MUST READ!!!
http://canadianjusticereviewboard.ca/archive-...ormity.pdf
I have posted this site for all to enjoy. The most important part begins on page 8 under the heading: Use of Land on the Day the By-law was passed.
Here is my legal analysis:
First and foremost let me state that i have used this drop in share price as an opportunity to heavily accumulate additional shares at what i believe to be a remarkable bargain.
When CEN Biotech initially submitted its application to Lakeshore for a building permit and notified Lakeshore of its application to Health Canada for an MMPR license, there were no by-laws or ordinances in place regulating the growth of medical marijuana within the town. NONE. What this means is that there was nothing for CEN Biotech to have to comply with as far as the growth of medical marijuana. CEN was issued a building permit by the town for agricultural storage and notified the town of its intention to operate a medical marijuana facility on the land. Because Lakeshore, at the time, did not define or dictate where medical marijuana facilities were to be located we were compliant with Lakeshores by-laws as they existed then. (this is EXACTLY why Health Canada has urged local municipalities to develop and implement by-laws and regulations pertaining to MMPR facilities. Because if local municipalities sat on their thumbs and did nothing, they would lose the ability to regulate where these facilities are constructed) NOW, Lakeshore has since passed a new by-law, as we all know, regulating medical marijuana facilities within its borders. These by-laws do not apply to CEN Biotech. Let me state that again, these by-laws do not pertain to CEN Biotech.
As can be read in the link i posted above, here are the legalities behind this. Once an owner or possesor of land makes use of their land in a way that is permissible, a new by-law that prohibits the activity the land owner/possesor was engaging in does not apply to them. This is what is known as lawful non conforming use. Example: I operate a gas station at a certain intersection and the land is zoned as commercial allowing me to do so. The local municipality passes a by-law that says the land is now residential and only houses can be built there. Because i have used the land as a gas station BEFORE the new by-law was passed changing the zoning to residential, i can continue to operate my gas station and the new by-law doesn't affect me. I do not have to comly with it. I have lawful non conforming land use rights. I can't be "shut down" by a new by-law.
Here, CEN Biotech is me, and the marijuana facility is the gas station. Before the new by-law was recently adopted CEN Biotech would have been authorized to operate its marijuana facility in its present location. With the new by-law that was passed CEN Biotech can't. HOWEVER, the new by-law does NOT apply to CEN Biotech because we were already using the land for a MMPR facility BEFORE the by-law was passed. We have lawful non conforming land use rights just as the gas station in the example above. The new by-law has no impact on CEN Biotech.
Also extremely important to note, in a Canadian legal decision called Township of Emily vs. Johnson, an Ontario Court held that the owner of the land in question must only show that the intended operation had commenced, not that it was fully operational. In the Emily vs. Johnson case, a landowner intended on using his land for a go-cart track. His operation was not yet "fully developed." The Town tried to slap him with an injunction prohibiting him from operating a go-cart track on his land as a new by-law prohibited the activity. The Town claimed his go-cart track was not fully operational and hence he was not "using" his land as a go-cart track BEFORE the adoption of the new by-law. The Court disagreed and sided with the landowner. The landowner established that BEFORE the new by-law was adopted he had an INTENTION of operating a go-cart track, had purchased two go-carts, graded the land at the proposed site, removed stones, and had shaped the land. The Court stated, "the conclusion is irresistible that there was an embryo in place in 1977. Mr. Johnson had formulated his plans by 1976. He began to execute them by..." The Court held that based on the actions Mr. Johnson had taken it was evident he had intended to use the property as a go-cart facility BEFORE the Town adopted its new by-law prohibiting the activity in it's location and he was granted lawful non conforming land use rights.
In the case of CEN Biotech, Cen Biotech is Mr. Johnson and the Tonwship of Emily is the Town of Lakeshore. BEFORE Lakeshore passed this recent by-law Cen Biotech had applied for a building permit, built the building, advised the Town of Lakeshore of its application to Health Canada for an MMPR license to grow marijuana on the property, installed a security system and vault, put up security fencing and lighting, developed a website for MMPR applicants etc, etc. (Just as Mr. Johnson had bought two go-carts, graded the land etc, etc.) Lakeshore initially permitted the use of our land for an MMPR facility (because they had no by-laws regulating or prohibbiting it) just as the Town of Emily had initially permitted Mr. Johnsins land to be used as a go-cart track. Lakeshore has since passed a by-law prohibiting our marijuana facility in its present location, just as the Town of Emily passed a by-law prohibiting Mr. Johnsons go-cart facility in its present location. The Town of Emily lost. So will Lakeshore.
As an attorney and somewhat versed in policitcs it is my opinion that the Lakeshore council members voted the way they did to simply appease their constituents all the while knowing that CEN Biotech isn't going anywhere. This way, all the Council members can say, "We tried to prevent it." Truth is, if Lakeshore Council wanted to prohibit CEN Biotech from being in its current location they should have acted to pass legislation when the MMPR first went into effect just as Health Canada had recommended. By the Town doing nothing, CEN Biotech was able to take action in a community where there was no regulation, and given everything that CEN has done to further its operation, has lawful non conforming rights.
http://canadianjusticereviewboard.ca/archive-...ormity.pdf
I have posted this site for all to enjoy. The most important part begins on page 8 under the heading: Use of Land on the Day the By-law was passed.
