Canada: Class Action On Defective But Not Dangerous Goods A Wash: Whirlpool Unhampered By Product Liability In Tort

The recent decision Arora v. Whirlpool LP, 2013 ONCA 657 by the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified the law on product liability in tort. In refusing to certify a proposed class action, the Court found that Whirlpool was not liable for economic losses stemming from the allegedly negligent design and manufacture of non-dangerous washing machines.  However, the Court was clear that the manufacturer could still be open to liability on contractual or statutory grounds, as could be the retailers that sold the machines.


The proposed class action sought to compensate consumers who purchased front-loading washing machines manufactured by Whirlpool between 2001 and 2008.  The class alleged that the machines suffered from a common design defect and were prone to developing an unpleasant smell.  They did not plead that the washing machines were dangerous or caused any injury or significant damage to property.  The class elected to sue Whirlpool, and not the retailers from which they bought the machines.

The class claimed damages for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of the Competition Act, negligence, and waiver of tort.  The motions judge determined that the class had not disclosed a tenable cause of action on any of these claims, and therefore did not meet the criteria for certification of a class action.1

The Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motions judge, and disposed of all of the class' causes of action individually.

  1. Breach of Express Warranty

Whirlpool had provided three different warranties that covered defects in the materials or workmanship of the washing machines.  The Court saw the matter as one of simple contractual interpretation and found that, given that the class were suing for defective design, rather than materials or workmanship it was plain and obvious that the express warranties did not cover their claim.2

  1. Breach of Implied Warranty

Section 15 of the Sale of Goods Act3 provides for an implied warranty in a contract of sale between a purchaser and seller.  The class argued that Whirlpool had breached the implied condition, namely that the washing machines would be "reasonably fit" for the purpose of washing clothing.

Since Whirlpool does not sell its machines directly to consumers, it argued that it was not a "seller" within the meaning of the Act, so the implied warranty did not apply.4  The Court agreed, stating that the fact that the machines were purchased from third-party retailers was "critical to the viability of the class' implied warranty claim."5  Section 15 provides a remedy against the seller with whom the consumer has a contract of sale.  The statutory warranty is implied into this contract. The class had no such contract with Whirlpool, and no exception to the law of privity of contract could be found.6  This being the case, the Court found that there was no reasonable prospect of success for this claim.7

A Notable Exception: Saskatchewan and New Brunswick Sale of Goods Legislation

Residents of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick could still have a cause of action against Whirlpool for breach of an implied warranty because the sale of goods legislation in those provinces expressly provide that lack of privity does not defeat a third party's claim for damages as a result of a breach of an implied warranty.8  That is, the implied warranty is not limited to agreements between sellers and purchasers, and consumers can make direct claims against manufacturers.

An Unanswered Question for Future Litigation: A Change to the Doctrine of Privity?

The class could have argued that the contract between Whirlpool and the retailers included an implied condition and that they intended to extend the benefit of section 15 to the third-party purchaser.  This would have required the class to establish that allowing the consumer to sue under manufacturer-retailer contracts would be an incremental change to the doctrine of privity.  However, since the class had not plead the issue, the Court of Appeal concluded that it was not necessary to decide the question, and noted that it would be preferable for the courts to await a case focused squarely on that subject.9

  1. Breach of the Competition Act

The class claimed that Whirlpool had breached section 52 of the Competition Act,10 which provides that no person shall "knowingly or recklessly make a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect" for the purpose of promoting the supply or use of a product.11  The statute further empowers a person to sue for damages where a person has acted in contravention with the act.12

Because Whirlpool had never revealed to consumers that the machines suffered from a design defect that exacerbated unpleasant odours, the class argued that Whirlpool had made a representation by omission.13  However, silence is not an actionable misrepresentation unless there is a legal duty to disclose something, and the Court found that there was no such duty under the Competition Act.14  It went on to adopt the holding in Williams v. Canon Canada Inc., 2011 ONSC 6571, where Ontario's Superior Court held that a failure to disclose an alleged defect cannot be a "representation" that would violate section 52.15  Nonetheless, it noted that such omissions can still give rise to an action in negligence.

  1. Negligence: Economic Loss for Negligent Design of a Non-Dangerous Consumer Product

The class' claim for economic losses stemming from a shoddy, but not dangerous product was novel in the realm of tort law.  Ultimately, the Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the class' claim was untenable, and supported the broader statement that, "compensation for economic losses are best regulated by contract and property law." 16  The Court of Appeal wrote:

At its core, the appellants' economic loss claim is for diminution in value – that is, the difference in value between the product they thought they were getting and the one actually received.  In my view, it is clear that such a claim has no reasonable prospect of success in light of the jurisprudence and the relevant statutory framework... 17

The Court further concluded that:

... in my view policy considerations negate recognizing a cause of action in negligence for diminution of value for a defective, non-dangerous consumer product. On the pleaded facts, I agree with the motion judge that the appellants should be left to their statutory and contractual remedies, including express, implied or statutory warranties and 'should not look to tort law to negotiate a better bargain for themselves.'"18

Understanding Pure Economic Loss

The Class' claim was characterized as one for "pure economic loss" because there was no significant damage to clothing or property, and no person had suffered bodily harm.19   Pure economic loss is defined as "a financial loss which is not causally consequent upon physical injury to the plaintiff's own person or property."20

Canadian courts have traditionally limited recovery in tort for pure economic loss.  This is partly because economic interests are seen as "less compelling of protection than bodily security or proprietary interests."21  Courts are also concerned about the "spectre of indeterminate liability" and the encouragement of inappropriate lawsuits.22

A Policy-Based Distinction Between "Dangerous" and "Shoddy" Workmanship

Tort law was expanded to recognize claims for pure economic loss stemming from dangerous goods in Winnipeg Condominium Corporation v. Bird Construction Co., [1995] 1 SCR 85.  In that case, the Supreme Court of Canada found that there were compelling policy reasons to impose tortuous liability on contractors for the cost of repairing dangerous defects of a building, but expressly declined to settle whether a similar duty should be recognized when the defect is not dangerous.23  The washing machines in Arora were alleged to be shoddy, but not dangerous,24 thus the Court of Appeal was compelled to consider the issue.

