Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 28 FEBRUARY 2014

Product Liability Newsletter - February 24, 2014

Gowling WLG
Gowling WLG
Contributor
Gowling WLG

Gowling WLG

The firm The firm’s lawyers speak English, French, Russian and Ukrainian. The firm’s client base...

View firm profile
Explore more from Gowling WLG

When broken, defective, or dangerous consumer products are thrown out with the trash, potentially important evidence for future litigation is tossed away with it.

CanadaConsumer Protection

Edited by Belinda A. Bain, Mary M. Thomson and Nicholas Kluge

In this issue:

  • Ontario Court Shatters Defendants' Spoliation Arguments in Product(less) Liability Claim
  • Class Action on Defective But Not Dangerous Goods A Wash: Whirlpool Unhampered by Product Liability in Tort
  • Bill C-17: Modernizing the Food and Drugs Act but at What Cost?

Ontario Court Shatters Defendants' Spoliation Arguments in Product(less) Liability Claim

By: Belinda Bain and Emily Heersink

When broken, defective, or dangerous consumer products are thrown out with the trash, potentially important evidence for future litigation is tossed away with it. A recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court, Stilwell v. World Kitchens Inc., 2013 ONSC 3354, allowed injured plaintiffs to recover in a product liability case, despite the fact that they had little evidence to show that it was the defendants' product that caused the injuries, and they lacked proof of how the particular

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from