legislation has been proclaimed and is in force, some has passed and will be…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top