The appellant, who had been discharged from bankruptcy, was denied credit because the respondent credit reporting agencies allegedly included statute-barred debts in his credit report contrary to the Consumer Reporting Act.
The appellant brought a proposed class action in negligence.
The motion judge struck the claim, finding policy reasons against recognizing a duty of care.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the Canadian respondents, holding that a prima facie duty of care exists based on proximity and foreseeability, analogous to negligent misrepresentation, and that policy considerations do not make it plain and obvious that the claim should be struck at this stage.
The claims against the American parent companies were struck for failing to plead sufficient material facts.
