Cooper v Hobart Case BriefCooper v. Hobart, 2001 SCC 79,  3 SCR 537
Issue: whether a stat. regulatory (registrar) owes a duty of care to the investing members of public
-Anns only applies when we’re asserting a novel duty of care
Ratio: no DOC bc there was insufficient proximity to ground even a prima facie DOC, policy reasons that would negate DOC
1.Whether or not there’s a prima facie duty of care
a.Reasonable foreseeability of harm
b.Proximity (defined by Cooper) – micro policy “concept not a test”
2.Are there any policy reasons that would negate or restrict this duty?
a.In proximity if their relationship is sufficiently close and direct – fair to assume D should be aware and mindful of the interests of the P
i.Expectations, representations, reliance, and property or other interests involved
c.P.306 already established proximity relationships
i.Reasonable foreseeability of physical harm
iii.Risk of danger
iv.Misfeasance of public office
v.Purchasers of real estate
vii.Relational economic loss
Cooper v Hobart
1.Is the duty of care within an established category or is it analogous?
a.If yes, DOC exists
b.If no, apply Cooper-Anns (novel DOC)
2.1A – Was the harm to plaintiff reasonably foreseeable?
a.If yes, move onto proximity
b.If no, no DOC, no negligence action
3.1B – Proximity?
a.If yes, prima facie DOC exists move onto 2 of test (Policy considerations)
b.If no, no DOC
4.2 – Residual Policy Considerations (BOP on defendant)
a.Floodgates of litigation