Competition Bureau’s work in the food sector
Backgrounder
June 16, 2026
On this page
The food sector is a top priority for the Bureau. In the last decade, the Bureau worked on several public cases in the food sector, from investigations to protect against anti-competitive behaviour and mergers to promoting the role of competition to policymakers.
Advocacy and promotion work
In June 2023, the Bureau published a report highlighting the findings of its Retail Grocery Market Study. The report made four recommendations to policymakers to promote more competition in the industry:
- Canada needs a Grocery Innovation Strategy aimed at supporting the emergence of new types of grocery businesses and expanding consumer choice.
- Federal, provincial and territorial support for the Canadian grocery industry should encourage the growth of independent grocers and the entry of international grocers.
- Provincial and territorial governments should consider introducing accessible and harmonized unit pricing requirements.
- Provincial and territorial governments should take measures to limit property controls in the grocery industry, which could include banning their use.
The Bureau also made the commitment to provide a procompetitive perspective to support the implementation of Canada’s grocery code of conduct.
In March of 2026, the Bureau published a report examining how shared kitchens and food hubs can lower barriers to entry for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by reducing fixed and compliance costs, and how regulatory fragmentation may be limiting their procompetitive potential.
In 2017, the Bureau advocated for more competition in the restaurant and mobile food industry by encouraging municipalities to review their regulations and providing best practices to guide regulatory reform.
Investigating anti-competitive conduct and protecting competition
Restrictive trade practices
In June 2024, the Bureau announced that the Federal Court issued court orders to advance investigations into the use of property controls by Canada’s two largest grocers, SobeysFootnote1 and LoblawsFootnote2. Property controls limit how real estate can be used, including by competing food retailers. They can harm competition by making it difficult, or even impossible, for businesses to open new stores. In January 2025, as a result of the Bureau's investigation, Sobeys agreed to remove a property control that restricted retail grocery store competition in Crowsnest Pass, Alberta. The Bureau is also monitoring Loblaw's commitment towards eliminating property controls in Canada. The Bureau's investigation into property controls in the Canadian grocery industry is ongoing.
In 2022, the Bureau concluded its investigation into allegations that some manufacturers and wholesalers restricted or blocked the supply of crop inputs (such as seeds, fertilizer and crop protection products) to Farmers Business Network Canada Inc (FBN). After having conducted a thorough investigation, the Bureau found insufficient evidence that the behavior contravened the Competition Act. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that certain market participants communicated with the goal of influencing suppliers regarding FBN. These communications—which took place in a highly concentrated sector—are concerning. The Bureau will continue to closely monitor the industry.
In 2017, the Bureau investigated Loblaws’ practices in dealing with its suppliers. Under its policies, Loblaws sought compensation from suppliers when its profitability decreased due to other retailers’ competitive activities such as when they sold products at lower prices. During that investigation, Loblaws ended many of the negative business practices that it had historically engaged in. Following an extensive review of the full body of evidence, we concluded our investigation.
The Bureau maintains a full list of our public investigations involving restrictive trade practices since 2015 and their outcomes on our website.
Merger reviews
Over the last decade, the Bureau analyzed numerous mergers in different areas of the food sector—such as animal production and aquaculture, food manufacturing and wholesale, and machinery, equipment and supplies wholesale.
The following are just some of those cases:
- In May 2026, the Bureau announced it had reached an agreement with Parrish & Heimbecker, Limited (P&H) to address concerns related to its proposed acquisition of GrainsConnect Canada Operations Inc. (GrainsConnect). The Bureau found that the transaction would reduce competition for the purchase of wheat from farmers in the region surrounding Reford, Saskatchewan. To address the Bureau’s concerns, P&H has agreed to sell GrainsConnect’s grain elevator business in Reford, Saskatchewan to a buyer to be approved by the Commissioner of Competition.
- In April 2024, The Bureau released a report identifying its substantial competition concerns with the proposed acquisition of Viterra by BungeFootnote3. The report was submitted to the Minister of Transport to inform Transport Canada’s public interest review under the Transportation Act. The Governor in Council makes the final decision based on the Minister’s advice. In January 2025, the Government of Canada approved the acquisition with specific terms and conditions, including Bunge’s divestiture of six grain elevators in Western Canada to maintain competitive options for farmers in the region.
- In February 2021, FCL and Blair’sFootnote4 announced that they would enter into a joint venture. The Bureau concluded that the transaction was likely to result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the supply of crop inputs in the Lipton, Saskatchewan area. In July 2021, the Commissioner entered into a consent agreement with the parties in which they agreed to divest Blair’s Lipton retail location, together with two satellite facilities, to a purchaser acceptable to the Commissioner.
- In September 2019, P&H announced that it was acquiring ten primary grain elevators from Louis DreyfusFootnote5. In December 2019, the Bureau filed an application with the Competition Tribunal to challenge the company’s acquisition of one primary grain elevator in Virden, Manitoba. The application asked for an order requiring P&H to sell either its elevator in Moosomin, Saskatchewan or the newly acquired elevator in Virden. In October 2022, the Tribunal dismissed the Bureau’s application and concluded that, while there was evidence that P&H had pre-existing market power, there were insufficient grounds to conclude that the acquisition of the grain elevator in Virden would lessen competition substantially in the purchase of wheat and canola in that area.
The Bureau maintains a searchable list of our ongoing and concluded merger reviews on our website.
Cartels
In June 2023, a court fined Canada Bread Company Limited $50 million for its role in a price-fixing arrangement—the highest price-fixing fine imposed by Canadian courts to date. As a result of the Bureau’s investigation, Canada Bread pleaded guilty to arranging with Weston Foods (Canada) Inc. to increase prices for various bread products. The price-fixing resulted in two price increases, one in 2007 and one in 2011.
George Weston Limited (GWL), Weston Foods and Loblaws (both subsidiaries of GWL) received immunity from prosecution for cooperating with the Bureau’s investigation. The Bureau continues to investigate alleged price-fixing by other companies, including Metro Inc., Sobeys Inc., Wal-Mart Canada Corporation, Giant Tiger Stores Limited, and Maple Leaf Foods Inc.
In 2022, the Bureau joined the International Supply Chain Working Group which focussed on sharing information to identify and prevent potentially anti-competitive conduct in the global supply and distribution of goods.
The Bureau maintains a listing of all cartel cases since 2014 and their outcomes on our website.
Deceptive marketing practices
In June 2025, the Bureau took legal action against DoorDashFootnote6 for allegedly advertising misleading prices and discounts on their online delivery platform. The investigation found that consumers were unable to purchase food and other items at the advertised price because mandatory fees were added at checkout, a practice known as drip pricing. These fees include service, delivery, and other charges, resulting in higher prices or lower discounts than advertised. The Bureau also alleges that the way certain fees are represented on the platform gives the impression that they are taxes, where, in reality, they are charges imposed at DoorDash’s discretion. The litigation is still ongoing.
In January 2022, the Bureau reached an agreement with Keurig Canada Inc. to resolve concerns over false or misleading environmental claims made to consumers about the recyclability of its single-use Keurig® K-Cup® pods. The Bureau found that, outside the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec, K-Cup pods were not widely accepted in municipal recycling programs. As part of this settlement, Keurig Canada agreed to pay a $3 million penalty and change its recyclable claims and the packaging of the K-Cup pods.
The Bureau maintains a full list of our public investigations involving deceptive marketing practices since 2015 and their outcomes on our website.