framework requires “something more”. That “something more”
is proximity. The majority observed, at para. 24, that it is useful
to consider proximity before foreseeability in cases of negligent
misrepresentation or negligent performance of a service because
“[w]hat the defendant reasonably foresees as flowing from his or
her negligence depends upon the characteristics of his or her
relationship with the plaintiff, and specifically, in such cases, the
purpose of the defendant’s undertaking”.
 The proximity analysis determines whether the parties are
sufficiently “close and direct” that it would be “just and fair having
regard to their relationship to impose a duty of care”: Livent, at
para. 25, citing Cooper, at paras. 32 and 34. As most recently
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Rankin (Rankin’s Garage &
Sales) v. J. (J.),  S.C.J. No. 19, 2018 SCC 19, at para. 23, that
close and direct relationship must be such that “the defendant is
under an obligation to be mindful of the plaintiff’s interests”.
 A preliminary question at this stage is whether the relationship at issue falls within a previously established category of
relationship in which proximity has already been found to exist. If
the relationship falls within a previously established category, or is
analogous to one, then proximity is established, without more:
Livent, at paras. 26-28. The majority in Livent cautioned, however,
that courts must be careful to avoid identifying established categories “in an overly broad manner”: at para. 28. As the majority
noted, at para. 52, “[t]he mere fact that proximity has been recognized as existing between an auditor and its client for one purpose
is insufficient to conclude that proximity exists between the same
parties for all purposes” (emphasis in original). Rather, the majority explained, at para. 28, that “a finding of proximity based upon
a previously established or analogous category must be grounded
not merely upon the identity of the parties, but upon examination
of the particular relationship at issue in each case”.
 Where an established proximate relationship cannot be
found, courts must undertake a full proximity analysis by examining the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Relevant considerations may include, but are not limited to,
“expectations, representations, reliance, and the property or
other interests involved” as well as any statutory obligations:
Livent, at para. 29, citing Cooper, at paras. 34, 38.
 In cases of pure economic loss arising from negligent
misrepresentation or performance of a service, two factors are
“determinative” of the proximity analysis: ( i) the defendant’s undertaking; and ( ii) the plaintiff’s reliance: Livent, at para. 30.
Where the defendant undertakes to provide a representation or
service in circumstances that invite the plaintiff’s reasonable