Class member, knew the exact amounts involved and even
corresponded with some of the Class members to verify that
Buckingham’s internal client account records were complete and
accurate. Even if the Class members knew nothing about the
Form 9 Reports, they would reasonably expect Buckingham and
its auditor to provide any information required under provincial
law accurately and honestly, particularly if that information could
affect their financial interests.
 The motion judge was therefore satisfied that the Class
had established a prima facie duty of care under the first stage of
the Anns/Cooper analysis.
 He was similarly satisfied that policy concerns did not
negate imposing liability. More specifically, the second stage of the
Anns/Cooper analysis asks whether there are residual policy
considerations that would justify denying liability in tort even
though a prima facie duty of care has been established.
 In this case, the motion judge noted that policy concerns
are especially important in claims for pure economic loss, particularly given the spectre of indeterminate or unlimited liability. In
his view, however, case law was clear that indeterminate liability
was not a concern when an auditor knows the identity of the
plaintiff (or a class of plaintiffs) and when the auditor’s statements are used for the specific purpose for which they were made.
 Here, the motion judge was satisfied that the Auditor both
knew the Class members’ identities and that the Form 9 Reports
“were used for the very purpose for which they were prepared — to
be relied on by the OSC in protecting investor (class member)
assets”: at para. 29. The Auditor knew the names of each of Buckingham’s clients at the time of its audits and was required to stay
informed of any major changes to Buckingham’s business
between audits. Moreover, its potential liability was narrowly
circumscribed since it knew its precise potential liability (the sum
of all customer accounts) at the time of each audit. As a result,
the motion judge concluded, at para. 39, that “[u]nder the
Anns-Cooper analysis . . . the defendant owed a duty of care to the class
to conduct an audit of Buckingham’s Form 9 reports with the
skill and care of a competent practitioner”.
 After reaching this central conclusion, the motion judge
went on to hold that the Auditor breached the duty of care it
owed to the Class. The Auditor signed audit reports addressed
to the OSC for fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000, falsely stating
that it had examined the Form 9 Reports in accordance with
auditing standards. It admitted that it breached its duty of care
in the 1999 and 2000 Form 9 audits and there was uncontested