Docket: T-2184-14
Citation:
2015 FC 1331
Ottawa, Ontario, December 1, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
P & S
HOLDINGS LTD. AND THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE
PLUMBING & PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL
170
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN,
IN RIGHT OF
CANADA,
INTERNATIONAL
HERBS
MEDICAL
MARIJUANA LTD.
AND 8015376
CANADA LTD.
|
|
Respondents
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The applicants occupy premises located in Delta,
British Columbia. The respondent International Herbs Medical Marijuana Ltd. has
applied to the Minister of Health for a licence to allow for the commercial
cultivation of medical marijuana at a site owned by the respondent 8015376
Canada Ltd. This property is next door to the property occupied by the
applicants.
[2]
The applicants have a number of concerns with
respect to the construction of a marijuana production facility next to their
property. Because of these concerns, they wrote to the Minister of Health on
several occasions asking for the opportunity to make submissions opposing the
granting of the medical marijuana production licence to International Herbs.
The Minister has never responded to their requests, and the Minister has not
yet made a final decision with respect to International Herbs’ licence
application.
[3]
By this application, the applicants seek a declaration
that, as a matter of natural justice and procedural fairness, they are entitled
to be heard during the medical marijuana production licensing process. They
further seek an order of mandamus compelling the Minister to allow them
to participate in the licensing process.
[4]
For the reasons that follow, I have concluded
that the applicants’ concerns relate to what are essentially land use planning
issues, and that the applicants had the right to, and did, participate in the
municipal zoning process. The applicants do not, however, have either a
statutory or common‑law right to participate in the medical marijuana
production licencing process. Consequently, the application for judicial review
will be dismissed.
I.
The Parties
[5]
P&S Holdings Ltd. is a British Columbia
corporation which owns the property located at 1658 Foster’s Way, in Delta,
British Columbia, and has its offices at that location. The United Association
of Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, Local Union 170 is a trade union whose offices are
also at this location. In addition, the building houses a restaurant and a
trade school, both of which are tenants of P&S. For the purpose of these
reasons, the property located at 1658 Foster’s Way will be referred to as “the
applicants’ property”.
[6]
International Herbs Medical Marijuana Ltd. and
8015376 Canada Ltd. are related companies. The numbered company owns the
property located at 1668 Foster’s Way, which shall be referred to as the
“proposed site”. The proposed site abuts the applicants’ property.
International Herbs rents premises at the proposed site, and it is the entity
seeking the medical marijuana production licence.
[7]
The Minister of Health is the Minister
responsible for regulating the production of medical marijuana in Canada.
II.
The Licence Application
[8]
In 2013, International Herbs applied to Health
Canada to become a “Licenced Producer”, pursuant
to the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, S.O.R./2013‑119.
As required by the Regulations, the licence application was tied to a specific
production site, namely the premises at 1668 Foster’s Way.
[9]
In December of 2013, Health Canada advised
International Herbs that its licence application was generally in order and
that once the production facility was completed, Health Canada would arrange
for a pre‑licence inspection. Amongst other things, this inspection
would confirm that the facility met the applicable regulatory standards,
including those relating to the security of the cultivation and storage areas,
as well as emissions control and air quality.
[10]
On the strength of this letter, the proponents
went ahead and paid some $3.5 million for the proposed site and hired various
experts to assist International Herbs in meeting the regulatory requirements
related to the commercial production of medical marijuana.
[11]
International Herbs currently has preliminary
licence approval from Health Canada to operate the production facility, and it
had anticipated that the facility would be ready for a pre‑licence
inspection by mid‑2015. It has, however, put some of its plans on hold
pending the outcome of this litigation.
III.
The Municipal Planning Process
[12]
Because of concerns that had arisen with respect
to the former regulatory scheme governing the production and sale of medical marijuana,
Health Canada announced in 2013 that the medical marijuana production rules
would be changing as of April 1, 2014.
[13]
The Corporation of Delta is the municipal
government with land use planning and zoning authority over the applicants’
property and the proposed site. In early 2014, Delta responded to Health
Canada’s announcement by passing a bylaw prohibiting the production of medical marijuana
on all properties under its jurisdiction. It was explained during the hearing
that many municipalities did this in anticipation of the regulatory changes so
that they could exercise control over where licenced medical marijuana
production facilities would be located. The effect of the new bylaw was that
the production of medical marijuana at the proposed site would no longer be
permitted unless site‑specific approval was granted to the project by the
municipality.
