July 26, 2026

Welcome to Letters from CAMP, a newsletter on anti-monopoly activity in Canada and abroad, brought to you by the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project. In this installment we have:

• Scrutiny pushes Empire to loosen property controls that have locked competitors out of local grocery markets
• Canada’s grocery code confronts supplier fear and the limits of industry-led accountability
• Toronto advances action on surveillance pricing and brings city hall into the grocery competition fight

If you enjoy Letters, please consider sharing and supporting CAMP.

Now let’s dive in.

Empire Backs Off Property Controls Following Scrutiny

Nothing says “we welcome competition” quite like a carefully, corporately qualified promise to stop blocking it. This week, Empire released a national policy governing the property controls it uses around Sobeys and its other grocery banners. The company will end the registration and enforcement of restrictive covenants, which prevent competing businesses from operating on land after the original retailer leaves. It will also end radius clauses and restrictions aimed at specialty food stores such as bakeries and butchers. Among major grocers, Empire has taken the clearest step to abandon the harmful practice since the Competition Bureau began investigating their use across the sector.

While a welcome development, the announcement is a reminder of the limits of corporate commitments to do better and the need for independent action. The press release has the hallmarks of a corporate legal department. Empire commits to waiving property controls on properties identified in the Competition Bureau’s June court order and on clauses registered in Manitoba, where the clauses are now banned. But future grocery leases may still include exclusivity provisions, subject to limits on geography, product scope and duration. And for other existing controls, Empire has made the truly generous offer of submitting requests for exemptions to its internal review process.

Even if Empire decided to abandon property controls completely, the issue reaches well past the grocery aisle. A recently surfaced covenant attached to a former Canadian Tire property in Cranbrook restricts a long list of non-grocery businesses from using the site until 2040. Empire’s commitment shows they’re on the back foot, but the work of improving grocery competition is just beginning. The Bureau’s investigation should continue, and more provinces should join Manitoba in banning the ability of incumbents to have a say over their competitor’s businesses. As companies begin to talk a big game on their love of competition, we need rules to make sure they’re playing fair.

📰 CAMP in the News 📰

• ​Sobeys parent company Empire to stop using, enforcing some property control measures (BNN)
• ​CPP’s benchmark change draws ire of critics (Pitchbook)
• ​Surveillance pricing could be banned at Toronto grocery stores. Here is how the controversial practice works (CTV)

The Grocery Code’s Game of Chicken

Canada’s Grocery Code has a trust problem: the people it is meant to protect are still too nervous to use it. The code, intended to balance the relationship between small and large suppliers and retailers, entered full operation in January with the support of every major grocer and 200 businesses across the food supply chain. But it’s first public report has exposed an early obstacle: suppliers and independent retailers remain hesitant to raise concerns about powerful commercial partners for fear of retaliation. Following a lack of uptake, the office enforcing the code has begun accepting anonymous submissions, but participation among the potential pool of thousands of businesses remains low.

The code was created after years of complaints about unexpected fees, unilateral contract changes and other practices imposed by major retailers. Its current design asks companies to first resolve individual disputes directly with their commercial partners, while identifying recurring patterns, and issuing guidance to encourage industry-wide compliance. That structure places considerable weight on suppliers feeling secure enough to speak. For all but the largest suppliers, reporting a grocer can carry implications for shelf space, order volumes, fees and future contracts. The value of the code depends on the ability of vulnerable players to rely on it for protection from large retailers. While still early days, there is clearly work to do on this front.

The U.K. offers a useful case study in what happens when a grocery code finally grows teeth. Its grocery code became legally binding in 2010, an independent adjudicator followed in 2013, and fining powers arrived in 2015. The adjudicator can now investigate suspected breaches, publish findings and impose penalties reaching one per cent of a retailer’s annual U.K. turnover. If Canada wants to have a more balanced food system, it’s measures will need to evolve beyond hoping that dominant incumbents are willing to play nice.

📚 What We’re Reading 📚

• Kelloway, The Bigger the Corporation, the Bigger the Diarrhea Outbreak (Food and Power)
• Ruder, Canada can stop surveillance pricing before it reaches the checkout (Policy Options)
• Aubert, Boutaud, Gibbs and Delmas, How Bigard, which swallowed up Charal and its competitors, dictates slaughtering rules to cattle farmers (Le Monde, in French)

Toronto Takes Surveillance Pricing to the Checkout

This week, Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow advanced a motion directing city staff and legal officials to examine how the city can regulate surveillance pricing in grocery. Surveillance pricing, the practice of using personal data to estimate what a customer will pay and adjusts prices or offers has the power to turn shopping histories, location information, and online activity against consumers. Grocery apps and delivery platforms provide individualized storefronts, while electronic shelf labels make rapid in-store price changes easier to execute.

Action against surveillance pricing is already generating results. Loblaw responded to the Toronto proposal with a permanent company pledge against surveillance pricing. But as the Empire example shows, corporate promises are no substitute for rules for a fair playing field. A new Policy Options piece by Sarah-Louise Ruder maps the broader government response. Federal competition law can address deceptive conduct, price fixing and anti-competitive uses of pricing algorithms. Privacy rules can govern the collection and use of inferred personal information. Provincial consumer-protection laws can classify surveillance pricing as an unfair practice, as Manitoba has done.

Toronto’s motion adds the municipal layer and asks which local legal, licensing and disclosure tools can govern grocery transactions within the city. Toronto’s move is a reminder that every level of government has a role to play in creating a fair economy for Canadians. We shouldn’t have to worry whether factors we can’t control are putting a higher price in front of us compared to our neighbour, especially when it comes to staples like food. Our grocery bills should reflect the value of the goods in the cart, with personal data kept out of the calculation.

If you have any monopoly tips or stories you’d like to share, drop us a line at hello@antimonopoly.ca

Follow CAMP on LinkedIn or Twitter​