# What 27 Calgary food inspection reports said about pests

> Twenty-seven Calgary Zone reports that already mentioned pests. Door gaps, droppings, and missing records. Not a census of how common pests are.

Canonical: https://www.frameworkpest.ca/insights/calgary-food-premises-pest-findings/
Last updated: 2026-10-27

Food premises

Published 2 October 2026. Updated 13 October 2026.

We read reports that already mentioned pests. The counts below describe that reading. They do not describe how common pests are in Calgary food premises.

_A kitchen line. Photo by ASR Design Studio on Unsplash._

## The short answer

Twenty-seven public Calgary Zone food inspection reports were read: five dated 2 January to 9 June 2026, and twenty-two dated 23 September to 9 October 2026. Every report was selected because it already contained pest language. That is a limit, not a finding.

In the twenty-two recent reports, the most common line was a door or wall opening: eleven construction gaps (weatherstrip, screen, wall, or threshold) and one door left propped open during the inspection. Seven recorded mouse droppings in a food, storage, or dish area. Nine turned on the paper: no records on site, no written program, or monitoring too thin. Two recorded cockroaches. Two recorded flies. Categories overlap. A single report can carry a gap, droppings, and a missing file.

Across both readings, twelve of the twenty-seven reports had a paper failure. That is the nine from the recent reading plus three from the five earlier reports.

Premises are not named. A neighbourhood plus a business type is still an identification. A closure on the Calgary enforcement-orders list is not treated as a pest finding here. The list shows a name, a date, a community, and an order type. It does not state the reason. This article does not supply one.

## What was in the twenty-two recent reports

| Finding | In this reading | Regulation | What fixes the line |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction opening: weatherstrip, screen, wall, or threshold | 11 of 22 | s. 17(2) | Close the joint. A trap does not change the opening. |
| Door propped open during the inspection | 1 of 22 | s. 21(1) | Behaviour, not a failed joint. Not in the gap count. |
| Mouse droppings in a food, storage, or dish area | 7 of 22 | s. 21(1) | Find what is inside, then close the opening. Cleaning the dropping is not the close. |
| Records missing, no written program, or monitoring too thin | 9 of 22 | s. 21(2) | Leave a dated file: who, what, where, what was found, what was closed. |
| Cockroaches recorded | 2 of 22 | s. 21(1) | A kitchen population is not a one-room problem. |
| Flies recorded | 2 of 22 | s. 21(1) | Name the source. A spray over the line is not the close. |

Counts are of the recent reading only. Food Regulation, Alta. Reg. 31/2006, consolidated up to Alta. Reg. 125/2024. Verify the current King's Printer text of sections 17(2) and 21 before treating this as the rule.

_Daylight at the weatherstrip is a construction finding. Photo by Megan Lee on Unsplash._

## The door: eleven gaps, one propped door

Eleven of the twenty-two recent reports named a construction opening: a gap under a rear exit, failed weatherstripping, a screen that did not fit, a hole beside a door, or a gap in a wall. One additional report recorded a back door propped open during the inspection. That is behaviour, not a failed joint, so it is not in the gap count.

In the reports we read, the back of the house is where the openings showed up. That is not a claim about every Calgary food premises.

Olkowski, Daar and Olkowski, Common-Sense Pest Control (1991), put physical exclusion ahead of any product for this reason: a deterrent or a trap does not change the opening the animal is already using.

## The droppings: seven reports

Seven reports recorded mouse droppings in a food, storage, or dish area. Droppings show an animal was there. They do not, by themselves, prove a live population is still inside.

Mallis, Handbook of Pest Control (8th ed., Moreland ed.), treats structural harborage as the reason a trap under the prep table does not finish the job. Mice travel voids and nest near cover. The droppings are the clue. The chase or the failed door is the harborage.

## The paper: nine reports

Nine of the twenty-two recent reports failed on the file: records not on site, no written program, or monitoring the inspector judged too thin. Across both readings the paper was the finding in twelve of twenty-seven.

Heaps, Insect Management for Food Storage and Processing (2nd ed., 2006), describes the food-facility version of a file an inspector can read: inspection first, monitors, and a log a manager can hand over. That is method. It is not the Alberta rule, and nothing in the book is a current label rate.

## Flies and cockroaches

Two reports recorded flies. Two recorded cockroaches. Wang, Lee and Rust, Biology and Management of the German Cockroach (2021), are the reason a kitchen population is not a one-room problem. Onstad, Insect Resistance Management (2nd ed., 2014), is the reason the chemical half of a cockroach program cannot be the same active every visit.

