Quebec’s New Lemon of a Lemon Law, and Why You Should be Glad to Live in California

Attorney Advertising
Quebec’s New Lemon Law vs. California’s Song-Beverly Act: 3 Key Differences Worth Knowing

   A recent CTV News/W5 investigation (https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/autos/article/i-just-want-what-i-paid-for-ontario-man-says-112000-truck-has-been-in-shop-for-months/ ) put a number on a problem that will feel familiar to a lot of car owners: an Ontario man says his $112,000 truck has spent months in the shop, and he still doesn’t have a working vehicle. “I just want what I paid for,” he told reporters — a simple demand that, in most of Canada, has no clear legal answer. Ontario, like most provinces, still has no dedicated lemon law. A frustrated owner is largely left to negotiate with the manufacturer, file a complaint, or hire a lawyer for a breach-of-warranty claim under general consumer protection statutes.
     Quebec is the exception. Over the past few years, Quebec amended its Consumer Protection Act to add an “anti-lemon” warranty specifically for defective new vehicles, with the most recent phase of protections taking effect in October 2025. It’s a meaningful step forward for Canadian consumers — and a natural point of comparison for California, where the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act has protected car buyers since 1970 and was significantly updated again last year.
Here are three of the most important differences between the two laws, and why California’s approach may leave consumers in a stronger position.

1. How long the protection actually lasts
     Quebec’s law only applies to defects that appear within 3 years or 60,000 kilometres of the vehicle’s original sale or lease, whichever comes first. Once a vehicle crosses either line, the anti-lemon warranty no longer applies — even if the manufacturer’s own warranty is still active. To qualify, the defect also has to meet one of three specific thresholds: three failed repair attempts for the same problem, 12 repair attempts for unrelated problems, or more than 30 days out of service.
California’s Song-Beverly Act does not have a hard mileage limit BUT NOW (Under 2025’s AB 1755 reforms) is cutoff after six years – even if the factory warranty is ten years. A rebuttable presumption of “reasonable number of repair attempts” arises within the vehicle’s first 18 months or 18,000 miles (two failed attempts for a safety-related defect, four for other defects, or 30 cumulative days out of service) — but a consumer isn’t shut out simply for crossing that line. For an owner of a high-mileage work truck like the one in the CTV story, that difference matters: a defect that surfaces at 65,000 km could fall outside Quebec’s protection entirely, while a comparable California buyer would likely still have a claim.

2. Who pays for the lawyer
     This is where the gap becomes most visible in practice. A separate case out of Quebec — a Chevrolet Equinox EV owner who spent 16 months fighting recurring defects — illustrates the problem well. According to reporting on that case, pursuing a lemon law claim through Quebec’s courts can cost $15,000 to $50,000 in legal fees, and the consumer in that case only got a resolution after going to the media. As one consumer advocate put it, manufacturers show up with lawyers; owners usually don’t.
California’s law addresses that imbalance directly. Under Civil Code section 1794(d), a manufacturer that loses a Song-Beverly claim must pay the consumer’s reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expert witness expenses — on top of actual damages, and on top of a civil penalty of up to two times actual damages if the violation is found to be willful. That fee-shifting rule is precisely why California lemon law attorneys can typically take these cases without charging the client anything upfront: if the case succeeds, the manufacturer pays the bill, not the consumer. It removes the cost barrier that, in Quebec, has left most owners with a valid claim but no practical way to pursue it.

The takeaway
      Quebec deserves some partial credit for becoming the first Canadian province to adopt lemon law protection, and it’s a step every other province — including Ontario — should be looking at closely. But as the reporting on both the Ontario truck and the Quebec EV case shows, having a law on the books isn’t the same as having one that’s practical for an ordinary consumer to use. California’s Song-Beverly Act, even after last year’s car-maker driven degradations, still pairs consumer protection with the financial — attorney fee-shifting and expert cost shifting — that make the protection usable without a $50,000 legal bill or a media campaign.
If you bought or leased a new or used vehicle in California that’s spent significant time in the shop or is unsafe, you may have rights under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Every case is different, and the right next step depends on your specific facts and paperwork.
Summary of the new lemon law in Quebec
     Here is an excerpt from a Quebec government website describing its new laws. NOTE that it does NOT discuss Attorney’s Fee Shifting to the Car Makers! According to reporting, fee shifting was REQUESTED by the lemon law’s sponsors, but the government did not add it.
“Owners and long-term lessees of problematic automobiles (“lemons”) may submit an application to the court to have their vehicle declared a “seriously defective automobile.”
In order for such an application to be accepted, the following conditions must be met:
• One or more defects have appeared when the automobile has not covered more than 60,000 kilometres and within 3 years of its first sale or long-term lease.
• The defects render the automobile unfit for the purposes for which it is ordinarily intended or substantially diminish its usefulness.
• Attempts to repair one or more of the defects have been made under the automobile manufacturer’s warranty in accordance with any of the following scenarios:
o 3 unsuccessful attempts have been made for the same defect;
o 1 or 2 unsuccessful attempts have been made for the same defect where the merchant or the manufacturer responsible for performing the warranty has had the automobile in its possession for more than 30 days, not including any days for which the merchant or manufacturer shows that the repairs could not be carried out due to a shortage of parts and that the consumer was provided with a replacement automobile free of charge.
o 12 attempts have been made for unrelated defects, regardless of whether or not these attempts were successful.
An automobile that is declared a “seriously defective automobile” is deemed to be affected by a latent defect. Consumers may therefore petition the court to cancel the contract or reduce the price paid, and claim damages and punitive damages.”
________________________________________
Attorney Advertising Disclosure. This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change, and the summary of Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act and California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act above is general in nature; it may not reflect the most current legal developments and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a licensed attorney regarding your specific situation. This firm is licensed to practice law only in California and does not offer legal advice regarding the laws of Quebec or any other Canadian jurisdiction. Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future case. If you believe you have a lemon law claim, please contact our office for a free, no-obligation case evaluation.