Picon: I'm not sure I agree with your interpretat

Picon: I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of the HC regulations - unfortunately.

Look at the following sections and subsections from those regulations (they're not in proper numerical order, but sequenced to present a logical thread concerning the issue involved):

26. (1) The Minister must refuse to issue, renew or amend a producer’s licence in the following cases:
(b) the requirements of section 38 or 39 have not been met;

38. (1) Before submitting an application for a producer’s licence to the Minister under section 23, the applicant must provide a written notice to the following persons in the area in which the site referred to in paragraph 23(1)(b) is located:
(a) the local government;
(2) The notice must contain the following information:
(c) the activities referred to in subsection 12(1) for which the licence is to be sought, specifying that they are to be conducted in respect of cannabis;

12. (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7) and to the other provisions of these Regulations, a licensed producer may
(a) possess, produce, sell, provide, ship, deliver, transport and destroy marihuana;
(b) possess and produce cannabis, other than marihuana, solely for the purpose of conducting in vitro testing that is necessary to determine the percentages of cannabinoids in dried marihuana; and
(c) sell, provide, ship, deliver, transport and destroy cannabis, other than marihuana, that was obtained or produced solely for the purpose of conducting the in vitro testing referred to in paragraph (b).

This is the crux of the matter - in its notice to Lakeshore, did or did not CenBio specify that Site 1 activities would pertain to the production of MJ?