## The sections the inspector is using

Food Regulation, Alta. Reg. 31/2006, under the Public Health Act.

Section 17(2). The operator must ensure the commercial food establishment is constructed to control the entry of pests. A bay door with daylight at the weatherstrip is a construction finding under that section.

Section 21(1). A commercial food establishment must be kept free of pests and of conditions that lead to the harbouring or breeding of pests.

Section 21(2). A written record of all pest control measures used must be maintained. A monthly invoice with no finding and no corrective action is a thin record.

As of 13 October 2026 we found no dollar amounts on the Calgary Zone orders page. A date on that list is an order, not a fine.

## Does a closure order mean pests?

No. Not from the list. Read the order. This article does not attach a reason to any named or datable closure.

## Is a monthly spray the record?

No. Section 21(2) requires a written record of the measures used. Flint and van den Bosch, Introduction to Integrated Pest Management (1981), define the decision behind a usable file: identify the problem, then combine tactics so chemistry is not a substitute for the failed joint or the missing record.

## Do we have to hire a company?

Section 21 does not say the work must be contracted. It requires the premises to be free of pests and of conditions that harbour them, and a written record. In the October reading, one inspector ordered an operator with no adequate program to hire a licensed pest management operator. If you hire the work out, you still keep the record. Canadian Food Inspection Agency pest-control guidance says the operator remains responsible for the contractor's records. That guidance is for federally licensed food businesses. It is analogous here, not the rule an AHS inspector is applying to a Calgary restaurant.

## Will sealing the door alone clear the report?

Not if the report already records droppings in a food area. Look for what is inside, then close the joint. Sealing without investigating still fails the next visit.

## What the file has to contain

- A short program that names the pests in scope, who owns sanitation, and who owns the service visit.
- Device locations on a plan.
- Dates, findings, and the corrective action when a monitor caught something.
- Products named as on the label, applied by someone allowed to apply them, at the labelled rate.
- Entry points found, and whether they were closed.
- The company name and a phone number if the work is contracted.

Alberta Agriculture's food-establishment pest guidance asks for the same packet. If the contractor will not leave it, section 21(2) is still open.

_The file the inspector asks to see. Photo by Duc Van on Unsplash._

## What we will not sell a kitchen

- A visit that leaves the bay door open.
- A promise that one consumer gel ends a German cockroach population in a shared building.
- A fog as a substitute for the record.
- A monthly invoice with no findings as a substitute for the file.

## Sources

- Food Regulation, Alta. Reg. 31/2006, ss. 17(2), 21(1), 21(1.1), 21(2). Consolidated up to Alta. Reg. 125/2024. [CanLII](https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/regu/alta-reg-31-2006/latest/alta-reg-31-2006.html).
- Alberta Health Services, Calgary Zone enforcement orders. Order type and date only. No reasons attached in this article. [Orders list](https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/eph/Page14648.aspx).
- Alberta Health Services inspection reports. Five reports, 2 January to 9 June 2026, and twenty-two reports, 23 September to 9 October 2026, selected because they already mentioned pests. [Inspection portal](https://ephisahs.albertahealthservices.ca/inspections/).
- Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Preventive controls — Pest control. Analogous only. [CFIA](https://inspection.canada.ca/en/preventive-controls/pest-control).
- Heaps, J.W., ed. Insect Management for Food Storage and Processing. 2nd ed. St. Paul: AACC International, 2006.
- Olkowski, W., Daar, S., and Olkowski, H. Common-Sense Pest Control. Newtown: Taunton Press, 1991.
- Mallis, A. Handbook of Pest Control. 8th ed. Moreland, D., ed. Biology only.
- Wang, C., Lee, C.-Y., and Rust, M.K., eds. Biology and Management of the German Cockroach. Clayton South: CSIRO Publishing, 2021.
- Onstad, D.W., ed. Insect Resistance Management. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press, 2014.
- Flint, M.L., and van den Bosch, R. Introduction to Integrated Pest Management. New York: Plenum, 1981.

Commercial kitchens and multi-unit food service are scoped at [food and hospitality](https://www.frameworkpest.ca/industries/food-hospitality/). Show us the building: [book an inspection](https://www.frameworkpest.ca/contact/) or [825 747 5787](tel:+18257475787). We will say if you need a visit, a tighter file, or a joint that is not yet a finding.

## Related reading

- [stored product pest control](https://www.frameworkpest.ca/pests/stored-product/)
- [Framework Pest home](https://www.frameworkpest.ca/)