Health Canada's 2025 to 2026 Cannabis Inspection Results: 902 Inspections and the Findings That Keep Repeating

Every year Health Canada publishes what it finds inside licensed cannabis facilities, and every year the same short list of problems accounts for most of the non-compliant reports. They are not exotic new rules. They are documentation and records, assigned responsibilities, and good production practices. The latest data summary, covering the 2025 to 2026 fiscal year, tells the same story as the year before, which is the clearest possible signal that these failures are preventable with disciplined systems rather than new spending.

In its 2025 to 2026 cannabis inspection data summary, Health Canada reported 902 inspections under the Cannabis Act and its regulations and issued 29 non-compliant inspection reports to licence holders. Inspection volume rose from the year before, while the number of non-compliant reports fell. That is encouraging, but the categories of finding have not changed, and that is the part every licence holder should read closely.

This guide breaks down what the 2025 to 2026 data shows, how it compares with 2024 to 2025, why the same findings keep appearing, and the practical steps a licence holder can take now to stay off next year's list.

Executive Summary

• The headline data. In fiscal year 2025 to 2026, Health Canada conducted 902 inspections under the Cannabis Act and its regulations, including 229 inspections of registered personal and designated production for medical purposes, and issued 29 non-compliant inspection reports to licence holders.
• The year-over-year shift. Total inspections rose from 889 to 902 and personal and designated production inspections rose from 197 to 229, yet non-compliant reports to licence holders fell from 37 to 29. More scrutiny, slightly fewer formal findings.
• The recurring findings. Health Canada again lists the same examples: not conducting activities as per the licence holder's responsibilities, non-compliances related to good production practices, and unsatisfactory retention of documents and information.
• The pattern. These are documentation and execution failures, not novel requirements, so they recur year over year and are preventable with a working quality system.
• What to do. Treat documentation, the quality assurance person's authority, and good production practices as day-to-day systems that can be evidenced on demand, not as a binder assembled for inspection day.

What the 2025 to 2026 Inspection Data Shows

What happened? Health Canada inspected licensed cannabis operations across the country and reported the outcomes in its cannabis inspection data summary for 2025 to 2026, published in September 2026. The headline numbers set the scene, and the recurring categories of finding tell you exactly what inspectors keep seeing.

Health Canada also reported 191 additional activities beyond inspections, including 45 sampling activities, 77 compliance and enforcement activities tied to registered personal and designated production, and 69 compliance and enforcement activities conducted for licence holders. The report describes examples of the issues observed but does not rank them or publish a single compliance rate, so the honest read is that the categories are consistent year to year rather than that any one category is formally the most common.

How 2025 to 2026 compares with 2024 to 2025

The volume matters less than the consistency. When the same categories of finding appear across facilities of different sizes, in different provinces, and in both regular and targeted inspections, the message is that the failures are systemic to how many operators run their quality systems, not one-off accidents. A fall in non-compliant reports is welcome, but it is a thin margin, and the share of activity devoted to personal and designated production is growing.

The Findings That Keep Recurring

Why does it matter which findings recur? Because a recurring finding is a roadmap. If you close the areas Health Canada names, you remove the cause of most non-compliant reports before an inspector ever arrives. The agency lists three examples, and they are the same three it listed a year ago.

Unsatisfactory retention of documents and information

A licence holder must keep records that let Health Canada reconstruct what happened, when, and who did it, and keep them for the required retention periods. In practice this finding shows up as batch and lot records that cannot be reconstructed, sanitation and pest control programmes that are performed but not evidenced, and information that lives in someone's memory rather than in a controlled record. If the record cannot be produced, for the purpose of an inspection it did not happen.

Not conducting activities as per assigned responsibilities

The Cannabis Regulations require named, qualified individuals to hold specific responsibilities, including the quality assurance person who must approve the quality of cannabis before it is made available for sale. This finding appears when responsibilities are assigned on paper but not demonstrably executed, when a change in the quality assurance person is not approved by Health Canada, or when the person named for a function is not the person actually performing it. Authority on an organisation chart is not the same as authority exercised and recorded.

