By: Adam Hendry, Kelsey Sonntag, Craig Zawada, and Dana Lucas

Farmers are known to be handy and can often fix equipment themselves when it breaks down. However, agriculture technology has vastly changed the ability for producers to repair their own equipment. A breakdown in the middle of haying season costs more than time, feed quality suffers too. That is a big reason farmers and independent repair shops have long argued they should be able to fix this equipment themselves instead of relying on a dealer.

Part of this change comes from the specialized knowledge one needs to be able to fix modern components, and part comes from the legal risks of doing so.

What is the Right to Repair?

Right to Repair is the concept that consumers should be able to repair their own products, have their goods fixed by the business or individual of their choice, and have repairs done at a competitive price. Unfortunately, this is not a legislative right in Saskatchewan.

Historically, it was easier for a consumer to repair their products. Simple parts and no “smart technologies” meant maintenance could be done at home with the tools on hand. However, Right to Repair advocates point to complicated diagnostic systems, the risk of copyright infringement, the danger of voiding of warranties, and restrictive contracts as factors that endanger this ability. To counteract these factors, consumers are advocating for legislative measures such as requiring manufacturers and distributors to provide replacement parts and provide the necessary information to properly install those parts, that there be limits on repair restrictions in contracts, and for additional consumer protections to be mandated by law.

According to advocates, Right to Repair legislation would:

• Encourage responsible consumption both economically and environmentally;
• Increase market competition;
• Decrease operating costs for businesses;
• Provide better access for repairs, especially when farmers are in a pinch; and
• Increase the consumer-friendliness of the market.

It would not be without risks, though. Manufacturers are concerned that this type of legislation would:

• Infringe upon their intellectual property rights;
• Endanger the security and safety of their hardware as well as users’ personal information; and
• Trigger economic consequences either through costly training and tools or simply because it may be cheaper to replace some products rather than repair them.

What is the State of Right to Repair in Saskatchewan?

As it stands, there is no comprehensive Right to Repair legislation in Saskatchewan.

The state of the law surrounding Right to Repair in the province is also unclear. Firstly, any repairability policy would likely need to be a shared responsibility between provincial and federal governments. Competition law, as well as intellectual property law, primarily fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, whereas consumer protection is a provincial responsibility. Any attempt to properly implement such a law would therefore need to be a joint effort by both levels of government.

Secondly, some legislation already in place functions similarly to what Right to Repair legislation is proposed to do. For example, Saskatchewan’s The Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act, The Sale of Goods Act, and The Agricultural Implements Act all currently provide consumers with some protections.

The Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act

Subsection 16(1) of The Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act states that certain representations made by a vendor can result in a warranty for the consumer. Examples can include “promises, representations, affirmations of facts or expression of opinion made verbally, in writing, or through advertising”. There are limits to this, and a reasonable consumer must be induced to purchase the product based on the vendor’s representations.

Some examples of what a warranty under this Act would look like include the product being of acceptable quality, that the product is fit for what the vendor is selling it for, that the product will actually work for a reasonable period, and that spare parts and repair facilities are available for normal maintenance and for a reasonable period after the sale. A “reasonable period” depends on a variety of factors, such as the cost, description, and state of the equipment.

The Sale of Goods Act

The Sale of Goods Act similarly describes implied warranties based on representations made by the vendor. It states that when a buyer lets the vendor know why they are purchasing the good in question and is clearly relying on the vendor’s skill or judgement, there is an implied warranty that the subsequently sold goods are reasonably fit for that purpose.

A further warranty is that a vendors’ goods should be of good enough quality to sell. However, if a buyer inspects the goods and misses a defect they ought to have seen, then there is no warranty for that aspect.

The Agricultural Implements Act

This Act (“AIA”) touches on repair work and outlines that dealers and distributors are required to provide parts and repairs to those individuals whose machinery has broken down during the work season. There is a limitation on this in that the machinery must have been purchased within the last ten years.

The dealer or distributor will have 72 hours from when the parts were ordered to provide them to the purchaser. If a dealer or distributor fails to provide these parts and repairs, they are required to compensate the individual whose machinery broke down. Alternatively, the dealer or distributor may provide a replacement machine temporarily and, if they so choose, rent it to the purchaser at half the rate while it is being used.

