Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 245
[932] For the reasons noted above, I have already found that there is a special relationship between
the Plaintiffs and the Defendant which gave rise to a duty of care. However, I also note that
negligent misrepresentation is an existing category recognized in Cooper. As such the Federal Court
of Appeal has stated that a prima facie duty of care exists, in cases of negligent misrepresentation,
when “reliance by the representee is both reasonably foreseeable and reasonable in the
circumstances”; see Premakumaran, para. 19.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[933] Insofar as the Defendant relied on Design Services to argue against a duty of care in
negligent misrepresentation, that reliance is misplaced. In Design Services, the Supreme Court of
Canada found that there was no prima facie duty of care, on the basis of a policy consideration. That
policy consideration was the failure of the appellant to protect itself by contract from the economic
loss. However, with respect to negligent misrepresentation, Design Services does not apply.
[934] As I have explained, negligent misrepresentation is an existing category recognized in
Cooper. Further, I have found in this case that there was a negligent misrepresentation by the
Defendant’s servants to the Plaintiff LPL. I have found that this misrepresentation was reasonably
relied upon and that it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be relied upon. As a result a prima
facie duty of care arises; see Premakumaran, para. 19.
[935] I also refer to my comments above, in the negligence discussion, as to why Design Services
should be distinguished or is inapplicable to the facts of this case.