On its blog, on December 11 2018, Gluckstein Lawyers allegated that

In Ontario, there are two main pieces of legislation: the Sale of Goods Act (the "SGA") and the Consumer Protection Act (the "CPA"). The SGA deals with buyers and sellers; a purchase is required. The CPA has broader language; it deals with consumers and suppliers. The language of the CPA suggests that consumer contracts for the sale of goods and/or services, and bare licenses may all be covered by this legislation. These Acts have many similarities, one of which being the consumer's reliance on the supplier. The supplier is perceived to have greater knowledge and skill regarding the subject matter. The SGA and CPA are mechanisms which keep suppliers accountable for their products and services. Actions commenced under these Acts have strict liability, meaning that should an action arise, the Defendant may be found liable regardless of fault. [emphasis mine] An example of this can be found in the recent case of Singh v. Shoppers Home Health Care [et. al. 2018 ONSC 5879].

But the CPA never writes out "strict liability"! CPA writes out "Absolute liability" merely once, under s. 104.0.1 (5) that has not been proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor, and is not in force. That s. 104.0.1 legislates strict liability for "PART X.1 ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES", but does NOT spell out absolute liability for the whole CPA.

I know that "Absolute Liability can simply be said as Strict Liability minus exceptions."

Premise that opposing party, or the judge, rebuffs a blog as authority. Then how can a Self-Represented Litigant prove CPA sections 9(1) and (2)'s impositions of strict liability on sellers?

Quality of services

9 (1) The supplier is deemed to warrant that the services supplied under a consumer agreement are of a reasonably acceptable quality. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 9 (1).

Quality of goods

(2) The implied conditions and warranties applying to the sale of goods by virtue of the Sale of Goods Act are deemed to apply with necessary modifications to goods that are leased or traded or otherwise supplied under a consumer agreement. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 9 (2).

1 Answer 1


The absence of any reference to intent

An offence that does not require the prosecution to prove intent on the part of the perpetrator is the definition of a strict liability offence. Since the offences in the Act spell out what must be proved and intent or it’s synonyms (knowingly, wilfully etc.) isn’t mentioned, they are strict liability offences.

  • 1
    Please see my edited question. This answer does not appear to answer for sections 9(1) and 9(2).
    – user49089
    Sep 19, 2022 at 6:25

You must log in to answer this question.