[14]
The applicants’ property and the proposed site
are presently zoned “I2 Heavy Industrial”. Permitted
uses for the properties currently include manufacturing and processing
industries that may include the burning of wood, dog kennels, fish processing
plants, slaughterhouses, and beverage container recycling and collection
depots.
[15]
In March of 2014, International Herbs submitted
an application to the City of Delta seeking to re‑zone the proposed site
so as to allow for the construction and operation of a licenced medical marijuana
production facility at that location. As part of the re‑zoning
application process, the occupants of neighbouring properties were notified of
the re‑zoning application and a sign was posted at the proposed site
advising the public of the proposed re‑zoning of the property.
[16]
Joe Shayler, the Business Manager of the
applicant Union, then wrote to the City voicing the Union’s “strong opposition” to International Herbs’
application. Amongst other things, Mr. Shayler argued that the
construction of a commercial marijuana production facility next to the Union’s
offices would have a negative impact on the trade school and restaurant located
at 1658 Foster’s Way. The Union also expressed concerns about security, and
with respect to potential increased crime and traffic in the area.
[17]
On April 30, 2014, Delta Council received a site‑specific
report from the City’s Community Planning & Development Department. This
report acknowledged the concerns voiced by several neighbours including the
Union, but noted the regulatory requirements that would govern matters of
health, safety and security at the proposed site. The Department concluded its
report by recommending that the re‑zoning application receive first and
second reading, and that the application then be referred to a public hearing.
[18]
Delta Council held a public hearing with respect
to the re‑zoning application on May 27, 2014 at which the Union was the
only party opposing the re‑zoning application. Mr. Shayler made oral and
written submissions on behalf of the Union objecting to the re‑zoning.
[19]
Amongst other things, the Union stated that it
was concerned that the construction of what it called a “grow‑op” next to its offices would negatively
affect the value of the applicants’ properties and the enrollment of students
at the trade school. It also stated that the presence of a marijuana production
facility next to the Union’s offices would be inconsistent with the anti‑drug
messages that the Union sends to its members and students. The Union additionally
had concerns as to the impact that the marijuana production facility would have
on the business of the restaurant located on the applicants’ property, and with
respect to public safety (due to possible increases in crime and loitering),
traffic flow, parking, air quality and odour emissions.
[20]
Following the public meeting, Delta Council
decided to proceed with the proposed re‑zoning, subject to certain
restrictive covenants being registered on the title to the proposed site. These
covenants would require compliance by International Herbs with the Marihuana
for Medical Purposes Regulations, and would impose additional requirements
on it with respect to the environmental remediation of the site in the event
that it ceased to be used as a commercial marijuana production facility. Once
these covenants have been registered on title, a building permit can then be
issued which would allow construction of the marijuana production facility to
begin.
[21]
On July 3, 2014, counsel for the applicants
wrote to the Minister of Health advising her of the nature of their concerns
and of their interest in the licencing process. The applicants asked to be
granted participatory standing as a party to International Herbs’ licence
application and for the opportunity to be heard in the course of the
administrative decision‑making process by which the Minister considered
the application. Having received no reply to the July 3, 2014 letter, counsel
followed up with further letters dated August 19, 2014 and September 24, 2014,
reiterating the applicants’ request for standing. No response was received to
any of these letters, and on October 23, 2014, the applicants commenced this
application.
IV.
The Applicants’ Application for Judicial Review
[22]
In their application for judicial review, the
applicants note that paragraph 26(1)(h) of the Regulations requires that the
Minister refuse a licence application where the issuance of the licence would
likely create a risk to public health, safety or security.
[23]
Although they provided no evidence to support
this contention, the applicants assert that the operation of a marijuana
production facility at the proposed site would interfere with the use and
enjoyment of the applicants’ property and would compromise the health, safety
and security of their members, customers, officers, employees, faculty and
students. This, the applicants say, entitles them to participate in the
licencing process.
[24]
According to the applicants, the failure of the
Minister to respond to their requests for standing or “to
otherwise hear…how their interests stand to be impacted” by the
licensing process constitutes a deemed refusal or decision.
