As businesses struggle to meet heightened consumer demand for Canadian products, concerns have emerged that claims regarding the asserted “Canadian-ness” of certain companies, brands and products may be exaggerated or even false or misleading. This article identifies the potential risks of making false or misleading country of origin claims and provides guidance on compliance.
What is maple-washing?
As uncertainties persist regarding the future of the relationship between Canada and its closest trading partner, the United States of America, many businesses in Canada have pivoted to greater align themselves, their brands, and their products with Canadian identity and values.
Over the past year, Canadian-themed advertising featuring the maple leaf or other national iconography has increasingly been found across all media as well as at retail locations, on products and packaging. In this context, the twin terms “maple-washing” and “maple glazing” have come to prominence, both generally referring to the creation of an association – which may be more or less well-founded – between a company, brand, or product, and Canada. Where such an association is false or misleading, maple-washing representations can be problematic.
Maple-washing and the Competition Act
Country of origin labelling is not a requirement under the Competition Act (the Act); however, the Act does contain provisions prohibiting false or misleading representations. Such provisions can apply to false or misleading country of origin claims.
Most cases regarding deceptive marketing claims are pursued under the Act’s civil provisions. Specifically, paragraph 74.01(1)(a) provides that anyone who makes a materially false or misleading representation to the public to promote the supply or use of a product or a business interest engages in "reviewable conduct." Contravention of this provision may result in orders to cease such conduct, to publish a corrective notice, to pay an administrative monetary penalty (AMP) and/or to pay monetary restitution to be distributed among the persons to whom the products were sold.
The maximum AMP is the greater of (1) C$10 million (C$15 million for subsequent contraventions), and (2) three times the value of the benefit derived from the deceptive conduct, or, if that cannot be reasonably determined, 3% of global revenues.
The Competition Bureau (the Bureau) encourages those making Canada-centric country of origin claims with respect to non-food products to refer to the guidance set out in the Bureau’s enforcement guidelines, “Product of Canada” and “Made in Canada” Claims (the Guidelines). The Guidelines primarily discuss the Bureau’s interpretation of two country of origin claims: “Product of Canada” and “Made in Canada.” Specifically, where a “Product of Canada” claim is made, the Bureau generally will not challenge the claim if:
- the last substantial transformation of the good occurred in Canada; and
- all or at least 98% of the total direct costs of producing or manufacturing the good were incurred in Canada.
If a “Made in Canada” claim is made, the Bureau will generally not challenge such claim if:
- the last substantial transformation of the good occurred in Canada;
- at least 51% of the total direct costs of producing or manufacturing the good were incurred in Canada; and
- the claim is accompanied by an appropriate qualifying statement such as “Made in Canada with domestic and imported goods.”
There has only been one recent example of enforcement action by the Bureau in the context of “Made in Canada” and like claims. In 2016, the Bureau alleged that Moose Knuckles, a Canadian-based manufacturer of premium winter jackets, engaged in deceptive marketing practices when it advertised and labelled its parkas as “Made in Canada.”
The parkas were largely manufactured in Asia with only finishings (zippers, snaps, trimmings and labels) added in Canada. The matter was resolved pursuant to a Consent Agreement which required Moose Knuckles to clarify that certain of its parkas were made with Canadian and imported components, pay a CAD$750,000 administrative monetary penalty over five years, and implement an internal compliance program.
While failure to adhere to the strict Bureau constructs underlying the proper making of “Product of Canada” and “Made in Claims” as described in the Guidelines may not result in a contravention of the Act, many businesses struggle to reconcile the rigidity of the Guidelines with the reality of their manufacturing or other activities in Canada. Should expensive imported components of a product (potentially rendered more expensive by the current trade situation) define the “Canadian-ness” of a finished product, where it is made by Canadian residents at a manufacturing facility located in Canada?
As of June 2025, private parties, with leave of the Competition Tribunal, are able to bring claims for breach of, among other things, the general prohibition against false or misleading representations. Further, class actions in this space have already begun.
In September 2025, an application to authorise a class action was filed in Québec against grocers including Loblaws, Sobeys, Metro, Giant Tiger, and Walmart alleging that the defendant grocery chains “…wilfully [sic] falsely advertised the origin of the items they sell, failed to disclose and actively concealed the origin, despite obvious knowledge…that these items are imported from other countries…” and “…engage in the illegal practice of maple-washing…” and that these alleged misrepresentations and omissions constitute prohibited business practices within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act (Québec), the Civil Code of Québec and the Competition Act.
Maple-washing under the Food and Drugs Act and the Safe Food for Canadians Act
As noted above, the Bureau’s Guidelines do not apply to food products. Where a business includes statements identifying Canada as the country of origin on a food product, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) Guidelines for “Product of Canada” and “Made in Canada” Claims on Food Labels (CFIA Guidelines) become relevant.
