BC court dismisses cannabis retail lawsuit – Cannabis | weed | marijuana

A court in British Columbia (BC) dismissed a lawsuit brought by owners of licensed cannabis retail stores. Last year, this group of cannabis retailers sued the province for failing to enforce cannabis regulations.

While licensed cannabis retailers jump through bureaucratic hurdles and pay excessive taxes under the false belief that it contributes to “public health and safety,” the BC Bud market of “illegal” retailers does not face the same hurdles.

Particularly in the Indigenous Reserves, where plaintiffs are seeking damages totaling at least $40 million in lost revenue.

Judge Basran considered whether the province owed the plaintiffs a private duty of care in this context. The plaintiffs alleged that the province committed negligent acts and negligent misrepresentations.

But what does that mean? And was Judge Basran’s dismissal of the lawsuit justified?

Details of the plaintiff’s argument (Cannabis Retail).

While the cannabis retailers suing the province wished to remain anonymous, CLN revealed who they were. Your position is understandable. The government sold them a bill of materials.

When Canada legalized cannabis, the province of British Columbia effectively said, “Follow the rules and you will profit.” The reality was anything but.

Clearly, licensed cannabis retailers are at a competitive disadvantage compared to unlicensed cannabis stores.

Why did Judge Basran dismiss the lawsuit?

First, let’s look at what the plaintiffs alleged in their lawsuit. What do “torts of negligence” and “negligent misrepresentation” refer to in this context?

Tort law

Negligence is a fundamental concept in tort law. This means that the level of care that reasonable people would use in similar circumstances is not applied.

To establish a negligence claim, the plaintiff (in this case, a group of licensed cannabis retailers) had to prove the following:

• That the Province of BC owes a duty of care to licensed cannabis retailers.
• That the Province breached that duty by failing to meet the standard of care expected under the circumstances (i.e. the Provincial Cannabis Enforcement Agency should have conducted raids on unlicensed stores more frequently than was the case).
• That the province’s breach of duty caused proximate harm or damage (i.e. causation) to the licensed cannabis retailers
• And that these actual damages (or losses) result from the province’s breach of duty.

The plaintiffs alleged that BC failed to enforce cannabis regulations (specifically the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act) on Indigenous reserves. They claimed this negligence resulted in at least $40 million in damages.

Negligent misrepresentation is a special type of negligence claim that arises when one party provides false or misleading information to another party and the party receiving the information relies on it (to their detriment).

To prove negligent misrepresentation, the licensed cannabis retailers had to prove the following:

• That the Province made a false statement, whether intentionally or unintentionally
• That the plaintiffs relied on this false statement
• Plaintiffs suffered financial (or other) losses because of their reliance on this misstatement.

In this case, the plaintiffs said BC promised them a viable, legal and superior cannabis retail industry. One way to ensure this is to take enforcement action against unlicensed retailers, whether on Indigenous reservations or not.

Did the British Columbia government have a duty of care to cannabis retailers?

Unlicensed cannabis store in BC

Judge Basran considered whether the province owed the plaintiffs a private duty of care. The BC government argued that it did not owe such a duty because there was no direct relationship between the parties.

But what does that mean?

In tort law, a “duty of care” is a legal obligation imposed on an individual (or a group, a company, etc.) to exercise reasonable care and caution to avoid causing harm to others through their actions and omissions.

Of course, not all actions or omissions constitute a duty of care. This is where proximity comes into play, which refers to the direct relationship between the parties. The question in this case is whether a direct connection between provincial cannabis regulators and cannabis retailers justifies the imposition of a statutory duty.

Judge Basran had to determine whether the province of BC owed a “private law duty of care” to cannabis retailers. Of course, BC argued that this was not the case. They argued that their duty was to serve the “public interest” and not the economic interests of specific companies.

Judge Basran agreed that there was no duty of care due to lack of proximity.

How did the court come to this decision?

Judge Basran dismissed the British Columbia cannabis retail lawsuit based on the “plain and obvious” legal standard used in deciding the strike grounds.

The court considered the Anns/Cooper test to determine whether a duty of care existed. This involves two stages. First, whether the alleged harm was reasonably foreseeable. And secondly, whether there is a close relationship between the parties (proximity).

Judge Basran prima facie found no duty of care between the province and the licensed cannabis retailers. The court reasoned that BC’s cannabis regulations do not establish a legislative intent to impose such a requirement.

The court also held that the province’s asserted claims (e.g., licensing and profits) did not create a sufficient relationship to impose a duty of care.

Suppose the court had recognized that such a duty existed. Justice Basran feared that such a decision could lead to more lawsuits of this kind, in which the province (and its regulators) would be held liable for the economic losses of numerous companies due to their incompetence.

Judge Basran weighed the possible negative consequences of such a decision and concluded that it would not be in the best interests of the legal system, taxpayers or society as a whole to impose such a duty.

British Columbia court dismisses cannabis retail lawsuit

A court in British Columbia has dismissed the cannabis retail lawsuit. The decisions sound like what is convenient for the government takes precedence over what is just and fair.

Was Judge Basran’s dismissal of the lawsuit justified? After all, judges are only human. And there is an appeals court. So it could be that there will be more to the case in the future.

The claim that judges in Canada have far too much power and that they effectively legislate on the sidelines is now considered a “far-right” viewpoint.

But there is nothing “extreme right” or even “extreme left” about upholding the values ​​that underpin our rule of law.

Suppose governments can avoid the consequences of their actions because of the potential costs to taxpayers or the legal system. In this case there is no rule of law.

It is a fiat rule that masquerades as a constitutional state.