The Competition Act

Section 75 of the Competition Act, known as the “Refusal to Deal” provision, prohibits suppliers from refusing to supply products where the refusal harms competition and the statutory requirements are met. This provision allows the Competition Tribunal to order a supplier to provide a product, including a means of diagnosis or repair, where certain conditions are met and a refusal to supply is harming competition.

In the context of Right to Repair, this provision may provide businesses and repair providers with a means of obtaining repair tools, parts, or diagnostic equipment that have been withheld by a supplier. To obtain relief, an applicant must show that the lack of access to such products has substantially affected their business or prevented them from carrying on business, that they cannot obtain adequate supplies because there is insufficient competition among suppliers, and that they are willing and able to purchase the product on the supplier’s usual trade terms. The product must also be in ample supply or readily supplied in the case of a means of diagnosis or repair, and the refusal to deal must be having, or likely to have, an adverse effect on competition in the market.

Right to Repair Across Canada

While not legislated in Saskatchewan, Right to Repair legislation is seeing increased interest across this country. It is or has been considered in Ontario and Manitoba and implemented in Québec.

In Québec’s case, manufacturers will be required to provide information on how to repair their goods and who is able to repair. This can be contracted out of, but must be clearly indicated. Furthermore, manufacturers and vendors cannot use specialized techniques to make it more difficult for a consumer to repair their goods.

In the United States and the European Union, Right to Repair legislation has also been implemented.

Regarding the United States, at a federal level, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prohibits warranties that would restrict a consumer from having their products repaired independently. Individual states can also have their own Right to Repair legislation. For example, Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act, includes requirements surrounding necessary parts, documentation, software, and tools that must be provided to independent repair providers or equipment owners in a reasonable term and at a reasonable cost subject to any restrictions.

Recently, a US class-action lawsuit against John Deere for allegedly restricting access to repair tools and the repair market reached a settlement. In the settlement, John Deere agreed to pay out $99M and to provide the digital tools necessary to maintain large agricultural equipment for the next ten years to consumers in the United States. It is important to note that the proposed settlement still requires a judge’s approval. A related federal lawsuit alleging monopolization of repair services has also reached a tentative settlement.

Further abroad, the European Union Directive on Repair of Goods mandates manufacturers provide parts and repairs at/within a reasonable price and time. Moreover, it prohibits the manufacturer from impeding any repairs without reasonable justification.

What does this all mean?

Although Right to Repair might not be explicitly set out in a specific law in our province, there are some avenues you can take if you are concerned. For example:

• Saskatchewan’s AIA already requires agricultural implement dealers to be licensed and distributors to be registered. It protects farmers who buy equipment from dealers, including compensation for losses from unreasonable delays or unavailability of parts. If a dealer is dragging their feet on parts or repairs, a farmer may be able to file a complaint or apply to the Agricultural Implements Board for compensation rather than just eating the cost.
• Two federal bills already passed in 2024 might help. One softened rules around accessing diagnostic software, and one eased copyright law to help interoperability. It is worth knowing these exist if a dealer or manufacturer claims one is not allowed to access diagnostic tools.
• Buy with repairability in mind. Ask dealers directly, before purchase, what diagnostic software access and parts-repairing policies apply. Get this in writing where possible.
• There are also some practical on-farm steps that might help. Keep detailed records of repair costs, wait times, and any instance a dealer refused parts/software/manuals. This is exactly the kind of data both the AIA complaint process and future legislation advocacy need. It may also help to build relationships with independent repair shops now where they exist.

As consumers continue to advocate for legislative measures to be adopted in Saskatchewan, we are likely to see changes in the legal landscape. In fact, the Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan has issued a report on the Right to Repair, and it may signal momentum towards more comprehensive legislation.

Feel free to reach out to our team of knowledgeable lawyers at Procido LLP if you have any questions about your Right to Repair.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, Procido LLP does not warrant or guarantee the completeness, accuracy, or applicability of the information to any particular situation. You should obtain legal advice specific to your circumstances before taking any action. For specific legal advice, please contact Procido LLP (www.procido.com) directly.