Many organizations operating in or importing into Canada believe they are compliant with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). In most cases, this confidence is based on having completed high-level requirements or relying on internal assumptions about regulatory responsibilities.
In practice, CEPA compliance issues rarely arise from a lack of awareness of the law itself. Instead, they stem from overlooked operational obligations — reporting gaps, incomplete records, misunderstood notification duties, and insufficient preparedness for inspections.
This article focuses on the CEPA obligations that organizations most often underestimate in practice, and where compliance risks typically emerge during audits or enforcement actions.
Reporting obligations: more than a one-time requirement
CEPA reporting is often treated as a one-off exercise, completed during initial setup or onboarding. However, many CEPA obligations require ongoing and situation-dependent reporting.
Common gaps include:
- failure to update reports following changes in substances, volumes, or activities,
- late submissions due to unclear internal responsibilities,
- incomplete or inconsistent reporting across departments.
Regulators expect organizations to demonstrate not only that reporting has been done, but that reporting obligations are actively monitored and managed over time.
Recordkeeping: what inspectors actually expect
Recordkeeping is one of the most frequently underestimated CEPA obligations.
In practice, inspections focus on whether records are:
- complete,
- accurate,
- consistent,
- and readily accessible.
Common weaknesses include:
- records stored across multiple systems without coordination,
- unclear retention periods,
- documents that exist but cannot be produced promptly,
- inconsistencies between operational data and regulatory records.
From an enforcement perspective, being unable to provide records is often treated as equivalent to not having them at all.
Substance notifications: where CEPA responsibilities are misunderstood
Substance notification requirements under CEPA are a recurring source of confusion, particularly for organizations involved in complex supply chains.
Frequent issues include:
- misunderstanding whether notification obligations apply to manufacturers, importers, or distributors,
- reliance on suppliers’ assurances without verification,
- assuming that prior notifications remain valid despite changes in use or volumes.
Organizations remain responsible for ensuring that substance notifications are accurate, current, and aligned with their specific activities under CEPA.
Market surveillance and enforcement: a growing operational reality
CEPA enforcement has become increasingly targeted and data-driven. Market surveillance activities may include:
- document-based inspections,
- follow-up requests for supporting evidence,
- on-site audits,
- investigations triggered by external reporting or sectoral priorities.
Many organizations are unprepared for these interactions, particularly when documentation is fragmented or responsibilities are unclear.
Beyond regulatory penalties, enforcement actions often result in:
- significant internal resource allocation,
- operational disruptions,
- reputational impacts.
Why CEPA compliance often fails at the operational level
Across sectors, CEPA compliance issues tend to share common root causes:
- responsibilities spread across multiple teams without clear ownership,
- lack of centralized oversight of CEPA-related obligations,
- reactive rather than structured compliance management,
- insufficient visibility into regulatory changes affecting operations.
These challenges are organizational rather than legal in nature. Addressing them requires process clarity, accountability, and structured regulatory monitoring, not simply legal interpretation.
Conclusion
CEPA compliance is not defined solely by understanding the legislation. It is shaped by how organizations manage reporting, documentation, substance notifications, and regulatory interactions on a day-to-day basis.
The obligations most often overlooked are not hidden in the text of the law — they emerge in practice, during inspections, audits, and operational changes.
Organizations that recognize these realities and address them proactively are better positioned to reduce compliance risk and engage confidently with regulators.
Webinar – CEPA Compliance in Practice
To explore this topic further, a dedicated webinar on CEPA developments in Canada will take place on February 12, 2026.
The session will provide a practical overview of CEPA obligations, enforcement expectations, and compliance considerations applicable across sectors.
Many organizations operating in or importing into Canada believe they are compliant with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). In most cases, this confidence is based on having completed high-level requirements or relying on internal assumptions about regulatory responsibilities.
In practice, CEPA compliance issues rarely arise from a lack of awareness of the law itself. Instead, they stem from overlooked operational obligations — reporting gaps, incomplete records, misunderstood notification duties, and insufficient preparedness for inspections.
This article focuses on the CEPA obligations that organizations most often underestimate in practice, and where compliance risks typically emerge during audits or enforcement actions.
Reporting obligations: more than a one-time requirement
CEPA reporting is often treated as a one-off exercise, completed during initial setup or onboarding. However, many CEPA obligations require ongoing and situation-dependent reporting.
Common gaps include:
- failure to update reports following changes in substances, volumes, or activities,
- late submissions due to unclear internal responsibilities,
- incomplete or inconsistent reporting across departments.
Regulators expect organizations to demonstrate not only that reporting has been done, but that reporting obligations are actively monitored and managed over time.
Recordkeeping: what inspectors actually expect
Recordkeeping is one of the most frequently underestimated CEPA obligations.
In practice, inspections focus on whether records are:
- complete,
- accurate,
- consistent,
- and readily accessible.
Common weaknesses include:
- records stored across multiple systems without coordination,
- unclear retention periods,
- documents that exist but cannot be produced promptly,
- inconsistencies between operational data and regulatory records.
From an enforcement perspective, being unable to provide records is often treated as equivalent to not having them at all.
Substance notifications: where CEPA responsibilities are misunderstood
Substance notification requirements under CEPA are a recurring source of confusion, particularly for organizations involved in complex supply chains.
Frequent issues include:
- misunderstanding whether notification obligations apply to manufacturers, importers, or distributors,
- reliance on suppliers’ assurances without verification,
- assuming that prior notifications remain valid despite changes in use or volumes.
Organizations remain responsible for ensuring that substance notifications are accurate, current, and aligned with their specific activities under CEPA.
Market surveillance and enforcement: a growing operational reality
CEPA enforcement has become increasingly targeted and data-driven. Market surveillance activities may include:
- document-based inspections,
- follow-up requests for supporting evidence,
- on-site audits,
- investigations triggered by external reporting or sectoral priorities.
Many organizations are unprepared for these interactions, particularly when documentation is fragmented or responsibilities are unclear.
Beyond regulatory penalties, enforcement actions often result in:
- significant internal resource allocation,
- operational disruptions,
- reputational impacts.
Why CEPA compliance often fails at the operational level
Across sectors, CEPA compliance issues tend to share common root causes:
- responsibilities spread across multiple teams without clear ownership,
- lack of centralized oversight of CEPA-related obligations,
- reactive rather than structured compliance management,
- insufficient visibility into regulatory changes affecting operations.
These challenges are organizational rather than legal in nature. Addressing them requires process clarity, accountability, and structured regulatory monitoring, not simply legal interpretation.
Conclusion
CEPA compliance is not defined solely by understanding the legislation. It is shaped by how organizations manage reporting, documentation, substance notifications, and regulatory interactions on a day-to-day basis.
The obligations most often overlooked are not hidden in the text of the law — they emerge in practice, during inspections, audits, and operational changes.
Organizations that recognize these realities and address them proactively are better positioned to reduce compliance risk and engage confidently with regulators.
Webinar – CEPA Compliance in Practice
To explore this topic further, a dedicated webinar on CEPA developments in Canada will take place on February 12, 2026.
The session will provide a practical overview of CEPA obligations, enforcement expectations, and compliance considerations applicable across sectors.
