In determining whether a duty of care exists:
** 1. Is there a sufficiently close relationship between the parties ... so that in the reasonable contemplation of the defendant, carelessness on its part might cause damage to the plaintiff?
** 2. If so, are there any considerations which out to negative or limit:
*** A) the scope of the duty; and
*** B) the class of persons to whom it is owed; or
*** C) the damages to which a breach of it may give rise
The Kamloops (based on Anns v Merton) is flexible and expansive:
** First part requires the plaintiff to prove reasonable foreseeability of harm; then the prima facie duty of care can exist.
** Second part requires the defendant to establish why a duty of care nevertheless should be refused or limited.
** This test is plaintiff-oriented.
New key case is Cooper v Hobart (2001), 206 DLR (4th) 193 (SCC)