In what circumstances will a special relationship between a representor and a plaintiff be considered relevant to the determination of a duty of care?

In Cognos, and in the later decision in Hercules Managements Ltd v. Ernst & Young (1997), 1997 CanLII 345 (SCC), 146 D.L.R. (4th) 577 (S.C.C.), the existence of a special relationship - or in the words of La Forest J. in Hercules, a relationship of proximity - was recognised as relevant to that of the duty of care. In Cognos, Iacobucci J. declined to attempt a definitive analysis of the concept and, in finding that such a relationship existed on the facts before the court, he referred to the foreseeability of reliance on the representations, the representor’s assumption of responsibility for their contents, foreseeability that the plaintiff would sustain damages if the representations were false and made negligently and to the reasonableness of imposing a duty of care. He also accepted the possibility that representations might be implied.