Scope of the Express Warranty
An express warranty is enforceable on its own terms. If the manufacturer limits the warranty to specific defects or to a specific period, those terms generally apply. However, the manufacturer cannot contract out of the Sale of Goods Act implied warranty of merchantable quality that governs the retailer’s liability.
Reviewing the written warranty carefully identifies what is covered and what exclusions apply. The definition of ‘defect’ and any claims process requirements repay particular attention, because a refusal is often based on a process step rather than on the failure itself.
What counts as an express warranty is wider than the printed card in some provinces. Manitoba deems every oral or written statement a seller makes about the quality, condition, quantity, performance or efficacy of goods, whether made to the buyer or contained in an advertisement, to be an express warranty. New Brunswick admits oral evidence of a promise even where it contradicts the written contract, and treats a promise to repair or replace as also warranting that the product will not break down during the warranty term. Quebec prohibits a merchant or manufacturer from refusing to perform a warranty on the pretext that the document evidencing it has not reached them or was not validated.
The Implied Warranty Continues
Even where the express warranty has expired or does not cover the specific defect, the Sale of Goods Act implied warranty of merchantable quality remains available against the retailer. The implied warranty is not time-limited by the manufacturer’s choice and is not waivable in Ontario consumer transactions by CPA s. 9.
The practical effect: where the manufacturer denies a claim but the defect is inconsistent with a reasonable expectation of durability, the consumer may still pursue the retailer under the Sale of Goods Act.
Outside Ontario the strength of that argument varies, and the difference is worth checking before anything is sent. Quebec, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick imply durability for a reasonable period as a named statutory term. Manitoba and British Columbia void a contract term that removes the implied conditions. Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island permit an implied term to be negatived by express agreement, so the sale contract has to be read first. The warranty rights guide sets all ten out in a table with the statute and section for each.
The Sequence, Step by Step
- A written demand to the retailer. A demand carries more weight when it is specific: the date and place of purchase, the model and serial number, what failed and when, the warranty term or statutory provision relied on, the remedy sought (repair, replacement, price reduction or refund), and a date by which a reply is asked for. Sending it by a means that can be proved, and keeping the proof, is what makes it useful later. Naming the statutory provision matters: in Ontario that is s. 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 with the Sale of Goods Act implied conditions, in Quebec arts. 37 and 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, in Saskatchewan s. 19 of the Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act, in Nova Scotia s. 26(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, and in New Brunswick ss. 10 and 12 of the Consumer Product Warranty and Liability Act.
- The evidence that supports it. The receipt or the card statement showing the purchase, the warranty document or the webpage as it appeared at the time of sale, dated photographs or video of the failure, any independent repair or diagnostic report, and a dated record of each conversation with the name of the person spoken to. Where the argument is about durability rather than a covered defect, the price paid and the maintenance actually carried out are directly relevant, because they are among the factors the statutes name.
- A complaint to the provincial regulator.Each province’s consumer office receives complaints about a business’s conduct and can act on a licence or on a pattern of unfair practices. What none of them does is order the business to pay. Treating the regulator as an enforcement route rather than a compensation route sets the right expectation, and the federal Complaint Roadmap published by the Office of Consumer Affairs identifies which office handles which issue. Manitoba is the exception worth knowing: s. 58(10) of its Consumer Protection Act allows either party to a warranty dispute to refer it to the director, who attempts to settle it by mediation.
- A credit card chargeback, where the purchase was on a card. A chargeback runs through the card network rather than through consumer protection legislation, so the grounds and the filing deadline come from the network, and those deadlines are commonly measured from the transaction or the expected delivery date rather than from the date of the refusal. A federally regulated bank must fully investigate a disputed transaction and its complaint process ends at an external complaints body. The credit card chargebacks guide sets out the sequence and the evidence usually asked for. Because the network window can close while other routes are still open, the chargeback deadline is normally the first date to check rather than the last.
- A claim in small claims court.Where the amount is within the province’s threshold, the small claims process is designed to be used without a lawyer. The limitation period is the outer boundary: two years from discovery in most provinces, three in Quebec, and six in Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island. The thresholds are in the table below.
