Proof you don't need landlord consent to grow under new program

I was 100% wrong about the right to consent about growing in somebody else's home as a tenant/renter. In light of that, I once again want to offer my apologies to anybody I have disrespected or upset in our conversation in the other thread regarding this topic.

Here is a link to an article concerning a local Coquitlam home owner and landlord.I have presented a few factual quotes but suggest you read the whole thing for the entire story.

"A B.C. lawyer who successfully fought the former government’s attempt to crack down on state-sanctioned home grow-ops, meanwhile, said the lack of a requirement for landlord consent is a “defect” in the new regulations. But Abbotsford lawyer John Conroy, lead counsel in the Allard vs. Canada case that led to the new regulations, amended his comment in a subsequent e-mail exchange, saying a consent requirement could have an “unreasonable” impact on renters."

“It seems to me there are valid concerns on the part of the owners and tenant-patients in the current market that will hopefully ultimately disappear in a legal market.”

"She complained that the new system doesn’t require the owner’s knowledge or consent when a tenant makes a successful application. (Consent is only required if the licence-holder doesn’t live in the rental property.)"

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/08/31/bc-renters-grow-op-leaves-womans-home-with-135000-in-damages

Thank you. We can certainly discuss weather or not landlord consent should be a part of the ACMPR, but at this time it is clearly not. Good for you in seeing your error and admitting it. I hope I can do that too.

Just to throw a wrench into the system.... But a "rental agreement" and a "lease" are not the same in the eyes of the law. A lease gives stronger rights similar to ownership - grey area ???
Thinking out loud.......

jafro daweedhound said:

Just to throw a wrench into the system.... But a "rental agreement" and a "lease" are not the same in the eyes of the law. A lease gives stronger rights similar to ownership - grey area ???
Thinking out loud.......

Click to expand...

primary residence is primary residence though.
no getting around that.

It may be in the Reg's, but it won't fly...IMO. Landlords will adjust the wording in their leases, just as for tobacco smokers or pet owners. Go ahead and fire up that new grow, but don't expect landlords to renew leases once they find out. All it will take is a couple of condo Corps going to court to evict MMJ tenants to set the precedent. This will be challenged by landlords!

I told you already my lawyer confirmed this lol. Nice to hear it said publically

I've been saying this on here for 7 years