In Cooper V

In Cooper v.Hobart,the issue was whether or not the Registrar of Mortgage Brokers owed a duty of care to investors.The Supreme Court of Canada held that

A) there was insufficient proximity to found a duty of care, but that even if there had been a prima facie duty of care, it would have been negated for overriding policy reasons.
B) there was insufficient proximity to found a duty of care, but that the Registrar was negligent nonetheless.
C) there was insufficient proximity to found a duty of care, but that the investors should be entitled to compensation from the Registrar this notwithstanding.
D) the Registrar owed the investors a duty of care, and the tremendous cost to the taxpaying public was irrelevant.
E) the Registrar owed the investors a duty of care, but public policy grounds cannot be argued in a civil matter.