Yes, and yes/no, for a very brief version. Of course, no two colonies were ever treated quite the same--population, economy, geography, time since founding, and so on could all produce fairly different results from place to place. But beyond that, yes, the Canadian colonies absolutely were ruled somewhat differently from the rest of the colonies in Britain's Atlantic empire, and British imperial authorities did view them differently. However, it is also indubitably the case that British metropolitan authorities viewed all the colonies as part of a holistic project of increasing central control of the empire.

Let me look at this through the lens of governing institutions, particularly assemblies, because that's my specialty. Quebec and Nova Scotia, which together contained basically all of the population of British Canada, were relatively recent conquests from other Europeans. After disputing the territory for nearly a century, the British finally secured Acadia from the French in 1713, and renamed it Nova Scotia. Quebec had been formally secured even more recently, after the end of the Seven Years' War in 1763. In consequence, British metropolitan authorities felt that the elected assemblies that were one of the pillars of British colonial governance in the rest of North America and the Caribbean were too risky in Quebec and Nova Scotia. Most of the population still, perhaps, felt they owed allegiance to an imperial competitor, and the English-speaking settler populations weren't large enough to provide an effective counter-balance. In Quebec, therefore, there was no assembly until 1791, and in Nova Scotia there was no assembly until after the British deployed coercive imperial power to expel the Acadians during the Seven Years' War. This particular difference was very much in the public eye in the transatlantic empire on the eve of the American Revolution, because Parliament passed the Quebec Act in 1774. That act was a necessary concession to imperial difference, since it recognized the role of the Catholic church and the civil law while withholding an elected assembly in a French-majority colony. But the act also inspired (perhaps exaggerated) fear in the thirteen colonies. Every one of the thirteen colonies, and all of the British Caribbean colonies, had an English-speaking settler majority, used the common law, had effective primacy of Protestant denominations, and enjoyed government partially through assemblies as the "birthright of Englishmen." None of the thirteen colonies had been conquered from Europeans more recently than 1664, so all of them were well anglicized (some Caribbean colonies had changed hands more recently). Their political elites would have recoiled at being governed on the "Quebec model."

However, it wasn't just Quebec and Nova Scotia that didn't have assemblies. Newfoundland didn't have one either, and in fact wouldn't receive one until 1832! And that's despite the dominance of English settlers. Moreover, Georgia was founded without an assembly in 1732, and didn't receive one until 1754 (I think--could be off by a year or so). Indeed, from the 1740s onwards, the British imperial authorities were trying to roll back the gains assemblies and colonial elites had made at the expense of imperial power everywhere they could (see Andrew D.M. Beaumont's Colonial America and the Duke of Halifax for a good but sometimes dry take on this). They didn't have very much success against long-established and powerful assemblies, because the colonial assemblies had tradition and precedent on their side, which were enormously powerful weapons in the English political culture that all parties to the dispute shared. Even a direct censure of the Jamaican assembly by the House of Commons in 1757 didn't move the needle!

But where they could, the British imperial authorities tried to make their new model stick--so the Georgia and Nova Scotia assemblies were delayed, and then restricted, while Newfoundland and Quebec of course went on without assemblies. It's a little bit of an "authoritarian turn," and P.J. Marshall has even argued (in The Making and Unmaking of Empires) that it's of a piece with the imperial project that was ongoing in India. So perhaps the thirteen colonies did have something to worry about with the Quebec Act. True, colonial policymakers never would have gone completely for a one-size-fits-all model, because they recognized that the colonies had varying characteristics that needed to be accommodated. But they certainly did want to bring all the colonies into a more centralized and regularized imperial system of control, and they didn't want to leave any empowered colonies out there to serve as negative examples to the rest. So in that sense, Canada and the thirteen colonies were both viewed differently and similarly by the imperial authorities.

I'm away from all my books at the moment, so I'm sorry I couldn't give more detail or denser citations. Hopefully that gives you some idea though!