Case information

Torts — Negligence — Consumer products — Defects — Failure to warn — Pure economic loss — Automobile engines damaged due to failure of timing chain assembly system — Owners seeking certification of class proceeding against manufacturer — Whether manufacturer of consumer product required to fix or replace product when aware that product contains latent defect making product dangerous to use — Whether product considered damaged property when rendered unusable due to failure of negligently designed or manufactured component — Whether manufacturer liable for economic losses or costs incurred by consumer because of manufacturer’s failure to warn them of dangerous defect in product.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicants, Patricia North and Dinis Rego, each owned a BMW vehicle equipped with an N20 engine. Their vehicles suddenly lost power due to the failure of the engines’ timing chain assembly systems, resulting in catastrophic damage to the engines. Given the high quoted repair costs, they subsequently sold their vehicles in “as is” condition instead of repairing them.

The applicants brought a motion seeking the certification of a class proceeding against the respondents, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW of North America, LLC, and BMW Canada Inc. They purport to represent a class of 66,600 current and former owners and lessees of BMW vehicles that are equipped with N20 engines. They allege that the vehicles are dangerous and defective: they plead (1) that BMW negligently designed, engineered and tested the vehicles, (2) that it negligently manufactured the vehicles, and (3) that it failed to discharge its duty to warn consumers of safety risks associated with the vehicles. They further plead that BMW has a duty of care to compensate class members for the cost of replacing their vehicles.

The motion judge in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted an order certifying the action as a class proceeding. The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the certification of the action as a class proceeding.