Hero outdoors needs to be held accountable
Looking for others in Canada who have ordered from hero outdoors and would be willing to file complaints to the correct authorities about the misleading information with this company. I was told just one person filing won’t get anything done but if enough people do then maybe we can fix this. The company has a whole section on why it’s better to order from Canada, the last point being no delays in shipping that come with ordering from the u.s but then in the shipping fine print they say due to large amount of “overstock” they need to have storage warehouses in the u.s. There in no indication on their website as to what items are sold in storefront in Canada and what is not like I was told on the phone. There is no public information on a location of this so called u.s warehouses. They do everything possible to mislead you into thinking they strictly operate in Canada, they mislead you with ghost inventory. They mislead you on delivery times. If you’ve had a similar experience, if your one of the hundreds of people who have made some form of a review about how terrible this company is, please comment or dm me and I can direct you to the correct channels to file a complaint, and the correct issue. Thank you
The Ontario Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery and Procurement does not publish a specific, static number of complaints required to launch a formal investigation. They evaluate files dynamically based on volume and intent:
The General Impression Test: Canada's federal Competition Bureau Canada judges marketing based on the "general impression" it leaves on a consumer. If a company states or heavily implies they operate a physical fulfillment warehouse in the United States to look bigger, more reliable, or better connected, but they are actually just ordering piecemeal from external American distributors (like Evike), it is a material misrepresentation. It tricks consumers into a transaction under false premises.
How to Correctly Route These Violations
Because this crosses into both provincial and federal violations, filing a report requires targeting two distinct entities:
For the Shipping Delays & Refund Rules: File an official complaint with the Ontario Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery. Emphasize that they have breached the 30-day delivery timeline and are refusing original payment-method refunds. [1, 2]
For the Deceptive U.S. Warehouse & False Shipping Claims: Skip the provincial level and file an online report directly with the federal Competition Bureau Canada Complaint Form. Tag it as a "False or Misleading Representation". Provide screenshots of the website banner promising no delays alongside their contradictory shipping terms.
The situation you described—where a business uses a banner to promise "Buy Canadian, bypass foreign border delays!" but buries a contradictory clause in their hidden shipping terms stating "Your item is coming from the U.S. and is subject to massive border delays"—is a classic form of bait-and-switch or deceptive omission. [1]
The Law on Fine Print: Under Canadian consumer protection laws, a company cannot use hidden fine print to erase a prominent, misleading promise made on their main storefront. If the primary selling point used to attract your credit card is "no international delays," that claim must be true at the time of purchase.
Citing Ontario's Consumer Protection Act (CPA)
When filing a complaint with Consumer Protection Ontario or writing a demand letter to the business, use the following legal anchors:
Section 14: Unfair Practices Prohibited
The Law: This section states that no person shall engage in an unfair practice. Under the CPA, making a false, misleading, or deceptive representation is strictly defined as an unfair practice.
How to Apply It: Cite this regarding their prominent main website claims promising "no international shipping delays" and a faster local experience. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Section 17: Deceptive Omissions and Fine Print Rules
The Law: The Act establishes that a representation using ambiguity, exaggeration, or failing to state a material fact to deceive a consumer is illegal.
How to Apply It: Hiding the truth in the "shipping terms" (stating that packages are actually coming from the U.S. and subject to border searches) while advertising a fast Canadian delivery process constitutes an illegal deceptive omission. A business cannot use fine print to negate a primary representation. [1]
Section 26: The 30-Day Delivery Rule
The Law: If a business fails to deliver a product within 30 days of the promised delivery date (or 30 days from the purchase date if no date was stated), the consumer holds an absolute right to cancel the contract.
How to Apply It: If your items are delayed past 30 days, state that you are exercising your statutory right to cancel under Section 26. [1, 2]
Section 18: Right of Rescission (Refunds)
The Law: Any consumer agreement entered into after an unfair practice can be rescinded (cancelled), and the business must return all funds to the consumer.
How to Apply It: Cite this section to reject their policy of issuing "in-store credit" for cancelled items. The law mandates a true return of funds if an unfair practice induced the sale. [1, 2, 3, 4]
2. Citing Canada's Federal Competition Act
While you cannot sue individually under the federal Competition Act, you should copy and paste these exact terms directly into the Competition Bureau Canada Complaint Form to demonstrate that the business is using false structural frameworks:
Section 74.01: False or Misleading Representations
The Law: It is a reviewable conduct to make a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect.
The "General Impression Test": Under federal law, the courts do not just look at the hidden fine print; they look at the "general impression" a reasonable consumer receives from the marketing text. Promising a completely local Canadian transaction to secure a checkout, while masking a drop-shipping model from a different country, directly fails the General Impression Test. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Section 74.04: Bait-and-Switch Tactics
The Law: This applies when a business advertises a product at a specific bargain or availability status that they do not supply in reasonable quantities.
How to Apply It: If they are displaying thousands of items as "In Stock" on their website to lure consumers away from actual U.S. distributors, but do not physically own or possess that stock in Canada, they are misrepresenting product availability to capture market transactions. [1, 2]
Summary Checklist for Your Demand Letter or Government Complaint
If you are drafting a letter, arrange it in this simple, scannable format to show you understand your rights:
The Violation: "The merchant engaged in an Unfair Practice under Section 14 of the Ontario CPA by making a false and misleading representation regarding delivery times and stock location." [1, 2]
The Deception: "The merchant violated Section 17 by utilizing deceptive omission—using secondary shipping terms to cancel out the general impression of a delay-free Canadian transaction." [1]
The Delivery Failure: "The merchant failed to deliver the items within the 30-day statutory window required under Section 26." [1, 2]
The Remedy: "Under Section 18, I am rescinding this agreement due to unfair practices and demand a full refund to my original payment card within 15 days, rejecting any alternative offer of store credit." [1, 2]
Also apology’s I didn’t realize my dms where turned off, they are now on so can be contacted, but essentially these are the steps and processes of action to take to help be apart of the change and help stop this company. It would mean a lot if people can help that have had bad experiences or that agree this is wrong as if enough people put in formal complaints to these governments citing these issues this company can finally be held accountable for their actions.