Must be a duty of care based on a relationship” between the representor and the “special representee. Representation in question must be untrue, inaccurate, or misleading. Representor must have acted negligently in making said misrepresentation. Representee must have relied in a reasonable manner, on said negligent misrepresentation. Reliance must have been detrimental to the representee in the sense that damages resulted. Also case of negligent provision of service: analogous category via Winnipeg. Facts: the defendant credit-reporting agency negligently and illegally provided inaccurate information about the plaintiff’s credit worthiness; the credit grantors relied on it; plaintiff suffered economic loss. Can the defendant be held liable for the economic loss of the plaintiff? Held: Yes, liability is imposed. A representor can owe a duty to a claimant who has not actually relied on a misrepresentation but has suffered detrimental consequences from a third party’s reliance on that statement. Proximate relationship exists when economic interests are at stake. Presumption that it is reasonably foreseeable someone will rely on the info that you give in economic situations (presumed reliance). Proximity is used to characterize type of relationship in which a duty of care may arise”, “the and proximate relationships are identified through the use of categories”. “sufficiently & The plaintiffs were shareholders in a corporation who allege that they made investments and lost money based on negligently prepared financial audit reports. Do the accountants who prepared the audit reports owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs? Held no. While the Anns test still properly governs incidences of negligent misrepresentation, one has to remember the caveats of reasonability. It must have been reasonable to foresee the plaintiff’s reliance on the products, and part of what forms the make decisions on how to steer the company as a group of shareholders, “reasoners not to aid them to make individual investment decisions. Thus, no duty of care owed. Incidents of negligent misrepresentation may still be subject to a duty of care as per the Anns test, but only in certain circumstances. Note: There is also discussion in this case of coping with the nature of the loss as purely economic. The court finds no hurdle there. &
Must be a duty of care based on a “special relationship” between the representor and the representee. Representation in question must be untrue, inaccurate, or misleading. Representor must have acted negligently in making said misrepresentation. Representee must have relied in a reasonable manner, on said negligent misrepresentation. Reliance must have been detrimental to the representee in the sense that damages resulted. Also case of negligent provision of service: analogous category via Winnipeg. Facts: the defendant credit-reporting agency negligently and illegally provided inaccurate information about the plaintiff’s credit worthiness; the credit grantors relied on it; plaintiff suffered economic loss. Can the defendant be held liable for the economic loss of the plaintiff? Held: Yes, liability is imposed. A representor can owe a duty to a claimant who has not actually relied on a misrepresentation but has suffered detrimental consequences from a third party’s reliance on that statement. Proximate relationship exists when economic interests are at stake. Presumption that it is reasonably foreseeable someone will rely on the info that you give in economic situations (presumed reliance). Proximity is used to characterize “the type of relationship in which a duty of care may arise”, and “sufficiently proximate relationships are identified through the use of categories”. & The plaintiffs were shareholders in a corporation who allege that they made investments and lost money based on negligently prepared financial audit reports. Do the accountants who prepared the audit reports owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs? Held no. While the Anns test still properly governs incidences of negligent misrepresentation, one has to remember the caveats of reasonability. It must have been reasonable to foresee the plaintiff’s reliance on the products, and part of what forms the “reasoners make decisions on how to steer the company as a group of shareholders, not to aid them to make individual investment decisions. Thus, no duty of care owed. Incidents of negligent misrepresentation may still be subject to a duty of care as per the Anns test, but only in certain circumstances. Note: There is also discussion in this case of coping with the nature of the loss as purely economic. The court finds no hurdle there. &