CANADA Law and Practice Contributed by: Sylvie Rodrigue, Grant Worden, Nicole Mantini and Anne Merminod, Torys LLP
In Quebec, there is a growing trend in product lia - bility class actions to rely on the Consumer Protec - tion Act rather than alleging the existence of a safety defect. Plaintiffs increasingly allege that manufactur - ers concealed or misrepresented the risks or dangers associated with a product, or falsely represented its efficiency, allowing them to circumvent the need to establish causation and avoid the burden of producing complex scientific evidence, as the evidentiary thresh - old under the Consumer Protection Act is significantly lower. Moreover, since proof of individual reliance is not required at the authorisation stage, more class actions are proceeding to trial, where defendants can assert a broader range of defences. Damages Damages in product liability claims in negligence are pecuniary (economic impact) and non-pecuniary (gen - eral) in nature. The aim of pecuniary and non-pecu - niary damages is to restore the injured party, as far as is monetarily possible, to the position they would have occupied had the negligent act or breach not occurred. Pecuniary damages address quantifiable financial losses, such as medical expenses, loss of income, costs associated with future care, and property dam - age. Non-pecuniary damages are awarded for things like pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress. In 1978, the Supreme Court of Can - ada capped non-pecuniary damages at CAD100,000 indexed to inflation (capped at CAD460,000 as of July 2025). Punitive damages are available in Canada but are awarded only in rare and exceptional circumstances. The threshold for awarding punitive damages is high: a defendant’s behaviour must represent a marked departure from ordinary standards of decent conduct. Any award must be rational and proportionate to the harm done, the degree of misconduct, and the need for deterrence. In rare cases where punitive damages are awarded, the amounts are very modest compared to awards in other jurisdictions like the United States. In Quebec, punitive damages can only be awarded when provided by law, which includes product liability claims, notably brought under the Consumer Protec -
tion Act, or the Quebec Charter. More recently, the Court of Appeal has held that a class action could be granted to award punitive damages alone, even in the absence of evidence of compensable harm. Leave to the Supreme Court of Canada has, however, been granted in this matter ( Consumers ’ Union , et al . v Air Canada , No 41866 (5 February 2026). 2.2 Standing to Bring Product Liability Claims Canadian courts take a pragmatic approach to stand - ing, focusing on whether the party bringing the claim has a genuine interest in the outcome and has suf - fered genuine harm attributable to the product. This includes consumers who purchased and used a prod - uct, as well as third parties who may have been injured by a product’s defect despite not being the direct pur - chaser. In certain circumstances, family members or legal representatives may also have statutory standing to pursue claims on behalf of individuals who are inca - pacitated or deceased due to the product in question. As noted in 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law , in Québec, subsequent pur - chasers can also benefit from the warranty against latent defects. Class actions are commonly used in Canadian prod - uct liability litigation, allowing groups of similarly affected individuals to collectively seek relief when they share common issues of fact or law against the same defendant(s). 2.3 Time Limits for Product Liability Claims Limitation periods are established by provincial or ter - ritorial legislation. Generally, the applicable limitation period for product liability actions ranges from two to three years from the date when the claim was discov - ered (or ought reasonably to have been discovered), but this can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances. In most provinces, limitation statutes employ a “dis - coverability” principle, which provides that the limi - tation period does not begin to run until the plaintiff knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that they had suffered harm; that the harm was caused by the defendant’s actions or omissions; and that a legal
57 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook