Introduction
On 1 June 2023, the Québec Minister of Justice introduced Bill 29, formally titled “An Act to protect consumers against planned obsolescence and to promote the durability, repairability and maintenance of goods” (the “Act”). The National Assembly enacted the legislation on 3 October 2023, and it received assent on 5 October 2023. The Act represents the most ambitious reform of Québec’s Consumer Protection Act (CQLR, c. P-40.1) (CPA) in recent history, and the most stringent consumer product legislation in Canada.
Québec has long been recognised as a jurisdiction with particularly robust statutory protections for consumers. The CPA’s legal warranties of quality, durability, and fitness for purpose cannot be waived or disclaimed by contract, and they bind both merchants and manufacturers directly.
Bill 29 builds on that foundation and amends the CPA in four principal areas:
The result is a statute that imposes obligations on manufacturers, distributors, and merchants who sell or lease consumer goods in Québec that are unprecedented in Canada. Québec is also the first Canadian province to enact “right-to-repair” legislation. This article provides an overview of Bill 29’s key features, and their impact on the Canadian product liability landscape, in the order they were put into force.
The ban on planned obsolescence of goods sold (in force 5 October 2023)
The cornerstone of the Act’s statement of principle is the prohibition on planned obsolescence. The new Section 38.1 of the CPA prohibits any person, by any means, from carrying on the business of manufacturing, distributing, or selling goods for which obsolescence is planned. The Act defines “planned obsolescence” as the use of any technique aimed at reducing the normal operating life of a good. This provision came into force with immediate effect on 5 October 2023.
It applies to goods across all categories. This extension to software-dependent goods raises significant practical concerns, because software-based products frequently have known end-of-support dates after which security patches and updates will no longer be provided. This question has not yet been resolved by the regulator or the courts.
The government has also reserved the power to issue standards for interoperability between goods and chargers ‒ this technical framework has not yet been published.
Manufacturers should therefore audit their product lines to identify any components or design features that could be characterised as planned obsolescence techniques, including software-based restrictions on repair, proprietary fasteners or tools that prevent third-party access, and end-of-support timelines that expire before the product’s reasonable useful life.
Sanctions in case of violation of this prohibition are substantial. For corporations and other legal entities, fines for violations of the planned obsolescence prohibition range from CAD5,000 to CAD125,000, or an amount equal to 5% of worldwide revenue for the preceding fiscal year, whichever is greater.
Individual directors, officers, mandataries, and representatives of an offending entity are presumed to have committed the offence personally, unless they can establish that they exercised due diligence and took all necessary precautions to prevent it. This presumed liability on directors and officers is one of the most significant compliance implications of the Act for senior management of businesses operating in Québec.
Boards of directors and officers of corporations dealing in Québec should ensure that they have received appropriate briefings on Bill 29’s obligations and that compliance programmes have been adopted and are being monitored.
Lemon law for seriously defective automobiles (in force 5 October 2023)
Section 53.1 of the amended CPA, which came into force on 5 October 2023, created a dedicated statutory mechanism for declaring an automobile “seriously defective.”
A consumer who owns or leases an automobile may apply to the court for a declaration that the vehicle is a “seriously defective automobile.” The court may grant such a declaration where specified repair-attempt thresholds have been met under the vehicle’s basic conventional warranty given gratuitously by the manufacturer, and within the first three years or 60,000 km:
The “defects” for which repairs are attempted must render the vehicle unfit for its intended use or significantly limit its usefulness (such as a safety hazard or no-start condition). The Act, however, did not define what constitutes an “unsuccessful repair attempt” or an “unrelated defect.”
Once a court declares an automobile “seriously defective”, an irrebuttable presumption of latent defect affecting the product is established. The irrebuttable nature of the presumption means that neither the manufacturer nor the merchant can introduce evidence to contradict the existence of a latent defect, once the statutory threshold has been reached. However, the merchant or manufacturer can defend the fact that the repair attempts thresholds have not been met. In other words, the merchant or manufacturer can try to establish that there were not “three unsuccessful attempts” to repair the same defect in the vehicle.