The Court in Arora determined that the extension of liability for dangerous defects in Winnipeg Condominium was derived from "conventional concerns of protection of bodily integrity and property interests."25  In contrast, the class did not suggest there was a danger to the health and safety of the proposed class members, nor did their claim involve damage to property.26  Consequently, the Court stated that "recognizing the possibility of tort liability on the pleaded facts of this case would represent such a quantum leap [in the law] that it is plain and obvious that the class' negligence claim will not succeed."27  The rationale for extending tort liability for a potentially lethal condominium building simply would not reach into the realm of merely defective, somewhat smelly washing machines.

The Class' Claim was Properly Contractual

Even though the damages sought by the class were not a recognizable claim in tort, they could have been appropriately pursued as expectation damages for breach of contract.28  As the Court of Appeal stated:

At its heart, the appellants' claim is that they paid more for their washing machines than they are worth. It is squarely about relative product quality – a matter that, as LaForest J. noted in Winnipeg Condominium, is customarily dealt with by contract and not easily defined by tort.29

The Court also stated that to require courts to analyze "a myriad of consumer transactions ... in tort, without the framework of consumer protection legislation, to determine whether the consumer received value for his or her money, would burden an already taxed court system."30 Of course, pursuing the matter as a contractual claim would have required the class to sue the individual retailers with whom they had contracts, rather than a single manufacturer.

The Availability of Alternative Remedies: Consumer Protection Legislation

The Court of Appeal was heavily influenced by what it perceived to be readily available remedies under various statutory regimes. It wrote:

... it must be remembered that this is not a case where the appellants were without a remedy. The SGA31 and CPA32 provided a statutory remedy against the seller of the machines for breach of implied warranties of quality and fitness for purpose, and the BPA33 and CPA 34 provided remedies against Whirlpool for unfair practices.35

To the extent that Ontario's legislation dealing with breach of implied warranties limits consumers to remedies against individual retailers, it must be acknowledged that class actions will be fractured and multiplied, and likely uneconomical.  Recognizing this, the Court encouraged Ontario's legislature to reconsider amendments to the CPA to include an exception to privity of contract that would allow consumers to recover against manufacturers for breach of implied warranties.36

  1. Waiver of Tort

The Court of Appeal reinforced that waiver of tort requires, at minimum, that a defendant has committed some form of wrong.  Since the class had not pleaded any tenable cause of action, there was no wrongdoing to support a finding of waiver of tort, regardless of whether it was plead as a remedy or a cause of action.37

Conclusions on Liability in Tort for Defective, Non-Dangerous Consumer Goods 

While the Court's invocation of policy reasons suggests a broad moratorium on tort claims for economic losses stemming from non-dangerous goods, the Arora decision ultimately centres on the specific facts of the case.  Though the class' claim could not pass through, the door to tort-based recovery for defective goods remains slightly ajar for future plaintiffs who may wish to give it another spin.

It is also noteworthy that the class had dropped their initial claim under the CPA,38 had made some concessions about the nature of their losses,39 and had failed to plead all of the potential claims available to it under contract law.  The dismissal of their appeal may instigate a renewed caution on the part of plaintiffs' counsel to exhaust every legal avenue in their pleadings and refrain from making concessions at the pre-certification stage.  As a result, defendants of product liability class actions may find themselves faced with increasingly complex claims.  


1 Class Proceedings Act, 1992, SO 1992, c 6 s 5(1)(a).

2 At paras 22-23.

3 RSO 1990 c S 1.

4 At para 28.

5 At para 31.

6 At para 37.

7 At para 33.

8 At para 32.

9 At para 42.

10 RSC, 1985, c C-34.

11 At para 43.

12 At para 44.

13 At para 45.

14 At para 50.

15 At para 51.

16 At paras 65, quoting trial decision at paras 288-289.

17 At para 96.

18 At para 116.

19 At para 73, 76-79.

20 At para 52, quoting Professor Feldthusen in Bruce Feldthusen, Economic Negligence, 6th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2012) at p 1.

21 Martel Building Ltd. v. Canada, 2000 SCC 60 at para 37, quoted in Arora at para 53.

22 Ibid.

23 At paras 58-59, and 81-83.

24 At para 59.

25 At para 101.

26 At para 101-102.

27 At para 97.

28 At para 104.

29 At para 105.

30 At para 105.

31 Sale of Goods Act, supra.

32 Consumer Protection Act, 2002, SO 2002, C-30.

33 Business Practices Act, RSO, 1990, c B018 – now repealed.

34 Consumer Protection Act, supra.

35 At para 115.

36 At paras 112-114.

37 At paras 117 and 121.

38 At para 111.

39 At para 74 and 75.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions