What is the test for finding responsibility for a negligent misrepresentation?

I find that the findings of the Deputy Judge which are required to find responsibility for a negligent misrepresentation as set out in Queen v. Cognos, 1993 CanLII 146 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87 are mixed findings of fact and law and are entitled to great deference. I find that the Deputy Judge was entitled to find that a special relationship existed between the buyer and purchaser of the mobile home, such that a duty of care arose and also that the Deputy Judge was able to infer as a finding of fact that the Respondent purchaser relied on the representation that a new roof was installed in 2002 on the whole structure.