Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LCB evaluation finds no immediate change needed to cannabis check‑payment rule; recommends 24‑month follow‑up
Summary
A Liquor and Cannabis Board staff evaluation found fewer warnings after the October 2024 check‑payment rule went into effect and recommended continued monitoring rather than immediate rule change, citing concentrated non‑compliance by a small number of licensees.
Nick, a Research Program staffer, presented the LCB’s evaluation of the cannabis payment‑flexibility rule that took effect in October 2024, which requires checks used as payment to be sent or delivered within one business day and deposited no later than five business days after delivery. The review compared events logged in the Enforcement & Education electronic notebook for the year before adoption (Nov 2023–Oct 2024) with the year after (Nov 2024–Oct 2025).
According to Nick, written warnings tied to check payments declined from 46 in the year before adoption to 29 in the year after, while external complaints remained at one before and one after. He said that the visually striking spikes in warnings in July 2024 and January 2025 were largely attributable to two licensees and therefore not representative of the industry as a whole. “It doesn't appear necessary to make any changes to the rule at this time,” Nick said, while recommending a 24‑month follow‑up to continue monitoring trends.
Nick also noted an important caveat: just outside the evaluation window, in November 2025, the agency issued 11 violations tied to a single licensee that had previously received a warning. He characterized the pattern as a case where a licensee received warnings (educational notices) and then, after continued noncompliance, was issued violations. The presentation recommended strengthened operating procedures and data governance to support future evaluations and urged staff to revisit the metrics after an additional year of data.
The board did not vote on the rule during the meeting; staff said their recommendation was continued monitoring and data quality improvements before considering rule changes. The chair thanked staff for the analysis and moved on to the next agenda item.