Small Claims Thresholds by Province
The court and the ceiling both change at the provincial border, and two of these numbers moved recently enough that older summaries are wrong about them.
| Province | Court | Monetary limit | Source and notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ontario | Small Claims Court (Superior Court of Justice) | $50,000 | O. Reg. 626/00, s. 1(1), raised from $35,000 effective 1 October 2025 |
| Quebec | Court of Québec, Small Claims Division | $15,000 | Code of Civil Procedure, art. 536, excluding interest; a business may use the division only if it had 10 or fewer employees |
| British Columbia | Provincial Court (Small Claims) | $35,000 | Small Claims Court Monetary Limit Regulation, B.C. Reg. 179/2005, s. 1 |
| Alberta | Alberta Court of Justice, Civil division | $100,000 | The highest civil claim limit in the country |
| Manitoba | Court of King's Bench, Small Claims | $15,000 | Court of King's Bench Small Claims Practices Act, s. 3(1); general damages within that total are capped at $2,000 |
| Saskatchewan | Small Claims Court (Provincial Court) | $50,000 | Raised from $30,000 effective 1 April 2024 |
| Nova Scotia | Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia | $25,000 | Not including interest and costs; also covers the return of goods up to the same value |
| New Brunswick | Small Claims Court of New Brunswick | $20,000 | Covers a debt, damages or the return of property; claims above the limit are not accepted for filing |
| Newfoundland and Labrador | Provincial Court, Small Claims Court | $25,000 | Civil actions where the monetary value claimed does not exceed the limit |
| Prince Edward Island | Supreme Court, Small Claims Section | $16,000 | Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 74, raised from $8,000 effective 8 July 2017 |
This table scrolls sideways. Drag or shift-scroll it to see every column.
Limits are for the amount claimed and generally exclude interest and costs. Several courts exclude subject matter as well as amount: Nova Scotia’s Small Claims Court does not hear claims about land ownership, wills and estates, malicious prosecution, wrongful imprisonment or defamation, and New Brunswick’s excludes family matters and claims involving title to land. The three territories are not included because their limits were not verified for this table.
Escalation Path
A written notice of the defect and claim should be sent to the retailer where the manufacturer has refused. The notice should refer to the Sale of Goods Act implied warranty and set out the requested remedy (repair, replacement, or refund).
If the retailer also refuses, the consumer may pursue a chargeback (if the purchase was recent), a regulatory complaint, or a Small Claims Court action. Documentation of the defect, the purchase, and all communications is essential.
Two related situations are dealt with elsewhere on this site. Where the dispute is that a refund was refused rather than that goods failed, the refund rights guide sets out when Canadian law actually requires a refund and when it does not. Where an unpaid balance has been passed to a collection agency, the collection agency rules page covers the conduct limits, the written notice that ends contact, and the limitation period after which a debt becomes statute-barred.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What should I do if a shop refuses to honour its written warranty?
- The usual sequence has five stages. First, a written demand to the retailer that identifies the purchase, describes the failure, names the warranty or statutory provision relied on and states the remedy sought and a date for a reply. Second, assembling the evidence that supports it: the receipt, the warranty document, dated photographs or video of the failure, any repair or diagnostic report, and the record of what was said and by whom. Third, a complaint to the provincial consumer regulator, which can act against a licensed business but does not order payment. Fourth, a credit card chargeback where the purchase was made on a card and falls within the network's filing window. Fifth, a civil claim in the province's small claims court, whose limit ranges from $15,000 in Quebec to $100,000 in Alberta. The stages are not strictly sequential: a chargeback deadline can run out while a regulator complaint is still open, so the timing of each matters.
- Can a manufacturer refuse a warranty claim because the warranty has expired?
- It can decline under its own express warranty, because that warranty runs for the period it states. What the expiry does not do is end the statutory implied terms, which bind the retailer and are not limited by the manufacturer's chosen period. In Ontario those terms come from the Sale of Goods Act and cannot be contracted out of in a consumer transaction by virtue of s. 9(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002. Quebec, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick go further and imply a warranty of durability for a reasonable period, judged against the price paid, the description of the goods and how they have been used. In Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island the implied terms can be excluded by an express agreement, so the contract has to be read first.
- Can I claim against the retailer if the manufacturer denies the warranty?
- In most of Canada the retailer is the more direct target, because the implied statutory terms are implied into the contract of sale and the buyer's contract is with the retailer rather than the manufacturer. Two provinces reach the manufacturer as well: Saskatchewan deems the manufacturer to give the same statutory warranties as the retail seller and removes the requirement of privity of contract, and Quebec allows a consumer to act directly against either the merchant or the manufacturer, with those rights passing to a subsequent purchaser of the goods.
- How much can I sue for in small claims court in Canada?
- The limit is set province by province and two of them changed recently. Alberta is the highest at $100,000 in the Civil division of the Alberta Court of Justice. Ontario and Saskatchewan are next at $50,000, Ontario having risen from $35,000 on 1 October 2025 and Saskatchewan from $30,000 on 1 April 2024. British Columbia allows $35,000 in Provincial Court. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador allow $25,000, New Brunswick $20,000, Prince Edward Island $16,000, and Quebec and Manitoba $15,000, with Manitoba capping general damages inside that total at $2,000. Filing above the limit generally means either abandoning the excess or bringing the claim in a higher court.