Canadian Tire false advertising case in Quebec ends with nearly $1.3 million in penalties

A Quebec court has ordered Canadian Tire to pay just under $1.3 million after the retailer pleaded guilty to dozens of violations tied to false advertising, escalating a long-running consumer complaint: “sale” prices that appear steep only because the “regular” price was rarely used in practice. The decision, approved in Montreal on Friday, February 6, 2026, spotlights how pricing claims are policed—and how retailers can face penalties when discount messaging crosses the line into misleading representation.

The case is likely to resonate beyond one chain and one province. “Was/now” pricing is one of the most common promotional tools in retail, and regulators increasingly focus on whether a “regular” price is real, recent, and meaningfully used before it becomes the benchmark for a discount.

What the Quebec court order covers

The court-approved outcome involves 74 counts under Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act, tied to advertising that portrayed certain items as deeply discounted. The penalties and costs total nearly $1.3 million, with amounts assessed per count.

Quebec consumer authorities examined promotions that used a stated regular price and then advertised a lower “sale” price as a percentage or dollar discount. Their review concluded the regular price reference point was misleading because the products were rarely sold or promoted at that stated “regular” level, weakening the legitimacy of the discount claim.

The pricing practice at the heart of the allegations

This type of case typically turns on one question: Is the “regular” price an ordinary selling price, or a made-up anchor? If the regular price is only posted briefly (or not actually used in sales), a discount framed against it can mislead shoppers into believing they are getting an unusually good deal.

In this Quebec case, investigators looked at sales and promotional history and determined that the benchmark “regular” price did not reflect how the products were ordinarily offered to consumers. The result is a classic consumer harm theory: shoppers may decide to buy immediately because they believe the discount is exceptional or time-limited, even though the “sale” price may be closer to the true everyday market price.

What products and time period were examined

The review focused on seven products promoted online, in flyers, and in-store at three Montreal-area locations over a six-month period in 2021 (spanning roughly April through October). The number of products is small relative to the chain’s overall catalog, but regulators often build false-advertising cases using a narrow set of examples that clearly demonstrate the disputed pricing pattern.

That limited sample can still carry consequences: once a regulator establishes that discount framing was misleading for a product set, it strengthens enforcement leverage and signals to the wider market what practices are likely to draw scrutiny.

Why this matters to shoppers and competitors

Misleading “sale” advertising affects more than a single transaction. It can distort competition by pulling customers toward a retailer using inflated reference prices, away from merchants who advertise more conservatively. It also erodes trust in a retail category when consumers start assuming that “regular” prices are fictional.

For shoppers, the practical takeaway is not that all discounts are suspect—it’s that the credibility of a discount depends on whether the comparison price is genuine. In jurisdictions that enforce “ordinary selling price” standards, a valid regular price generally needs a meaningful history: either a real period where it was offered at that price, or evidence the market commonly sells it at that level.

Enforcement signal and what could change next

The penalty size—nearly $1.3 million—sends a clear signal, but it also raises the perennial debate about deterrence. For large retailers, fines must be large enough to change behavior, not simply become a cost of doing business. In the near term, cases like this often lead to more cautious promotional playbooks: shorter reference-price claims, clearer time windows, and stronger internal documentation that a “regular” price was actually used.

A key question going forward is whether other provinces or federal consumer and competition authorities intensify attention on reference pricing in national flyers and online listings, where a single template can propagate a misleading “regular” price across regions.

Sources consulted: The Canadian Press, CityNews Montreal, Yahoo Finance, Global News