[25]
Consequently, the applicants seek:
a.
Declaration that, as a matter of natural justice
and procedural fairness, they are entitled to be heard as to how their interests
stand to be impacted by the licensing of a marijuana growing operation adjacent
to their property;
b.
An order of mandamus directing the
Minister to grant their request for participatory standing and the opportunity
to be heard in the administrative decision‑making process by which the
Minister considers International Herbs’ licence application; and
c.
Their costs of this application.
V.
Issues
[26]
This application raises the following issues:
1.
Whether the applicants have standing to bring
this application for judicial review; and
2.
Whether the applicants have a common‑law
right to be heard in the course of the Minister’s decision to grant the
license.
VI.
The Prematurity Issue
[27]
Before turning to consider the merits of the
applicants’ application, I would note that I raised the question at the hearing
of the applicants’ application for judicial review as to whether this
application might not be premature, given that no final decision has yet been
made by the Minister with respect to International Herb’s licence application.
[28]
Neither of the respondents raised this issue in
their memoranda of fact and law and consequently, the applicants were not
prepared to address the question at the hearing. While the Crown agreed that
the application might indeed be premature, the applicants and the other
respondents urged me to decide the application on its merits.
[29]
Given that none of the respondents raised the
question of prematurity in their memoranda, and the fact that the non‑Crown
respondents will be investing a significant amount of money in the construction
of the marijuana production facility over the next number of months, I have
concluded that it is in the interests of justice that a ruling be made at this
time as to the nature and extent of the applicants’ participatory rights in the
licencing process.
VII.
The Relationship of the Applicants’ Two Issues
[30]
The first question raised by this application
relates to the applicants’ standing to bring the application. The answer to
this question depends on whether they are “directly
affected” by the licencing process within the meaning of section 18.1 of
the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F‑7. This provision
allows “anyone directly affected by the matter in
respect of which relief is sought” to bring an application for judicial
review with respect to the matter at issue.
[31]
To be “directly
affected” by a matter in respect of which relief is sought for the
purposes of section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, the decision at
issue must be one which directly affects the party’s rights, imposes legal
obligations on it, or prejudicially affects it directly: Rothmans of Pall
Mall Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), [1976] 2 F.C.
500, 67 D.L.R. (3d) 505 (F.C.A.). The focus at this stage of the inquiry is
therefore on the impact that the licencing decision will have on the rights and
interests of the applicants.
[32]
The second question - whether the applicants
have a common‑law right to be heard in the course of the Minister’s
decision whether or not to grant a medical marijuana production licence -
depends on a number of factors, including the nature of the decision being made
and process followed in making it, the nature of the statutory scheme and the
terms of the statute pursuant to which the Minister operates, the importance of
the decision to the applicants, the legitimate expectations of the applicants,
and the Minister’s choices of procedure: Baker v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, 174 D.L.R. (4th) 193.
[33]
It is thus apparent that there is considerable
overlap between the two issues, and both require consideration of whether the
proximity of the applicants’ property to the proposed site creates an
entitlement on their part to participate in the licencing process.
[34]
Much time was taken during the applicants’
submissions trying to distinguish the analysis to be applied in relation to the
first issue from that to be applied with respect to the second. In my view, the
situation that confronts the Court in this case is analogous to that dealt with
by the Federal Court of Appeal in Irving Shipbuilding Inc. v. Canada
(Attorney General), 2009 FCA 116, [2010] 2 F.C.R. 488. There, the core
question was “whether a subcontractor of an
unsuccessful bidder for a government procurement contract may apply for judicial
review to challenge the fairness of the process for awarding the contract when
the unsuccessful bidder decides not to litigate”: at para. 1. Also
at issue in Irving Shipbuilding was whether the applicants were “directly affected” by the award of the contract to a
different bidder such that they had standing to challenge the procurement
process.
[35]
Speaking for the Federal Court of Appeal,
Justice Evans stated that “the question of the
appellants’ standing should be answered, not in the abstract, but in the context
of the ground of review on which they rely, namely, breach of the duty of
procedural fairness”. He went on to observe that “if the appellants have a right to procedural fairness, they
must also have the right to bring the matter to the Court in order to attempt
to establish that the process [at issue] violated their procedural rights”:
both quotes from Irving Shipbuilding at para. 28.
[36]
The same may be said here.
