> "This investigation sends a strong message to organizations..."
Canadian here. Sorry, sending a sternly worded message to law breakers isn't enough.
> " The good news in this case is that Tim Hortons has agreed to follow the recommendations we set out,"
No. GOOD news in such a case isn't an agreement to follow the law in the future. Didn't they already do that and then break the law?!
Good news in such a case might be, oh let me think ... a temporary loss of business license for violation of laws and customer trust, and then fines (or revenue loss due to license suspension) of a magnitude that shareholders or the parent company feel which can then inform the board, executive responsibility, policy decisions right down the chain, etc.
Canadian here. Sorry, sending a sternly worded message to law breakers isn't enough.
> " The good news in this case is that Tim Hortons has agreed to follow the recommendations we set out,"
No. GOOD news in such a case isn't an agreement to follow the law in the future. Didn't they already do that and then break the law?!
Good news in such a case might be, oh let me think ... a temporary loss of business license for violation of laws and customer trust, and then fines (or revenue loss due to license suspension) of a magnitude that shareholders or the parent company feel which can then inform the board, executive responsibility, policy decisions right down the chain, etc.
This is law-breaking for profit.