APPEAL by the defendant from the judgment of Belobaba J.,
 O.J. No. 3646, 2017 ONSC 3958 (S.C.J.) for class.
Robert Staley, Gavin Finlayson, Preet Bell and Nathan Shaheen,
Paul Bates, Daniel Bach and Serge Kalloghlian, for respondent.
The judgment of the court was delivered by
EPSTEIN J.A.: —
 Buckingham Securities (“Buckingham”) is a now defunct
securities dealer. In 2001, the Ontario Securities Commission (the
“OSC”) suspended Buckingham’s registration and an order was
made placing it into receivership because it breached regulatory
requirements by failing to segregate investor assets and maintain
a minimum level of net free capital. Its clients, who held investment accounts with the firm, lost millions.
 The respondent, Barry Lavender, commenced a class action
in 2005 on behalf of every person who had an investment account
with Buckingham when Buckingham was placed into receivership
(the “Class”). Mr. Lavender alleged that in each of fiscal years 1998
to 2000, Buckingham’s auditor, the appellant, Miller Bernstein
LLP (the “Auditor”), negligently audited an annual registration
renewal requirement filed with the OSC that confirmed compliance with segregation and minimum capital requirements:
General, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 1015, s. 142 (under the Securities Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5); see, also, ss. 107, 117, 118 and Form 9, known
as “Form 9 Reports”. Buckingham’s Form 9 Reports falsely stated that Buckingham was in compliance with the regulatory segregation and minimum capital requirements.
 The motion judge agreed with the Class, holding that the
Auditor owed the class members a duty of care in conducting the
audit and that the Auditor fell below the requisite standard of
care. He granted summary judgment in favour of the Class.
 The Auditor appeals. For the reasons that follow, I would
allow the appeal. In my view, the Auditor did not owe the class
members a duty of care and the motion judge erred in so holding.
B. Background Facts
 Under the statutory regime that existed at the relevant
time, which has since been repealed, the Form 9 Report had to be
audited each year in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards and audit requirements published by the OSC: General,
s. 144. The Auditor audited Buckingham’s Form 9 Reports for the