If you want to understand why Ontario’s consumer protection laws are failing everyday families, step inside retired couple Carol and Robin Caulderwood’s modern kitchen in Simcoe.
A $3,000 stainless steel fridge to the right of their stove holds a laminated copy of their granddaughter’s “certificate of kindness,” fingerprint paintings and magnets galore — but nothing they can eat or drink.
For the past two months, the couple has been replenishing a camping cooler daily with ice to keep their milk and other perishables from spoiling.
The LG “ThinQ” fridge they bought from The Brick at the end of 2020 suffered a catastrophic cooling failure in May.
It was their second new fridge in nine years. The first, a Samsung, was deemed irreparable when the door on the freezer compartment cracked while still under warranty.
When they reported the new fridge’s failure to LG customer care and asked for help, an agent sold them a $563 out-of-warranty repair package over the phone.
The agent did not mention that the model they owned, LFX28566S, was one of the specific units covered under Prins v. LG Electronics Canada — a nationwide class-action lawsuit, settled in 2024, over allegedly defective linear compressors.
“We were left with the impression that if the fridge was not fixable, it would be replaced,” says Carol, a former guidance counsellor.
Instead, four visits by an authorized repair technician seemed to compound the breakdown. Both fridge and freezer stopped cooling entirely and water began pooling from the external dispenser. When digital error codes flashed on the display, customer service advised them to “disconnect the app” to suppress the warnings.
“We did everything they told us to do,” Carol says. “It’s almost two months since we’ve had a working fridge. We don’t want to keep camping in our kitchen.”
The case exposes a legislative gap in Ontario’s marketplace that allows major manufacturers to sell short-lived, throwaway appliances and leave consumers with virtually no legal recourse.
There is one province in Canada that’s putting consumers first
Like most provinces across Canada, Ontario’s regulatory framework offers virtually no safeguards to guarantee the durability or repairability of consumer goods. While government urges people to stop using plastic straws and reduce household waste, multibillion dollar manufacturers face no legal requirement to guarantee the durability and easy repair of large and small appliances people rely on daily.
“There is no right-to-repair legislation in Ontario,” says Don Mercer, president of the Consumers Council of Canada. “It does not exist.”
What we do have, he says is a “combination of weak consumer laws and the inability or lack of resources to enforce them.”
Quebec found another way forward.
Through Bill 29, enacted in late 2023, manufacturers and retailers are legally required to provide replacement parts, repair manuals, and diagnostic tools at fair prices. If an appliance in Quebec breaks down within its expected lifespan, the manufacturer or retailer must repair it for free or replace it entirely or face heavy provincial fines: up to $125,000, or up to 5 per cent of a business’s global worldwide turnover from the previous fiscal year (whichever is greater).
Ontario offers no such protections.
It’s a growing concern, says Mercer, since more and more appliances across the industry seem “defective by design.”
Speaking from his home on Vancouver Island, Mercer says he knows first-hand the frustration of owning an unreliable modern appliance.
In his town, there’s just one appliance repair guy willing to service certain cooling systems because they’re too fragile. To prevent his own fridge from breaking down, Mercer regularly unplugs it to thaw ice blocks that build on a poorly placed piece of copper tubing — an absurd ritual for a basic household appliance.
The harsh limits of class actions
While high-profile class-action lawsuits are often touted as the ultimate weapon for everyday consumers seeking accountability from big conglomerates — the Erin Brockovich effect — the reality is often far less satisfying.
In May 2024, the Ontario Superior Court approved the settlement in Prins v. LG Electronics Canada. The company made no admission of liability and the court made no factual finding the fridges were defective, which is standard in most settlements. And the parameters for payouts were dishearteningly narrow.
To qualify for compensation, consumers had to prove their fridge experienced a “no-cooling event” within two years of purchase.
During an approval hearing in March 2024, Hamilton lawyer Andrew Eckart of the Class Action Clinic objected to the proposed settlement on behalf of a client whose LG fridge failed two years and one month after purchase — just 30 days outside the arbitrary window.
“There’s no evidence to explain the rationale for two years,” Eckart argued in court. “Why not three years? Or five.”
When LG’s legal team argued there was no evidence showing a defective part, Eckart said he pointed out that manufacturers track every warranty claim internally.
“It makes zero sense,” he said he told the judge.
The court didn’t buy Eckart’s argument and approved the settlement as negotiated.
Eckart’s client opted out of the class action to pursue LG independently. The lawyer says he can’t talk about how the company ultimately responded.
For the Caulderwoods, whose fridge failed five years after purchase, the class action offered zero relief.
When the couple tried to navigate LG’s internal support channels independently, an agent offered a small cash buyout that would give them just 40 per cent of their original purchase price while leaving them out-of-pocket for the useless $563 out-of-warranty service package it sold them.
What does ‘like for like’ actually mean
At that point, I reached out to LG Canada’s corporate communications manager on the family’s behalf.
After a series of exchanges, in which I challenged the company’s business practices, questioning why it sold an expensive out-of-warrant repair package for an appliance prone to failure — the company offered no defence for the program. But the Caulderwoods finally got results.
“We regret the length of time it has taken to resolve the refrigerator issue and the inconvenience the family has experienced while awaiting a working appliance,” Shari Balga, LG Canada’s senior public relations manager wrote in an email.
The company initially offered to replace the fridge “like for like” to which the couple immediately said an enthusiastic “thank you” — as might any family living out of a cooler in the heat of summer.
Hang on, I advised the couple. What does “like for like” actually mean? Are they giving you a new fridge? A refurbished one? What about the $563 you lost on your failed repair package? Will LG provide any warranty on the new product they’re giving you? Who pays for delivery and installation? When will it arrive?
I urged the Caulderwoods to demand answers in writing. I put the same questions directly to LG corporate.
Within 24 hours, the company confirmed it will deliver and install, at no cost to the Caulderwoods, a brand new “premium” refrigerator (model LRYKC2606S) by Aug. 4. As an “additional gesture of goodwill,” LG agreed to fully refund the $563.87 they paid for the failed repair program and issue a one-year warranty on the replacement appliance.
The Caulderwoods accepted the deal.
“We are so grateful for your help,” Carol told me. “We could never have done this alone.”
