Early days of Canada’s grocery code reveal a quiet reluctance to speak up

When the Grocery Sector Code of Conduct finally kicked in at the start of 2026, the industry‑wide expectation was a smoother, more transparent dance between supermarkets and the producers that line their shelves. Six months in, a first‑look report paints a more cautious picture.

Both suppliers and the smaller, independent retailers that sit under the shadow of national chains appear hesitant to lodge formal concerns. The fear? That sounding a complaint could ruffle a relationship they can’t easily afford to lose.

"Many members still think the online portal is a personal grievance box rather than a data‑gathering tool," says Karen Proud, president and adjudicator of the Office of the Grocery Sector Code of Conduct. Proud adds that the office’s role is to spot patterns, not to resolve each dispute on a case‑by‑case basis.

To win some trust, the office opened the door to anonymous submissions in May 2026. While anonymity eases the pressure of naming names, it also limits follow‑up, leaving the office to rely on trends rather than individual stories.

The code itself grew out of a bruising chapter in 2020, when Wal‑Mart Canada and Loblaw introduced new supplier‑fee structures that many smaller partners called a “back‑handed surcharge.” Those fees, intended to fund infrastructure upgrades, sparked a wave of criticism and ultimately nudged the government toward a voluntary code.

Food economist Mike von Massow of the University of Guelph notes that the code was meant to set “guardrails” for self‑resolution. "We’re still in the learning curve," he says. "People need to see that the system works before they’ll feel comfortable using it fully."

Even with the initial hesitancy, the report’s authors stress that the code is only in its infancy. The first five months of data – January through May – offer a snapshot, not the whole story. As more companies become familiar with the process, the hope is that the fear of rocking the boat will give way to a willingness to flag systemic issues.

For now, the picture is one of tentative steps: anonymous tip‑offs, cautious dialogue, and a quiet hope that the code will someday become the safety net its architects envisioned.