Consequently, warranty administration records and repair logs or work orders should be carefully documented and maintained, as these records will be determinative in any Section 53.1 application.
If the consumer is successful, then they are entitled to the full range of remedies available under Section 272 of the CPA, including claiming a reduction of the purchase price, cancellation of the contract of sale or the long-term lease, and damages, both compensatory and punitive.
The Act also imposes disclosure obligations tied to the seriously defective designation. Any automobile that has been declared seriously defective must be disclosed as such when it is subsequently resold or advertised for resale. This obligation runs with the vehicle regardless of how many times it changes hands, creating a permanent public record that will materially affect the vehicle’s resale value. It is unclear yet how the vehicle’s permanent record (with the provincial department of motor vehicles) will be altered or flagged by such a judicial declaration.
Additional automobile-specific provisions of the Act were introduced along with the “lemon law” provision: the prohibition on charging fees related to the origin, nature, or quality of a part installed as part of normal maintenance in long-term lease contracts; and the requirement that merchants offer a free end-of-lease inspection to identify any components requiring attention. These provisions are designed to address the exploitation of lessees who have limited negotiating power when maintenance disputes arise at the end of a long-term lease.
Commentary on recent cases on Section 53.1 CPA
Two decisions rendered in early 2026 represent the first reported applications of Section 53.1 of the CPA by Québec courts.
9365-6502 Québec inc. v Nissan Canada inc., 2026 QCCQ 35
On 31 May 2022, 9365-6502 Québec inc. (9365), a corporation, together with Peter Skierka, signed a long-term lease for an Infiniti QX50 with a Nissan-affiliated dealership. Following a series of visits to Infiniti dealerships between June 2022 and March 2024, Mr Skierka sent Nissan Canada inc. a letter on 30 March 2024 denouncing the alleged unresolved problems with his vehicle and demanding a cancellation of the lease. Nissan requested an inspection of the vehicle, which Mr Skierka refused. He subsequently signed a new lease for a BMW and returned the Infiniti to the BMW dealership before the lease term. The plaintiffs then claimed CAD14,517.97 from Nissan, comprising of the early termination penalty, three months of lease payments, and CAD2,500 in moral damages.
The Court of Québec’s Small Claims Division dismissed the claim on a preliminary ground that the CPA was not applicable to the contract because one of the lessees was a corporation (9365), and it was 9365, not Mr Skierka, that made the lease payments. The CPA defines a consumer as a natural person who acquires goods or services for purposes other than commercial ones. Since a corporation cannot qualify as a consumer under the statute, and since the financial obligations were borne by 9365, the CPA’s protections did not apply to the transaction.
Furthermore, turning to the general provisions of the Civil Code of Québec, the Court also found that the lessee did not notify the lessor within a reasonable time and did not give the lessor a reasonable opportunity to make the necessary repairs. Instead, when Nissan requested an inspection, Mr Skierka refused and leased a BMW. In the Court’s words, “the plaintiffs took justice into their own hands,” which further justified the dismissal of the claim. This case reaffirms the importance of providing notice of a defect and an opportunity for the merchant or manufacturer to remedy it.
Hajmanoochehry v Beaupré Capitale Chrysler inc., 2026 QCCS 754
Rendered on 9 March 2026 by the Superior Court of Québec, this is the first reported judgment in Québec to grant a declaration that a vehicle is a “seriously defective automobile” within the meaning of Section 53.1 CPA and to order the cancellation of the sale as a result. The plaintiff purchased a Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe from Beaupré Capitale Chrysler inc. on 31 January 2023. The claim was filed on 22 January 2026. The defendant dealership failed to answer the claim, resulting in the matter proceeding by default. The manufacturer was not sued in this case.