Non-compliances related to good production practices

Good production practices, set out in Part 5 of the Cannabis Regulations, cover sanitation, pest control, the competencies of personnel, standard operating procedures, testing, and the controls that keep product safe and consistent. GPP findings range from sanitation and pest management programmes that are not evidenced, to the use of unauthorized pest control products, to testing gaps. These remain among the most consequential findings because they can lead directly to a stop sale on affected lots.

Beyond these three, the individual results repeat a familiar supporting cast: insufficient security measures, unauthorized storage or distribution of cannabis, unsatisfactory packaging and labelling, failure to report inventory, failure to disclose loss or theft, and unsatisfactory recall strategies. Almost all of them trace back to the same root cause, which is a quality system that is documented but not lived.

Why Fewer Findings Does Not Mean Less Scrutiny

Why did non-compliant reports fall while inspections rose? The data does not explain the drop, so it would be a mistake to read it as a signal that the bar has lowered. Health Canada inspected more, not less, and devoted a growing share of its activity to personal and designated production. The safest interpretation for an operator is that scrutiny is steady or rising, and that the operators who avoid a non-compliant report are the ones whose systems hold up on the day.

Here is the encouraging part. None of the recurring findings requires a new capability or a large capital outlay. They require a quality system that is used every day and can be evidenced on demand. In our experience preparing licence holders for inspection, the gap is almost never knowledge of the rules. It is the discipline of recording what was done, at the moment it was done, by the person authorised to do it. A disciplined set of standard operating procedures and a habit of contemporaneous recording close most of the gap.

A common scenario shows how quickly this escalates. An inspector asks for the release records behind a specific lot. The sanitation logs for that period are incomplete, the pest control record does not name the product used, and the quality assurance person cannot point to a documented release decision. Individually each gap looks minor. Together they become a non-compliant report with corrective actions, and if the pest product turns out to be unauthorized, a stop sale on the affected lots. None of it required new knowledge to prevent, only a system that records what was done as it is done.

What Good Production Practices Actually Require

Good production practices are the cannabis sector's equivalent of the manufacturing quality controls that other regulated industries know as GMP. Under Part 5 of the Cannabis Regulations, a licence holder must have, among other things, a sanitation programme, a pest control approach that uses only authorized products, qualified personnel, written standard operating procedures, a system for testing, and controls over the building, equipment, and storage. Our explainer on good production practices for cannabis walks through the framework in detail, and our guide to GPP versus EU-GMP is worth reading for any operator eyeing export.

The inspection data makes the priorities concrete. Sanitation must be both performed and documented. Pest control must rely only on products authorized for the use. Testing must actually be completed on the product being sold, and our guide to cannabis analytical method validation explains what defensible testing looks like. Each of these is a place where operators lose ground, and each is fixable with a procedure, a record, and a verification step.

The Quality Assurance Person Is Central

The quality assurance person, or QAP, sits at the centre of two of the three recurring findings. The QAP is responsible for assuring the quality of cannabis and for investigating complaints, and the regulations require the QAP to have the training, experience, and technical knowledge for the role. When Health Canada finds that activities were not conducted as per assigned responsibilities, the QAP function is often where it lands, whether because the release decision was not properly recorded, a new QAP was not approved by Health Canada, or the QAP did not have the authority to stop a release.

Treat the QAP as a working control, not a title. The person must be qualified, empowered to reject product, and supported by records that show the quality decisions they made. Where a licence holder lacks the in-house depth, an experienced external QAP or QAP support arrangement can hold the line while the internal system matures.

Cannabis GPP and Documentation Compliance Checklist

• Run the reconstruction test on a recent lot: can you rebuild its full history from records alone?
• Confirm document retention periods are met and records are readily retrievable, including for a remote or short-notice inspection.
• Evidence your sanitation programme with completed, dated records, not just a written procedure.
• Verify that only authorized pest control products are used, and that use is recorded.
• Confirm testing is completed on every lot released for sale, with results on file.
• Check that the quality assurance person is qualified, and that any change of QAP has Health Canada approval.
• Make sure assigned responsibilities on the organisation chart match who actually performs and records the work.
• Keep security, inventory, and loss or theft reporting current and evidenced.
• Maintain a tested recall strategy and current standard operating procedures.
• Close inspection findings with documented corrective and preventive action that addresses root cause.

