Here are examples of small claims court judgments, where consumers asserted their legal warranty rights. This tool can be useful to you in your negotiations with a merchant. For example, it could help you determine a reasonable durability period for your item or estimate the amount of compensation for damages to which you may be entitled. 

Cautionary note

These judgment summaries are presented for reference purposes only. An application that was settled in favour of a consumer in one situation may not necessarily result in the same ruling for another consumer. 

Several factors can influence a judge's decision regarding a reasonable durability period for an item. These include the price paid, contract clause provisions, the conditions under which the  item is used, etc. Remember that each case is different, and every decision is rendered on the basis of the evidence brought before the court.  

Examples of decisions

Issue Summary of claim Outcome Amount awarded Full judgment (in French only)
"Reconditioned" cellular phones that never worked

(purchase price: $680 ($340 each))

Claim for $930

($680 for reimbursement of the purchase price and $250 for inconvenience suffered)

Claim allowed in part $680 Hafyana c. 9238 7901 Québec inc. (Lap Pro)

(January 2018)

Cellular phone overheated and turned itself off after less than 1 ½ months of use

(purchase price: telephone worth approximately $600 received at the time of signing contract for telephone services)

Claim for $2,450

($600 for the value of the telephone and $1,850 for the inconvenience and moral damages suffered)

Claim allowed in part $730

($480, representing 80% of the value of the telephone, plus $250 for the inconvenience suffered)

Vincelli c. LG Électroniques Canada inc.

(October 2017)

Cellular phone found to be defective six months after purchase

(purchase price: $300, by twenty-four monthly payments)

Application to cancel the contract of sale and claim for $500 in damages


Allowed in part $200

(cancellation of the contract, cancellation of a statement of account, and $200 for the inconvenience suffered)

Chalut c. Koodo Mobile

(December 2016)

Cellular phone stopped working 2 months after purchase

(purchase price: provided free of charge as an [TRANSLATION] “economic benefit” in the context of renewing a contract for services (value of $299.99))


(reason not specified)

Claim allowed in part $798.50

($300 for the value of telephone, $198.50 for service fees invoiced for 2 months and $300 for other damages)

Van Audenrode c. Rogers Communication, s.e.n.c. (Rogers Sans-fil)

(December 2013)

Glass screen of cellular phone broke after being dropped

(purchase price: not specified)

Claim not specified Claim dismissed $0

(breakage caused by an accidental impact rather than a manufacturing defect)

Andrade c. Samsung Electronics Canada inc.

(October 2013)

Cellular phone stopped working after less than one year of use

(purchase price: $649.99)

Claim for $981.38

(reason not specified)

Claim allowed in part $315

($200 for replacement of the phone, $65 for loss of use for 2 months, and $50 for inconvenience suffered)

Groleau c. Koodo Mobile

(April 2013)

Note to the reader: The judgment summaries above were provided by SOQUIJ. In rare cases, they may have been subject to an appeal before a higher authority. If you intend on citing any of these judgments before the court, it is recommended that you check the minutes book of the courthouse in question.

Poursuivre la recherche

Au besoin, vous pouvez consulter d’autres décisions des tribunaux en matière de garanties légales en utilisant le moteur de recherche disponible gratuitement dans le site de SOQUIJ.

Pour optimiser les résultats, il suffit de sélectionner un tribunal (ex. : Division des petites créances), puis d’inscrire des mots-clés tels que « durée raisonnable », « garantie légale », « téléphone », « cellulaire », « portable », « électronique », etc.

Last update : December 16, 2019

Were you unable to find an answer to your question? Please call us.

The information contained on this page is presented in simple terms to make it easier to understand. It does not replace the texts of the laws and regulations.