Canadian Advertising Standards

Dawn Animals Commercial
This ad might have violated the clause of accuracy and clarity. It shows that supposedly the Dawn dish soap can help clean the oil off of animals. In reality, I don't really think that a bit of dish soap can clean off a tremendous amount of oil on animals. It isn't the most accurate ad but it is for a good cause so that's one thing good about it.
Scotiabank Ad
The one clause that this ad might have violated would be accuracy and clarity. The reason being is because they portrayed the bank as an airport where the woman was booking her ticket and making her Scotiabank account at the same time, which was kind of confusing. Also, they showed the attractive, supposed male pilot implying that with your free plane ride you would get an attractive male as well.
Rogers Ad
The clause that this ad violated is guarantees. In the ad it says that Rogers is "Canada's Most Reliable Network". They are not allowed to say that because they can't prove as to whether it is or isn't. It is a false and unsupported claim and therefore violates the clause.
Trenchcoat Ad
This ad in my opinion violates the unacceptable depictions and portrayals clause. It shows a woman flashing a man walking dog with only the trenchcoat on. This ad is somewhat demeaning towards women by making them "naughty" by wearing the trenchcoat and portraying them as sex objects.
American Apparel Sock Ad
This ad violates the disguised advertising techniques clause. It shows a woman in what looks like to be nothing but socks and underwear. The ad is supposed to be selling socks but instead it looks like it's selling the woman. It's hiding it's true product and hiding it's advertising intentions.
Dolce & Gabbana
The ad violated the unacceptable depictions and portrayals clause. It showed 5 men and 1 woman and one of the men was on top of the woman holding her down. This is discrimantory against women and is implying that they are the weaker sex. Also, this in some ways shows and approves domestic violence by showing the man holding down the woman aggressively.
Nike Ad #1
This ad violates the advertising to children clause. It is implying that boys shouldn't do ballet and that it's not masculine to do ballet. It is saying that it's wrong for a boy to like and do ballet and it's wrong for a parent, more specifically a dad, to take his son to ballet.
Nike Ad #2
This ad violates the disguised advertising techniques clause. The ad is for Nike but all the picture shows is a guy dunking over another guy and in the process shoving his groin in his face. It is a misguiding ad because you don't really understand what Nike is advertising in the first place.
Burger King Ad
This ad violates the unacceptable depictions and portrayals clause. This ad shows a woman about to eat a Burger King sandwich. What they obviously did with the picture is make it look like the woman is performing a sexual act but they put the sandwich there instead. Also, the quotes they use such as, "It'll blow your mind away" don't really help the cause either. It portrays women as sex objects and is very demeaning.