Common Mistakes

• Treating the quality system as an inspection-day binder. Inspectors look for evidence the system runs every day, not a document assembled the night before.
• Assigning responsibilities on paper only. A named QAP who does not exercise and record the role produces one of the exact findings Health Canada keeps reporting.
• Assuming any pest product will do. Using unauthorized pest control products can trigger a stop sale on the affected lots.
• Skipping or thinning out testing. A lack of required testing on product sold is a direct compliance failure, not a paperwork detail.
• Closing findings without root cause. A corrective action that does not fix the underlying system invites the same finding at the next inspection.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cannabis inspections did Health Canada conduct in 2025 to 2026?

Health Canada conducted 902 inspections under the Cannabis Act and its regulations in fiscal year 2025 to 2026, including 229 inspections of registered personal and designated production for medical purposes, and issued 29 non-compliant inspection reports to licence holders.

What are the most common cannabis inspection findings in Canada?

Health Canada lists three examples: not conducting activities as per the licence holder's responsibilities, non-compliances related to good production practices, and unsatisfactory retention of documents and information. The report does not rank them. Security, storage, packaging and labelling, inventory reporting, and recall strategy findings also recur.

Did cannabis compliance improve in 2025 to 2026?

Non-compliant inspection reports to licence holders fell from 37 in 2024 to 2025 to 29 in 2025 to 2026, while total inspections rose from 889 to 902. The report does not explain the drop, so it is best read as steady or rising scrutiny rather than a lower bar.

What are good production practices for cannabis?

Good production practices are the controls in Part 5 of the Cannabis Regulations that keep cannabis safe and consistent, including sanitation, authorized pest control, qualified personnel, standard operating procedures, testing, and controls over buildings, equipment, and storage.

Who is the quality assurance person and why does it matter?

The quality assurance person, or QAP, is the individual responsible for assuring the quality of cannabis before it is made available for sale and for investigating complaints. A change of QAP must be approved by Health Canada, and the QAP must have the training, experience, and technical knowledge for the role.

What happens after a non-compliant inspection report?

Health Canada can require corrective actions and escalate as needed, including seizure and detention, stop sales, warning letters, and licence suspension or revocation. Corrective actions must address the root cause, not only the symptom, to prevent the finding from recurring.

How MFLRC Can Help

MFLRC helps cannabis licence holders turn the recurring inspection findings into a quality system that holds up under scrutiny. Our audit and inspection-readiness team runs mock inspections against Health Canada's own findings, our quality assurance specialists build the SOPs, documentation, and quality assurance person framework the regulations expect, and we support corrective and preventive action that fixes root cause. We work with operators across the cannabis and hemp sector, from pre-licence applicants to producers preparing for export.

A useful first step is an honest gap assessment. Run our Health Canada inspection-readiness self-assessment, review the six practical steps to pass a Health Canada cannabis inspection, or book a consultation and we will benchmark your documentation, QAP authority, and GPP against what inspectors are actually citing.

Conclusion

Health Canada's 2025 to 2026 cannabis inspection data is not a warning about new rules. It is a mirror. The same findings, documentation and records, assigned responsibilities, and good production practices, drive most non-compliant reports because they reflect how a quality system is run day to day, not what an operator knows. The fall in non-compliant reports is welcome, but it is slim, and scrutiny is not easing. Fix the systems behind those findings, evidence them contemporaneously, and give the quality assurance person real authority, and you remove the cause of most inspection failures before an inspector arrives. For help closing the gap, respond to inspection observations with documented corrective and preventive action, and build the discipline in before the next inspection cycle.

Sources and References

• Health Canada, Compliance and enforcement report: Cannabis inspection data summary 2025 to 2026
• Health Canada, Compliance and enforcement report: Cannabis inspection data summary 2024 to 2025
• Cannabis Regulations (SOR/2018-144), including Part 5 Good Production Practices
• Cannabis Act (S.C. 2018, c. 16)