II. Conclusion on foreseeability
 I accept that it is reasonably foreseeable that an accident might occur while an adult is a passenger is in the taxi cab.
As a result, it is reasonably foreseeable that an unbuckled adult
passenger might be injured (or more seriously injured) if an
 However, I am not persuaded that this is one of those
circumstances where it is has been recognized to impose a positive duty of care or that it is appropriate to impose such a positive duty.
Sufficient proximity of relationship
 The plaintiff must also establish a sufficiently proximate
relationship warranting the imposition of a care of duty as
 The fact that a motor vehicle accident and possible injury
to unbelted adult passengers is reasonably foreseeable is not
always, by itself, sufficient to impose a duty even when there
is reasonable foreseeability of personal injury. See Deloitte,
at para. 23. Proximity of relationship is a more demanding hurdle
for Novex to establish.
 Assessing proximity entails asking whether the parties
are in such a “close and direct” relationship that it would be “just
and fair having regard to that relationship to impose a duty of
care in law”. The proximity inquiry considers the “expectations,
representations, reliance, and the property or other interests
involved” as between the parties. See Cooper, at para. 34.
 Novex submits there is sufficient proximate relationship
between Yaxley and Mr. Stewart because
(a) Mr. Yaxley is the taxi driver;
(b) Liftlock provides taxi services to the public;
(c) Yaxley seeks and welcomes paying passengers;
(d) Taxi service companies encourage intoxicated passengers to
use their taxi service;
(e) Yaxley carries on a commercial enterprise;
(f) Mr. Stewart was one such paying adult passenger of the
Yaxley taxi service; and
(g) Yaxley was hired to transport Mr. Stewart safely to a destina-
tion in the taxi cab.