[37]
That is, paraphrasing Justice Evans, if the
Minister owed a duty of fairness to the applicants and issued the marijuana
production licence to International Herbs in breach of that duty, the
applicants would be “directly affected” by the
impugned decision. On the other hand, if the applicants do not have a right to
procedural fairness, that would be the end of the matter: Irving
Shipbuilding, above at para. 28.
[38]
Indeed, the applicants agree that if they are
found not to be entitled to participate in the licencing process, they would
not have standing in this matter.
[39]
The central questions for determination are thus
whether the Minister owed a duty of procedural fairness to the applicants such
that they are entitled to participate in the licencing process, and whether the
deemed refusal of the Minister to allow the applicants to participate in the process
constituted a breach of that duty.
VIII.
Standard of Review
[40]
Given that the issue of whether the applicants
are entitled to participate in the licencing process involves a question of
procedural fairness, the parties agree that the Court’s task is to determine
whether the process followed by the decision‑maker satisfied the level of
fairness required in all of the circumstances: see Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para. 43, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339.
IX.
The Law Relating to Participatory Rights
[41]
Participatory rights may be created by
legislation. The applicants concede, however, that the Marihuana for Medical
Purposes Regulations do not contemplate a role for third parties such as
the applicants in the licencing process, with the result that they have no
legislative entitlement to participate in that process.
[42]
The applicants submit, however, that the fact
that the Regulations are silent insofar as affording participatory rights to
parties in their position is not the end of the matter. Citing the Supreme
Court’s decision in Kane v. University of British Columbia, [1980] 1
S.C.R. 1105, 110 D.L.R. (3d) 311, the applicants argue that either express
statutory language is required to abrogate the common‑law rules of
procedural fairness, or that an entitlement to procedural fairness has been
ousted by necessary implication. In the absence of any such ouster, the
applicants say that the common‑law rules of procedural fairness apply by
default.
[43]
However, as the Federal Court of Appeal observed
in Irving Shipbuilding, “[t]he common law duty
of fairness is not free‑standing, but is imposed in connection with the
particular scheme in which the impugned administrative decision has been taken”:
above at para. 45. It is therefore necessary to have regard to the nature and
purpose of the regulatory scheme established by the Marihuana for Medical
Purposes Regulations in deciding whether the applicants are entitled to
participate in the licencing process.
X.
The Nature and Purpose of the Regulatory Scheme
[44]
A review of the Regulatory Impact and Analysis
Statement (RIAS) accompanying the proposed Marihuana for Medical Purposes
Regulations discloses that concerns had arisen with respect to the previous
regulatory scheme which had allowed individuals to grow their own marijuana for
medical purposes. Some of these concerns related to public health, safety and
security, including the concern that some marijuana was being diverted for
criminal purposes. Other concerns related to the uneven quality of the product
and problems with supply, and the risks that these posed to patients.
[45]
The RIAS explains that the purpose of the
enactment of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations was to treat
medicinal marijuana like any other prescription medication by creating a licencing
process for the commercial production and distribution of the product that
ensured the steady supply of reasonably‑priced, high‑quality
medicinal marijuana, produced in a safe and secure environment.
[46]
To this end, the Regulations impose stringent
conditions on the commercial production of medicinal marijuana. Amongst other
things, quality control standards have been created governing matters such as
air quality and emissions from marijuana production facilities, building
security and the like. Persons involved in the production process must also
hold security clearances and are subject to criminal records checks.
[47]
The licencing process also contemplates a role
for local authorities. Section 38 of the Regulations requires an applicant for
a production licence to give notice to local police and fire authorities. This
has been done in this case, and there is no evidence that either authority has
expressed any concern with respect to the granting of a marijuana production
licence to International Herbs.
[48]
Tellingly, there is no requirement in section 38
of the Regulations that notice of a proposed marijuana production licence
application be provided to the owners or occupants of properties adjacent to
the proposed site.
[49]
In order to construct a marijuana production
facility, the zoning of the proposed site must permit such a use, and section
38 of the Regulations also requires that an applicant for a production licence
give notice to the relevant municipal authority. A municipality may shut down
the licencing process by refusing to permit the construction of a marijuana
production facility on a proposed site, where, for example, a neighbour is able
to produce evidence as to the negative impact that a marijuana production
facility will have on the area in question.
