At a glance
- Regulatory scrutiny of Canadian origin claims is accelerating.
- New Competition Act amendments have increased litigation exposure, which raises business risk.
- Maple washing risk often stems from weak documentation, not intent.
- Defensible origin claims require structured supply chain verification.
- Due diligence strengthens compliance, resilience, and stakeholder trust.
A bold red maple leaf. The words “Made in Canada” or “Packaged in Canada”. These cues speak to Canadian identity, local production, and national pride. In an era where consumers (and tariff regimes) prefer Canadian-made goods, regulators and consumer advocates are intensifying scrutiny of how those claims are substantiated.
Businesses that are not prepared to respond could be exposing themselves to a growing compliance and reputational risk: maple washing.
What is maple washing?
Maple washing is a term increasingly used by regulators, consumer advocates, and the media to describe situations where Canadian-origin symbols or labelling claims on products are misleading or false.
In some cases, product origin claims may involve deliberate misrepresentation. However, sometimes they arise from lack of awareness of complex supply chains, outdated assumptions, or supplier misunderstandings. Nevertheless, responsibility for verifying product origin lies with the party making the representation.
Now, more than ever, failing to meet that responsibility can bring significant consequences for your business.
Attention to ‘Made in Canada’
claims is increasing
Representations that were once viewed as low-risk marketing statements are now subject to heightened regulatory, legal, and consumer scrutiny.
Both the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), which oversees food labelling and advertising, and the Competition Bureau, which oversees advertising of non-food consumer products, have raised scrutiny and stakeholder attention around origin claims.
The Competition Bureau noted a sharp rise in website engagement with its enforcement guidelines on “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” claims in 2025,1 while the CFIA reported an increase in complaints related to origin claims on food labels, bulk produce, and advertising in its March 2025 Notice to Industry.2 Where complaints were verified, most were resolved through corrective action by the companies involved, typically without charges or monetary penalties.3
Competition Act amendments bring heightened risk
The way in which Made in Canada claims are enforced is also evolving rapidly, bringing about heightened risk exposure for businesses. Previously, if a business or consumer believed a company’s advertising or origin claim was misleading, the complaint was directed to the Competition Bureau, which had sole discretion to investigate and decide whether to bring a case to the Tribunal.
Now, as of June 2025, the Competition Act allows private parties to bring claims directly before the Competition Tribunal for misleading food origin representations.4 The amendments increase potential exposure by allowing regulatory proceedings and private litigation to operate in parallel.
And businesses are already experiencing the impact of civil litigation exposure.
In September 2025, a proposed class action was filed in Quebec on behalf of consumers who purchased grocery items advertised as Canadian source, but that were ostensibly imported from other countries. The action names several major grocery chains. The claim alleges that while the use of maple leaf logos, “fait au Canada,” and “product of Canada” signage conveyed the perception of domestic origin, the products in question were actually imported from countries such as the U.S., Mexico, or Thailand.
Although the certification of this proceeding is pending, it signals how private civil litigation may now join regulatory enforcement as a business risk for retailers and brand owners.
Substantiating product origin may also be a strategic imperative and, ultimately, a contractual obligation. Ontario’s Buy Ontario Act (Public Sector Procurement), 2025 prioritizes Ontario and Canadian goods and services in public procurement. Supply contracts may require explicit declarations or assertions of product origin. In short, product origin claims have evolved from a marketing strategy to potentially creating regulatory, legal, and reputational risks.
Why Canadian-origin rules
create practical risk
Canadian-origin claims are governed by a combination of statutory requirements, enforcement guidance, and regulatory pronouncements. Guidelines range from raw materials origin to location of final assembly and can include complex formulaic calculations. While numerical cost thresholds are often cited (such as the 98% benchmark for “Product of Canada” and the 51% benchmark for “Made in Canada” claims), significant subjectivity can exist in the interpretation and application of those calculations. Clear supporting documentation to support your supply chain and product composition is critical in the event of scrutiny.
Origin determinations frequently involve nuanced, fact-specific questions, such as:
- the origin of key inputs or ingredients;
- whether assembly or finishing steps performed in Canada constitute substantial transformation;
- how production costs are allocated across jurisdictions; and
- whether marketing or retail signage accurately reflects qualified label claims.
As a result, compliance risk is less about misunderstanding the rules and more about whether a company can clearly demonstrate - with contemporaneous documentation - how its origin claims were determined. Even good-faith claims may be challenged where origin determinations are poorly documented or based on assumptions that regulators or courts ultimately find to be unreasonable.
