Hillel David and Mark Mason represented the plaintiffs
On December 7, 2011 the Ontario Divisional Court released its decision in two appeals that
both involved property damage caused by the failure of leased hot water tanks. In each case
the hot water tank, located in the basement of the homeowner, developed a leak which
resulted in damage to the home and contents.
The appeals raised a number of issues relating to implied warranties in lease agreements,
the application of the Consumer Protection Act, the time period during which the implied
warranties were operative, the time period during which the product was defective, the
differences between sale and lease agreements, and the duty to warn. While most of those
issues were not dealt with, the decision nevertheless is one of considerable importance, not
just because there are literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of similar claims that awaited
the outcome, but more importantly because of the confirmation of the principle that implied
warranties applicable to a leased product apply not only at the outset of the term of the lease
but throughout that term.
The hot water tank in the Collett claim was 19 years old at the time of loss. In the Szilvasy
claim, it was 10 years old. In each case the tank was already there when the plaintiff
purchased the home, and the plaintiff assumed the existing rental agreement made between
the former owner and Reliance Home Comfort (“Reliance”). In neither case did the plaintiff
observe any indication of a problem before the occurrence of the loss. In fact, the evidence
indicated that it was virtually impossible to detect the internal corrosion that ultimately led to
the failures and losses.
It was undisputed that all hot water tanks will corrode and eventually leak, and that Reliance
had no plan to replace tanks before they leaked, regardless of their age. Reliance had
approximately 1.2 million hot water tanks leased to customers, and experience showed that,
in any given year, the chance that a tank would fail and cause damage was 0.005%. Unless
the homeowner exercised an option to purchase, Reliance retained ownership of the tanks at
all times, again regardless of their age.
It was common ground among the parties that there was no written agreement that set out
the terms and conditions of the lease, although it is unlikely that a written contract would have
made any difference in view of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. That statute
extends the application of the statutory implied warranties of fitness for intended purpose and
merchantable quality that are mandated by s. 15 of the Sale of Goods Act to goods that are
1 2011 ONSC 6928. The Collett and Szilvasy appeals were heard together in the Divisional Court.
leased or otherwise supplied under a consumer agreement, and renders void any contract
term that purports to negate or vary any implied condition or warranty under the Sale of
Goods Act. Section 9(1) of the Consumer Protection Act adds a warranty that the services
supplied under a consumer agreement are of a reasonably acceptable quality.
Reliance initially took the position that the Consumer Protection Act, which came into force
well after the start dates of the two leases, did not, for that reason, apply, but later conceded
that the rule against retrospective operation of statutes did not apply in these claims because
the failures and the losses occurred after the Act came into force.
In the Small Claims Court decision from which the appeals were taken, it had been held that
the implied warranty of fitness continued with each monthly lease payment as a new starting
point. Reliance argued that the implied warranties applied at the start of the lease term and
continued only for a reasonable period thereafter, and were no longer in place 10 and 19
years after the installation of the tanks, as was the case in the two claims.
A major issue on the appeals was the standard of appellate review that was applicable. It was
Reliance’s position that the standard was that of correctness, while it was the plaintiffs’
position that the decision of the Small Claims Court judge could be overturned only if a
palpable and overriding error was shown. The court accepted the plaintiffs’ position and held
that that test had not been satisfied by Reliance.
The court made the critical finding that “reasonableness” lay at the heart of the issues before
the trial judge, who had to decide, in a consumer context, what it meant to provide goods of a
“reasonably acceptable quality” in the circumstances before him.
The court said that Reliance promised to provide the homeowners with a working hot water
tank at all times. If the tank failed, Reliance undertook to replace it. If it required service,
Reliance provided it. There was no meaningful way to differentiate amongst Reliance’s
contractual obligations on the basis of the age of the tank. Given Reliance’s acknowledged
contractual obligation to provide a working hot water tank at all times, it would be illogical to
conclude that there was not a continuing warranty as to the proper functioning of the tank.
Those comments show that the court did not dismiss the appeals merely on the basis that
Reliance had failed to satisfy the standard of review on an appeal. The court provided cogent
and persuasive reasons supporting the view that
had been taken by the Small Claims Court
judge.
This decision is important in all claims involving loss or damage from the failure of leased
products where there are warranties that are implied either by the Consumer Protection Act
or under the common law. The decision stands for the proposition that, unless the contract
provides otherwise (and is capable of so providing), those implied warranties will be effective
throughout the term of the lease, regardless of how long a time has passed since the start of
the lease, and not just during some relatively short period of time after that start date. A
lessor, in other words, has an obligation to supply a safe and properly functioning product in
each and every lease payment period, and will be liable for loss or damage resulting from a
breach of that obligation, regardless of how far into the lease term that might occur.
Should you wish to obtain further information concerning this decision, please contact Mark
Mason, the chair of McCague Borlack’s
Subrogation Practice Group
. Mark can be reached
at 416-860-1029 or mmason@mccagueborlack.com
.
Follow McCague Borlack on Twitter
McCague Borlack’s Facebook Page
© 2011 McCague Borlack LLP. All Rights Reserved.
If you’d prefer not to receive email like this from McCague Borlack LLP in the future, please click here to unsubscribe
or send an email to newsletter@mccagueborlack.com
McCague Borlack LLP
Suite 2700, P.O. Box 136, The Exchange Tower,
130 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5X 1C7
Tel: (416) 860-0001 | Fax: (416) 860-000
www.mccagueborlack.com
McCague Borlack LLP is a member of the CANADIAN LITIGATION COUNSEL, a nationwide affiliation of
independent law firms. Through CLC’s association with THE HARMONIE GROUP & DAC BEACHCROFT LLP, our
clients have access to legal excellence throughout North America, Mexico, the U.K. and Europe.
www.clcnow.com | www.harmonie.org | www.dacbeachcroft.com
(respondents) in these subrogation claims before the Divisional Court of Ontario.
Print this page