[50]
With this understanding of the regulatory
process, I will next consider the extent to which the Regulations extend
participatory rights to stakeholders.
XI.
Do the Regulations Impliedly Exclude Parties
Such as the Applicants from Participation in the Licencing Process?
[51]
There is no express language in the Marihuana
for Medical Purposes Regulations denying participatory rights to third
parties such as the applicants. The Regulations do, however, expressly address
the participatory rights of those subject to the Regulations.
[52]
By way of example, section 7 of the Regulations
provides a right to be heard to applicants who are refused a licence to produce
medical marijuana. Subsection 33(3) of the Regulations affords the right to a
party whose licence has been suspended to challenge that suspension. Similarly,
sections 80 and 81 provide participatory rights to parties whose import permits
have been suspended or revoked. Sections 94 and 97 confer a right to be heard
on individuals who have been denied a security clearance, or whose security
clearance has been suspended. Section 113 gives patients who have not been
accepted as clients by a marijuana production facility the right to be heard,
and section 117 gives participatory rights to patients whose registration with
a marijuana production facility has been cancelled.
[53]
The Regulations thus contemplate that their
application may affect the rights of various parties directly implicated in the
licencing process, specifically producers of medicinal marijuana and their
employees, and patients who have been prescribed medical marijuana. Such
parties are afforded a right to be heard in relation to decisions that have a
direct impact on them. No such participatory rights are afforded to strangers
to the licencing process such as the applicants, as the Regulations do not
contemplate any role for such parties in the licencing process. Strangers to
the licencing process are thus excluded from entitlement to participation in
the process by necessary implication.
[54]
While I was admittedly dealing with an earlier
regulatory scheme, I note that I have previously found that third parties to
the medical marijuana licencing process did not have standing to challenge a
licencing decision: Ridgeview Restaurants Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General),
2010 F013C 506 at para. 49, 368 F.T.R. 255, aff’d 2011 FCA 52, 451 N.R. 46.
[55]
Ridgeview
involved an application by a restaurant for a declaration that a customer was
not authorized to smoke medical marijuana in restaurants, a declaration that
Health Canada lacked authority to authorize such conduct, and an order
prohibiting Health Canada from renewing a customer’s permit to use medical marijuana
because of his flagrant disregard of the terms of his licence.
[56]
The Attorney General applied for an order
striking Ridgeview’s Notice of Application, arguing, amongst other
things, that it did not have standing to pursue the application as it was a
stranger to the licencing process.
[57]
In granting the Attorney General’s motion, I
found that a review of the regulatory process in question led to the conclusion
that the restaurant was indeed a stranger to Health Canada’s relationship with
the customer, and that the regulatory regime did not contemplate any role for
third parties such as the restaurant. Any decision that Health Canada might
make with respect to the granting of a licence to the customer would not affect
the restaurant’s rights, impose legal obligations on it, or prejudice it
directly. In coming to this conclusion, I noted that the problems that
restaurant was encountering with its customer were not the direct result of the
issuance of a permit to possess marijuana to the customer, but were rather the
result of the customer’s failure to comply with federal, provincial and/or
municipal laws.
[58]
The applicants submit that Ridgeview is
distinguishable from this case as the issue in Ridgeview was the
customer’s non‑compliance with terms of his medical marijuana permit,
whereas the applicants’ concerns here relate to the granting of the marijuana
production licence itself. It bears noting, however, that many of the
applicants’ concerns in this case relate to the potential non‑compliance
of the proponents with the terms of their marijuana production licence. There
is, for example, no evidence to show that the construction of a commercial
marijuana production facility next to the applicants’ property will have any
effect on the air quality in the applicants’ building, if the proponents comply
with the ventilation and air filtration standards imposed by the Regulations. Moreover,
in both cases, the applicants were trying to insert themselves into a licencing
process that did not contemplate a role for third parties.
[59]
The current Regulations do acknowledge the
importance of the public interest in the marijuana production licencing process.
The applicants point to paragraph 26(1)(h) of the Regulations as an indicator
that the Minister must consider submissions from third parties that relate to
public health, safety or security.
