Quebec judge approves class-action lawsuit against Samsung over electric range fire hazard

A Quebec judge has approved a class-action lawsuit for owners of certain Samsung ranges.

The lawsuit alleges the stovetops are too easy to turn on and are a fire hazard.

It also claims people and pets can bump the control panel and accidentally turn on the burners.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Martin F. Sheehan authorized the lawsuit on Dec. 17, allowing the legal action to proceed.

It would apply to any consumer in Quebec who, since 2013, purchased at least one of the 300,000 Samsung electric ranges that were recalled by Health Canada with front-mounted knobs.

• READ MORE: Samsung electric oven ranges recalled due to fire hazard in Canada

The lead plaintiff is Pascal Desmedt, a Montreal-area man who purchased one of the affected Samsung ranges from a Rona in Mascouche, Que. on Jan. 19, 2024, for $2,305.91.

“In June 2024, the Applicant left an oatmeal box on his Range and returned home to the smell of fire burning. He didn’t understand how this could have happened as he had not turned his Range on. He suspects the Range was inadvertently turned on when he brushed against it while placing his groceries on his kitchen counter,” the class-action claims.

The lawsuit cites news articles about fires related to the ranges, and that Samsung has received more than 300 reports of accidental activations by pets or humans since 2013, resulting in about 250 fires.

Samsung recalled the stoves but also argued in court they were not being used properly.

Desmedt said Friday he says he’s so worried about his range that he cuts the power so it can’t be turned on accidentally.

“What we do is, basically, I shut off the breaker at night when we leave the house, the breaker is off. We can’t take the chance … even if there’s nothing on the range,” he said in an interview.

“There’s the cat that goes on the stove because cats, they want to go high, so they jump everywhere. So we can’t take the chance of hurting our animals because the ranges went on and we’re not there.”

The lawsuit is seeking refunds for consumers as well as $2,000 in damages.