What is the test for a duty of care as it relates to a public authority?

In determining whether a duty of care exists as it relates to a public authority, as in this case, the case law directs the application of a three-step test involving: i.foreseeability from the perspective of whether the defendant (the province) should have contemplated that the plaintiff would be affected by the province’s conduct; ii.sufficient proximity from the perspective that the relationship between the plaintiff and the province is sufficiently close to give rise to a duty of care; iii.the absence of any overriding policy considerations that would negate any prima facia duty established by foreseeability and proximity: see Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27, at para. 4.

When it comes to the proximity analysis the focus should be on the nature of the relationship between the victim and the alleged wrongdoer, and the focus of the inquiry should be on whether the relationship is such that the imposition of legal liability for the wrongdoer’s actions under the circumstances would be appropriate: see Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41, at para. 23.