Here is my legal analysis:
First and foremost let me state that i have used this drop in share price as an opportunity to heavily accumulate additional shares at what i believe to be a remarkable bargain.
When CEN Biotech initially submitted its application to Lakeshore for a building permit and notified Lakeshore of its application to Health Canada for an MMPR license, there were no by-laws or ordinances in place regulating the growth of medical marijuana within the town. NONE. What this means is that there was nothing for CEN Biotech to have to comply with as far as the growth of medical marijuana. CEN was issued a building permit by the town for agricultural storage and notified the town of its intention to operate a medical marijuana facility on the land. Because Lakeshore, at the time, did not define or dictate where medical marijuana facilities were to be located we were compliant with Lakeshores by-laws as they existed then. (this is EXACTLY why Health Canada has urged local municipalities to develop and implement by-laws and regulations pertaining to MMPR facilities. Because if local municipalities sat on their thumbs and did nothing, they would lose the ability to regulate where these facilities are constructed) NOW, Lakeshore has since passed a new by-law, as we all know, regulating medical marijuana facilities within its borders. These by-laws do not apply to CEN Biotech. Let me state that again, these by-laws do not pertain to CEN Biotech.
As can be read in the link i posted above, here are the legalities behind this. Once an owner or possesor of land makes use of their land in a way that is permissible, a new by-law that prohibits the activity the land owner/possesor was engaging in does not apply to them. This is what is known as lawful non conforming use. Example: I operate a gas station at a certain intersection and the land is zoned as commercial allowing me to do so. The local municipality passes a by-law that says the land is now residential and only houses can be built there. Because i have used the land as a gas station BEFORE the new by-law was passed changing the zoning to residential, i can continue to operate my gas station and the new by-law doesn't affect me. I do not have to comly with it. I have lawful non conforming land use rights. I can't be "shut down" by a new by-law.
Here, CEN Biotech is me, and the marijuana facility is the gas station. Before the new by-law was recently adopted CEN Biotech would have been authorized to operate its marijuana facility in its present location. With the new by-law that was passed CEN Biotech can't. HOWEVER, the new by-law does NOT apply to CEN Biotech because we were already using the land for a MMPR facility BEFORE the by-law was passed. We have lawful non conforming land use rights just as the gas station in the example above. The new by-law has no impact on CEN Biotech.
Also extremely important to note, in a Canadian legal decision called Township of Emily vs. Johnson, an Ontario Court held that the owner of the land in question must only show that the intended operation had commenced, not that it was fully operational. In the Emily vs. Johnson case, a landowner intended on using his land for a go-cart track. His operation was not yet "fully developed." The Town tried to slap him with an injunction prohibiting him from operating a go-cart track on his land as a new by-law prohibited the activity. The Town claimed his go-cart track was not fully operational and hence he was not "using" his land as a go-cart track BEFORE the adoption of the new by-law. The Court disagreed and sided with the landowner. The landowner established that BEFORE the new by-law was adopted he had an INTENTION of operating a go-cart track, had purchased two go-carts, graded the land at the proposed site, removed stones, and had shaped the land. The Court stated, "the conclusion is irresistible that there was an embryo in place in 1977. Mr. Johnson had formulated his plans by 1976. He began to execute them by..." The Court held that based on the actions Mr. Johnson had taken it was evident he had intended to use the property as a go-cart facility BEFORE the Town adopted its new by-law prohibiting the activity in it's location and he was granted lawful non conforming land use rights.
In the case of CEN Biotech, Cen Biotech is Mr. Johnson and the Tonwship of Emily is the Town of Lakeshore. BEFORE Lakeshore passed this recent by-law Cen Biotech had applied for a building permit, built the building, advised the Town of Lakeshore of its application to Health Canada for an MMPR license to grow marijuana on the property, installed a security system and vault, put up security fencing and lighting, developed a website for MMPR applicants etc, etc. (Just as Mr. Johnson had bought two go-carts, graded the land etc, etc.) Lakeshore initially permitted the use of our land for an MMPR facility (because they had no by-laws regulating or prohibbiting it) just as the Town of Emily had initially permitted Mr. Johnsins land to be used as a go-cart track. Lakeshore has since passed a by-law prohibiting our marijuana facility in its present location, just as the Town of Emily passed a by-law prohibiting Mr. Johnsons go-cart facility in its present location. The Town of Emily lost. So will Lakeshore.
As an attorney and somewhat versed in policitcs it is my opinion that the Lakeshore council members voted the way they did to simply appease their constituents all the while knowing that CEN Biotech isn't going anywhere. This way, all the Council members can say, "We tried to prevent it." Truth is, if Lakeshore Council wanted to prohibit CEN Biotech from being in its current location they should have acted to pass legislation when the MMPR first went into effect just as Health Canada had recommended. By the Town doing nothing, CEN Biotech was able to take action in a community where there was no regulation, and given everything that CEN has done to further its operation, has lawful non conforming rights.
