Many non-stick products are sold with a limited lifetime warranty, e.g. for their NONstickiness. Presume that a consumer has perfectly followed, e.g., manufacturer's proper care and use instructions.

I read about this class action, but I cannot find it on CanLII. But when Consumer pleaded a breach of this lifetime warranty, Defendant Manufacturer alleged that Plaintiff breached Manufacturer's instructions. Upon inspection of Plaintiff's used product, Defendant allegedly found that Plaintiff negligently either used its non-stick cookware over high heat, AND/OR held acidic foods in the pan, AND/OR left food scraps to dry on the pan, AND/OR scratched the NONstick coating with metal utensils and/or scouring agents and/or abrasive sponges, AND/OR held acidic foods in the pan. As an example, see this blog post.

As alternative pleading, Defendant put Plaintiff to strict proof that Plaintiff fulfilled manufacturer's instructions.

On a balance of probabilities, how can Plaintiff gainsay Defendant, and prove this kind of negative that Plaintiff never "used its non-stick cookware over high heat AND/OR" etc...? Obviously, Plaintiff cannot realistically record continuous 24/7 video footage of the pan, since the time of purchase and contract formation!

Some examples are below:

  • 1
    Your link for "strict proof" seems to be saying that the defendant is not actually required to give strict proof. Nov 20, 2022 at 8:01

1 Answer 1


semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit

Roughly “she who asserts must prove.” The manufacturer is asserting actions by the consumer - the manufacturer has to prove they happened, the consumer does not have to prove they didn’t.

You must log in to answer this question.