What is the test for an "analogous" relationship between a plaintiff and the Province?

The plaintiff submits that his relationship to the Province is analogous to the relationship in Just v. British Columbia, supra, in that it relates to negligent implementation of a policy. In my view the "categories" of negligence identified in Cooper v. Hobart are relatively narrow and specific in their description and related situations must be more closely related to an existing category before being recognized as "analogous." This view would appear to be supported by the statement at ¶31 of Cooper v. Hobart: The second is that sufficiently proximate relationships are identified through the use of categories. The categories are not closed and new categories of negligence may be introduced. But generally, proximity is established by reference to these categories. This provides certainty to the law of negligence, while still permitting it to evolve to meet the needs of new circumstances.