Like the Bureau’s Guidelines, the CFIA Guidelines provide guidance in respect of two core claims: “Product of Canada” and “Made in Canada.” While broadly similar with respect to their intent, the CFIA Guidelines do differ from the Bureau’s Guidelines in several key respects.
Notably, to make a “Made in Canada” claim, the CFIA Guidelines do not expressly require that at least 51% of the total direct production or manufacturing costs be incurred in Canada. However, the CFIA Guidelines do provide guidance regarding accompanying qualifying statements and the last substantial transformation of the product.
The CFIA Guidelines also provide examples of domestic content claims that may be used without qualification to describe the Canadian value added, for example, “Roasted and blended in Canada” (coffee) and “Distilled in Canada” (water).
More recently, the CFIA issued its Notice to industry – The importance of accurate use of Product of Canada, Made in Canada and other origin claims (the Notice) reminding food industry participants of the legislative prohibitions against false or misleading food origin claims. Specifically, the Notice indicated that where the maple leaf is used on packaging, retail shelves or online, an accompanying domestic content statement be placed in close proximity to the maple leaf to clarify the meaning of the maple leaf and avoid misleading consumers.
The CFIA reportedly received 160 complaints between January and September 2025 relating to misleading country of origin claims for food. While the CFIA indicates that it sought corrective action in these cases, no charges were laid, and no fines or penalties were imposed.
Ad standards: Self-regulation of maple-washing
Earlier this year, Advertising Standards Canada (Ad Standards), Canada’s only national, not-for-profit, advertising self-regulatory organisation issued an Advisory on the Meaning of “Made in Canada” and Similar Claims under the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (Advisory) to help ensure that advertising for products or services as “Made in Canada,” “Proudly Canadian,” or featuring calls to action associated with the “Buy Canadian” movement comply with the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (the Code).
The Advisory provides guidance for advertisers on how Ad Standards’ Standards Council has interpreted and applied Clause 1(a) in the context of “Made in Canada” and like claims in several upheld cases. In one such case, a manufacturer was found to have contravened the Code when it made “proudly made in Canada” statements on its website despite some clothing labels indicating the products were, in fact, made in other countries.
The manufacturer argued that “the claim does not mean that 100% of their products are made in Canada, but that the majority of the products are made in Canada.” The Standards Council’s view was that the “Proudly made in Canada” claim was an absolute claim, and the general impression was that all of the clothing was made in Canada.
Going forward
When a business decides to make a Canada-origin claim in its marketing or advertising, it should exercise diligence by consulting the CFIA Guidelines for food products or the Bureau’s Guidelines for non-food products, to assess compliance of their “Made in Canada” or like claims. Though not bearing the force of law, the CFIA Guidelines, the Bureau’s Guidelines, and the Code provide insight into the regulators’ interpretations of such claims in the context of the statutes and guidance they enforce or oversee.
Misleading Canada-origin claims may lead to regulatory enforcement, monetary penalties, and reputational harm. The ability for private parties to now bring claims to the Competition Tribunal for false or misleading representations in respect of food and non-food products further heightens the level of risk faced by businesses as does the spectre of civil liability, in the form of individual or class action lawsuits, from consumers alleging that they were misled by claims that products are made in Canada.
***
Janine MacNeil is widely respected for her exceptional capability in advertising and marketing law as well as antitrust matters. In this capacity she works with some of Canada’s largest and most respected companies in manufacturing, payments, and regulated consumer products such as food, alcoholic beverages, natural health products, medical and wireless / electronic devices.
Advising on all legal aspects of advertising and marketing, Janine provides guidance on promotional contests, games and sweepstakes (and related privacy matters), compliance with consumer protection legislation, marketing and advertising-related agreements, and packaging and labelling requirements. She is recognized by Chambers Canada and the Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory for expertise in advertising and marketing law.
In addition, Janine assists clients in complying with the Competition Bureau’s merger notification regime, creating competition compliance programs, and responding to Competition Bureau investigations including cartel investigations.
Janine is past chair of the Marketing Practices Committee of the Canadian Bar Association’s Competition Law Section.
Dave D’Oyen is an articling student at McMillan. During his studies, Dave was a member of Toronto Metropolitan University’s Senate Appeals Committee, the Academic Integrity Council, a teaching assistant, a student ambassador and a peer mentor.
Prior to law school, Dave was the National Lead for Black Exporters at Export Development Canada. He sits on the Michaëlle Jean Foundation’s Board of Directors where he serves on the Executive Committee and Governance Committee. He also worked for Chief Justice Tulloch as a member of the Independent Street Checks Review. He has experience in policy development, government relations, stakeholder engagement and measures to address systemic discrimination.
Dave holds a JD with Distinction from the Lincoln Alexander School of Law at Toronto Metropolitan University and a Bachelor of Arts in Industrial Relations from McGill University. He was the Valedictorian for the Class of 2025 and a recipient of the Dennis Mock Student Leadership Award. He worked at McMillan as a summer student prior to returning to the firm as an articling student.