The plaintiff alleged two categories of serious and recurring defects, which the Court accepted. First, the vehicle’s heating system never functioned. Given Québec winters, the Court noted this was not merely a comfort issue: the inability to defrost windows posed a direct safety risk, and the plaintiff suffered frostbite and numbness in his legs during long trips. Second, a dashboard warning light appeared intermittently, sometimes causing a sudden and complete loss of engine power that forced the plaintiff to pull over to the side of the road, turn off the engine, and restart it. This was also found to be a safety hazard.
Applying the framework from the Court of Appeal’s leading decision in Fortin v Mazda Canada Inc., 2016 QCCA 31, the Superior Court confirmed that a defect under the CPA ‒ even in the context of the new “lemon law” ‒ must meet the four criteria applicable to latent defects under the Civil Code of Québec:
It held that all four criteria were satisfied in this particular case.
The Court granted the plaintiff's request for cancellation of the sale and ordered the full refund of the purchase price as well as damages of CAD11,000. No punitive damages were sought or awarded. Although the Court did not explicitly analyse the conditions of Section 53.1 CPA, it declared that the vehicle was a “seriously defective automobile,” which means it must now be permanently identified as such on any subsequent resale or advertisement.
Because the dealership failed to contest the claim, and the manufacturer was not sued, this judgment was rendered without the benefit of any defence evidence or argument. This significantly limits its precedential value. It remains to be seen whether future contested decisions offer more discussion and analysis on the new “lemon law” provisions.
The Availability Warranty for replacement parts, repair services, and maintenance information (in force 5 October 2025)
The Availability Warranty applies to any good sold to consumers in Québec that is by nature likely to require maintenance work. The regulator has specified that this encompasses any good whose use may require the replacement, cleaning, or updating of one of its components, such as: toasters, electric toothbrushes, cell phones, vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, heat pumps, spas, lawn mowers, bicycles, and automobiles. The good may be new or second-hand, and it must have been purchased or leased from a merchant.
Both the merchant and the manufacturer are independently bound by the Availability Warranty. For a reasonable period following the conclusion of the contract, they must each make available to consumers:
Importantly, where this information is available on a technological medium, it must be provided free of charge.
Supply chains for replacement parts in Québec must therefore be structured to ensure availability for a reasonable period post-sale, and ensure all maintenance and repair information or software is available in French.
The Act specifies that replacement parts must be installable using commonly available tools and without causing irreversible damage to the good. This requirement directly seeks to prohibit the use of proprietary locks, fasteners or adhesives that physically or digitally prevent repair by any person other than an authorised service provider.
Both merchants and manufacturers bear affirmative disclosure obligations under the Availability Warranty regime. The manufacturer must disclose online, clearly and conspicuously, whether each of the three elements (replacement parts, repair services, and maintenance information) is available, partially available, or unavailable in relation to each good it offers. Where an element is only partially available, the manufacturer must provide sufficient information for the consumer to determine precisely which parts, services, or information are not accessible. This can be a burdensome exercise in a world where parts inventories and production lead times are in constant flux.
The merchant’s disclosure obligation is similar but must be fulfilled before the conclusion of the contract. For in-store sales, the merchant must provide this information to the consumer in writing at the point of sale. For online sales, the disclosure must appear conspicuously near the product listing, together with a hyperlink to the manufacturer’s corresponding availability information. An online-only publication of the availability information may exempt the merchant from the physical disclosure requirement, provided the online information is clear and easily printable.
A merchant or manufacturer may be released (or excluded) from the Availability Warranty only by providing written notice to the consumer, before the conclusion of the contract, that it does not make replacement parts, repair services, or maintenance information available for the relevant good. This opt-out mechanism requires advance disclosure to the consumer.
As a result, a number of merchants and manufacturers have added legal notices to their transactional websites to advise Québec consumers that they do not guarantee the availability of replacement parts, repair services, or maintenance information. It remains to be seen whether the courts will uphold such limitations or take issue with this new widespread practice.