Even well-intentioned businesses could be exposed to maple washing
Origin claims are often made in good faith, but in complex global supply chains, ensuring accuracy can be difficult. Some common risk factors include:
- incorporating products that are packaged or assembled in Canada but were in fact primarily manufactured elsewhere as “Made in Canada” or “Product of Canada;”
- overreliance on unverified supplier information; and
- inconsistent understanding or application of “Made in Canada” criteria across marketing, procurement, and compliance functions.
As scrutiny increases, careless mislabelling can lead to enforcement action or class-action litigation.
Managing risk and building trust through supply chain due diligence
As regulatory and public scrutiny of origin claims increases, businesses will face increasing expectations to demonstrate that those claims are supported. While maple washing presents compliance risk, it also creates an opportunity for companies to differentiate themselves through transparency, accountability and integrity.
The most effective way to mitigate maple washing risk is proactive verification. Supply chain due diligence—an expectation under broader sustainability standards—is increasingly being applied across regulatory contexts and provides a structured way for businesses to substantiate origin representations before they are challenged.
In practice, supply chain due diligence functions primarily as an evidentiary exercise: businesses map their supply chains to identify where key inputs originate, determine where substantial transformation occurs, and assess whether existing commercial records— such as supplier declarations, purchase and production data, and cost allocations—reasonably support the claim being made. The emphasis is on establishing a defensible and consistently applied methodology, supported by contemporaneous documentation and internal controls over how origin representations are assessed, verified, and communicated, so that the business can demonstrate a reasonable basis for its claim if challenged.
The value of this approach extends beyond origin claims. Canada recently enacted its new modern slavery law, the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (formerly Bill S-211), which requires companies to publicly report on the steps they are taking to identify and address forced labour and child labour risks in their supply chains. Similar expectations are emerging globally in relation to human rights, environmental representations, and trade compliance.
These developments reinforce a broader regulatory trend: companies are expected to understand, document, and substantiate claims about their supply chains.
SCDD supports this expectation by creating a repeatable process for gathering, testing, and maintaining supporting evidence, allowing organizations to respond more effectively to regulatory inquiries, litigation risk, and stakeholder scrutiny.
Beyond compliance:
Supply chain transparency as a
strategic advantage
Beyond risk mitigation, supply chain due diligence can also create strategic advantages.
A structured due diligence process enables businesses to gain a clearer, evidence-based understanding of their supplier base with more visibility into where inputs originate, if suppliers are who they claim to be, and whether other sustainability-related risks exist beneath the surface. This can include validating supplier ownership and control, identifying inconsistencies between contractual representations and operational reality, and assessing exposure to human rights, sanctions, or reputational risks that may not be apparent from commercial documentation alone.
For example, pre-transaction and supply chain investigations in high-risk jurisdictions increasingly combine document review with open-source intelligence, regulatory records, court decisions, and local-language media to assess labour practices and governance risks. These reviews can identify discrepancies between supplier representations and actual operating practices, as well as forced labour and global sanction concerns that were not disclosed by suppliers but carried significant regulatory and reputational implications for downstream businesses. Identifying such issues early allows organizations to reassess sourcing decisions, strengthen contractual protections, or disengage from commercial relationships before risks crystallize.
When disputes do occur, the same documentation and evidentiary framework developed through supply chain due diligence often becomes central to regulatory investigations, litigation, or expert analysis of origin determinations.
Take a proactive approach to
supply chain risk
As transparency expectations continue to rise, organizations that invest early in understanding, documenting, and substantiating their supply-chain are better positioned to manage regulatory scrutiny, respond to litigation or public complaints, and communicate credibly with consumers and stakeholders. Under the current environment, supply chain due diligence is no longer a defensive exercise, but a tool for informed decision-making, resilience, and long-term trust.
Our Forensic Disputes & Investigations team can help you assess and mitigate risks associated with origin claims, including maple washing. We work with you to strengthen your supply chain due diligence framework, so your business is better prepared to respond to today’s changing regulatory environment.
Contact us to discuss your organization’s risk profile.
- A maplewashed minefield, National Magazine, June 19, 2025
- Notice to industry – The importance of accurate use of Product of Canada, Made in Canada and other origin claims, Government of Canada, July 30, 2025
- The rise of maple-washing, Lexpert, Nov. 27, 2025
- Competition Bureau issues a revised bulletin on private access to the Competition Tribunal, Government of Canada, June 20, 2025