562,  S.C.J. No. 77, 2001 SCC 80, at paras. 9 and 13. In cases
of pure economic loss arising from negligent misrepresentation or
performance of a service, the defendant’s undertaking and the
plaintiff’s reliance are determinative: Livent, at para. 30.
 The absence of a personal relationship between the parties, while “not necessarily determinative”, is nonetheless an
“important factor to consider”: Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth
Regional Police Services Board,  3 S.C.R. 129,  S.C.J.
No. 41, 2007 SCC 41, at para. 30; Cavanaugh v. Grenville Christian College,  O.J. No. 1007, 2013 ONCA 139, 304 O.A.C.
163, at paras. 75-77. The court will inquire into whether the
defendant’s actions have a close or direct effect on the plaintiff,
“such that the [defendant] ought to have had the [plaintiff] in
mind as a person potentially harmed”: Hill, at para. 29. As the
Supreme Court explained in Hercules Managements, at para. 24,
the plaintiff must establish “that the circumstances of the relationship inhering between the plaintiff and the defendant are of such
a nature that the defendant may be said to be under an obligation
to be mindful of the plaintiff’s legitimate interests in conducting
his or her affairs”.
 Here, the motion judge anchored his finding of proximity
on the correspondence between some of the Class members and
the Auditor as well as his conclusion that the Class members
would reasonably expect the Auditor and Buckingham to provide
accurate information to the OSC [at para. 23]:
In my view, on the particular facts herein, a relationship of sufficient close-
ness has been established. The defendant was retained by Buckingham to
audit and file the Form 9s. In doing this “assurance audit” for its client, the
defendant had access to the individual names and investor accounts of every
class member. The defendant 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. Some of the class
members responded to the auditor’s letter and alerted the defendant to
serious discrepancies between Buckingham’s internal account records and
the actual holdings and activity within their accounts. The defendant also
knew, without being told, that even if the class members knew nothing about
the Form 9s, 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.
 With respect, I am of the view that the motion judge’s
finding that a relationship of proximity existed is unsupportable on
the evidence. Simply put, it stretches proximity beyond its permissible bounds. I say this for the following reasons.
 First, the primary reason I believe proximity has not been
established turns on the nature of the Auditor’s undertaking and
the connection between that undertaking and the loss claimed.
Buckingham retained the Auditor to audit its Form 9 Reports,