Assuming no exclusion has been made and the Availability Warranty applies and is being enforced, the merchant or manufacturer must first repair the good. If it cannot do so, the consumer may have the good repaired by a third party at the merchant’s or manufacturer’s expense. Failing successful repair, the merchant or manufacturer must replace the good entirely or reimburse the consumer.
The Good Working Order Warranty (in force 5 October 2026)
The third and final major reform introduced by Bill 29 is the new statutory Good Working Order Warranty for specific household appliances and electronic devices. This warranty will come into force on 5 October 2026, pursuant to amendments made to the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act published in late 2025.
Covered goods and duration
The Good Working Order Warranty applies to specific new goods sold or leased to consumers by a merchant. Unlike the general legal warranty of quality under the CPA, the Good Working Order Warranty establishes fixed minimum durations by product category, as determined by the regulation. Thus far, the regulated warranty durations are as follows.
These durations represent a legislative determination of what constitutes a reasonable minimum useful life for each category of products. They are minimum standards so a merchant or manufacturer can offer longer coverage, but may not offer less. A product that fails to function properly within the applicable warranty period will be presumed not to meet the required standard, without any further burden of proof on the consumer.
A consumer whose covered good malfunctions during the Good Working Order Warranty period may bring a claim against the merchant, the manufacturer, or both. The Warranty is also fully transferable. It follows the good rather than the original buyer, meaning that a consumer who purchases a covered good second-hand is entitled to the benefit of any remaining warranty period from both the manufacturer and the merchant who originally sold or leased it as new. The objective of the regulator was to significantly enhance the resale value of covered goods.
When a covered good malfunctions during the warranty period, the merchant and manufacturer may (i) repair the good free of charge, including all parts and labour; or (ii)allow the consumer to have the good repaired by a third party of the consumer’s choice, but at the merchant/manufacturer’s cost. In both cases, reasonable transportation or shipping costs are also covered by the Warranty.
Similar to the general legal warranty of quality, the Good Working Order Warranty does not cover damage resulting from the consumer’s abnormal or abusive use of the good, nor does it cover the normal maintenance of the good or the replacement of parts that results from such maintenance.
Merchants are required to advertise the duration of the Good Working Order Warranty prominently, adjacent to the product’s listed price (whether in-store, online, in print advertising, or in flyers).
Any merchant who proposes to sell a consumer an extended or additional warranty for a covered good must first provide written notice to the consumer disclosing the existence and duration of the applicable Good Working Order Warranty. This requirement is designed to prevent the sale of extended warranties that merely replicate coverage that the consumer already benefits from for free under the CPA.
Consumers also have a mandatory ten-day cooling-off period during which they may cancel any contract for an extended or additional warranty without cost or penalty. This cooling-off right cannot be waived by contract.
Conclusion
Bill 29 marks a generational shift in Québec consumer protection law. By combining a ban on planned obsolescence, statutory lemon law, right-to-repair framework, and fixed-duration warranties for specific goods, the Act reshapes the fundamental terms on which manufacturers and merchants participate in the Québec consumer goods market.
For business operating in Québec, product design decisions, supply chain agreements for replacement parts and services, and the corporate governance structures put in place will need to be reviewed and checked against this new set of rules. Directors and officers must be mindful of these considerations and involved in such processes to be able to prove their due diligence in defending any personal prosecution under the Act.
Québec has positioned itself at the forefront of North American consumer product regulation. Since 2024, the Canadian Federal government has already made significant amendments to the Copyright Act to permit individuals and independent service providers to circumvent Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) or digital locks on software-enabled products for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance, and repair. This federal change aimed to bolster the “right to repair” in Canada by allowing repairs without voiding warranties. The authors expect that other consumer-conscious provinces in Canada will follow this trend in the near future.
Published by: Anthony Franceschini
