In the Case of Haig V

In the case of Haig v. Bamford, (1976) 72 D.L.R. (3d) 68 S.C.C., the Supreme Court found the defendants (auditors) owed a duty of care to third-party claimants. Why did the court break away from its traditional approach of refusing all third-party claims for professional negligence in this particular instance?

A) because of the limited purposes of the audited financial statements as set out in legislation
B) because of public policy pressure following the auditors' role in facilitating white collar crimes
C) because of the auditor's actual knowledge of limited third-party groups and their intended reliance
D) to assist the collectivity of the public in their task to oversee professional activity