[60]
Paragraph 26(1)(h) of the Regulations provides
that the Minister must refuse to issue a licence if the issuance of the licence
would likely pose a risk to public health, safety or security. The applicants
say that for the Minister to discharge her responsibilities under this
provision, she must hear from parties with respect to issues of public health,
safety or security relating to the construction of a marijuana production
facility.
[61]
As noted earlier, however, the Regulations
specifically contemplate a role for local experts such as the police and fire
departments in relation to matters of public health, safety or security. No
such role is contemplated for third parties such as the applicants.
[62]
The Regulations also require that notice of a
proposed application for a marijuana production licence be given to municipalities.
This takes me to consider the significance of the zoning process, as it relates
to the applicants’ interests.
XII.
The Significance of the Zoning Process
[63]
The applicants submit that they are not mere
busybodies in relation to the licencing process, and that the construction of a
marijuana production facility next to their property will have a detrimental
impact on the use of their property, such that they should be entitled to have
a say in whether or not a licence is granted to International Herbs.
[64]
According to the applicants, “[t]he large-scale production and packaging of marijuana in
an industrial building in a very close proximity to the building that houses
[their] school, restaurant and offices would constitute a noxious and offensive
business activity that stands to interfere with the business operations of [the
applicants]”.
[65]
Amongst other things, the applicants say that
having a marijuana production facility next door to the Union’s office “makes a mockery” of what the Union is trying to
achieve in terms of creating a drug-free culture for its members, and that such
a facility does not belong next door to a training school that is attended by
young people.
[66]
The applicants also say that growing marijuana
next door to their property will increase the potential for criminal activity,
that it will cause a persistent odour in the neighbouring vicinity, and that it
will degrade the quality of the environment of the neighbourhood. In addition,
having a marijuana production facility next to their property will impact on
P&S’s rental revenues, and impede the symbiotic relationship between the
various occupants of the applicants’ property.
[67]
It is, however, important to note that the
applicants have not raised any objection to a licence being granted to this
applicant in particular. That is, they have not identified any reason why a
medical marijuana production licence should not be granted to International
Herbs specifically, nor have they provided any information or made any
submissions to suggest that International Herbs would not be a suitable
licence-holder.
[68]
Rather, the applicants’ concerns are more
general in nature: that is, they have concerns about anyone building a marijuana
production facility next to their property. Thus applicants’ concerns do not
actually relate to the medical marijuana licencing process per se, but
relate instead to the uses to which the adjoining property may be put. The
compatibility of uses is ultimately a question of land use planning, and the
administrative avenue available to the applicants to express their concerns in
this regard was, and remains, the municipal zoning process.
[69]
As the respondents noted, the applicants’
property is in an area that is zoned for heavy industrial uses. They would thus
have no basis to object if the owner of the adjacent property decided to build
a slaughterhouse next door to the applicants’ property.
[70]
In this case, the applicants had the right to,
and did, participate in the municipal zoning process. It was open to them to
bring forward whatever evidence they saw fit to provide in order to demonstrate
that the construction of a medical marijuana production facility next door to
their property would have a negative impact on the applicants and their
property. They made certain bald assertions in this regard, but provided little
in the way of evidence to support their claims to the Delta Council. (Nor, I
might add, did the applicants provide the Minister with any objective evidence supporting
their allegations of detrimental impact.) Their claims are thus entirely
speculative in nature.
[71]
The applicants will, moreover, have a further
opportunity to participate in the zoning process when the final bylaw approving
site-specific re-zoning for the proposed site is considered by City of Delta,
where, once again, they will have an opportunity to provide concrete evidence
to support their objection to the use of the proposed site.
[72]
This is not to say that there might not be some
instances where the Minister might wish to consider submissions from a third
party where, for example, that party has concrete information about a specific
applicant for a medical marijuana production licence that could call into
question the applicant’s suitability to hold a licence. There is, however, no
obligation on the Minister to do so.
XIII.
Conclusion
[73]
I have thus concluded that the applicants’
concerns relate to what are essentially land use planning issues, and that they
had, and have, the right to participate in the municipal zoning process if they
have concerns regarding a proposed use for a neighbouring property. The
applicants do not, however, have either a statutory or common-law right to
participate in the medical marijuana production licencing process.
[74]
Consequently, the application for judicial
review will be dismissed, with two sets of costs to the respondents, one for
the respondents International Herbs and the numbered company, and the other for
the Crown.
Email this Content