Newsletters

268

1, 2, 3, and the Dishwasher Goes…

No, it was not a former Minister of Energy who made it disappear, but rather a planned obsolescence, carefully concealed in the complexities of the manufacturing components so that the product purchased becomes defective, coercing you to replace it sooner. Fortunately, the Government has responded, and we explain how.

Introduction

In June 2023, the Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, introduced Bill 29 , “Act to Protect Consumers from Planned Obsolescence and to Promote Durability, Repairability, and Maintenance of Goods[1].

This Bill included, among other things, amendments to the Consumer Protection Act[2] (“C.P.A.”) such as enhancing the legal warranties granted to consumers while introducing the concept of planned obsolescence into Quebec law—a technique that involves “reducing the normal operating life”[3] of a product.

Some interesting modifications in terms of consumer protection have already come into effect, though we will have to wait until October 2026 for a new provision to be implemented.

A Reminder about the C.P.A. and Legal Guarantee of Quality

In addition to the legal guarantee prescribed by the Civil Code of Québec in articles 1726 and following, the C.P.A. also provides a legal guarantee of quality for goods that are the subject of a contract between a consumer and a merchant. Specifically, products must “be durable in normal use for a reasonable length of time, having regard to their price, the terms of the contract and the conditions of their use”[4].

The legal guarantee provides consumers with a reversal of the burden of proof in their favor in the event of a product defect. In the case of an alleged manufacturing defect, it is the burden of the manufacturer, distributor, or the vendor to demonstrate the cause of the defect[5].

2023 – “Seriously Defective” Vehicle

In 2023, the C.P.A. introduced the concept of a “seriously defective” vehicle to provide an additional protection to consumers related to planned obsolescence. This applies to vehicles[6]:

  1. That have, for example, undergone three (3) unsuccessful repair attempts for the same defect under the manufacturer’s warranty, or 12 attempts for unrelated defects;
  2. Where the defects appeared within the first three (3) years after the purchase or lease of the vehicle, with less than 60,000 km driven; and
  3. That are unfit for use.

In such cases, the presence of a hidden defect is presumed.

To our knowledge, this new provision has yet to be the subject of jurisprudence on its merits.

January 2025 – New Financial Penalties

Since January 5, 2025, new financial penalties for non-compliance with the C.P.A. have been in effect.

Depending on the severity of the violation, fines of up to $3,500 for corporations can be imposed for each day of non-compliance with the standards set by the C.P.A.[7]

October 2026 – Introduction of the “Good Working Order” Guarantee

Starting on October 5, 2026, new consumer protections related to planned obsolescence will be enhanced as the “good working order” guarantee comes into effect for certain new goods under sales or long-term rental contracts[8].
This will primarily apply to household appliances, tablets, and mobile phones[9].

Merchants will be required to indicate the duration of this guarantee near the advertised price and provide consumers with information regarding its application[10].

Under the “good working condition” guarantee, merchants and manufacturers will be required to repair a product or cover the repair costs[11].

Conclusion

New significant financial penalties for non-compliance with the C.P.A. are now in effect, along with specific provisions for seriously defective vehicles.

There are now only 18 months for manufacturers and merchants to take necessary action in order to comply with the new provisions of the Act concerning the new “good working condition” guarantee.

Given labor shortages and challenges related to the availability of parts, it will be interesting to continue monitoring the developments and in concreto application of these new provisions.

 

[1] Act to Protect Consumers from Planned Obsolescence and to Promote Durability, Repairability, and Maintenance of Goods, Bill N° 29 (presentation – June 1st, 2023), 1er sess., 43e légiste (QC). [Bill 29]

[2] Consumer Protection Act, RLRQC.P-40.1. [C.P.A.]

[3] Bill 29, art. 14.

[4] C.P.A., art. 38.

[5]ABB Inc. v. Domtar Inc., 2007 CSC 50 (CanLII), [2007] 3 RCS 461.

[6] C.P.A., art. 53.1.

[7] C.P.A., art. 276.1.

[8] C.P.A., 38.1.

[9] C.P.A., art. 38.1.

[10] C.P.A., art. 38.8 et 38.9.

[11] C.P.A., 38.5.

268

Authors

Léonie Gagné

Lawyer, Partner

Articles in the same category

No Notice of Default, No Termination

In Pavage Wemindji Inc. v. Compagnie de Construction et de Développement crie ltée, the Quebec Superior Court emphasized that a valid notice of default (mise en demeure) is not just a formality—it’s a precondition to exercising remedies like contract termination in many cases under Quebec civil law. The Decision The plaintiff, Pavage Wemindji Inc. (“Wemindji”), […]

Public Contracts: When Does a Penalty Clause Cross the Line?

Penalty clauses are a practical tool for owners: instead of having to prove actual losses when a contractor falls short, they can rely on a pre-agreed sum. For contractors, however, the stakes are equally significant — a lump-sum penalty can consume a substantial portion of the contract’s value. Still, the mechanism has its limits. Courts […]

Not So Intelligent!

Since the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence tools, growing concerns have emerged regarding their use in judicial proceedings. Recent decisions have relied on section 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sanction parties who make improper use of such tools. More specifically, this provision has been invoked on several occasions to address the use or citation […]

So? Is it settled or not?

In an interim decision in Djaferian v. Spanoudakis,rendered on February 20, 2026, the Superior Court had to determine whether an offer made 15 months earlier, prior to the institution of proceedings, could still be accepted and result in a transaction. Summary of Facts and Timeline The Plaintiff, a co-owner who sustained water damage to his private […]

Office Parties and the Employer’s Duty to Prevent Harassment

In De Sousa and Corporation interactive Eidos, 2026 QCTAT 4, the Quebec Administrative Labour Tribunal (ALT) appears to have broadened the scope of an employer’s obligation to prevent harassment. The decision arose from a complaint filed by a former employee who had been sexually assaulted at her home by a colleague following an office party organized by the […]

Should Economic Losses Be Considered Property Damage?

The Quebec Court of Appeal in Zurich, Compagnie d’assurances SA c. CRT Construction inc., recently overturned the Superior Court’s decision on the interpretation of a construction insurance policy. Facts CRT Construction Inc. (“CRT”) was retained by the City of Montreal (“City”) to perform major construction work at the Atwater water treatment plant. At the City’s request, CRT […]