What legal test do Ontario courts use to decide if someone owed me a duty of care?

Ontario courts decide whether a duty of care exists using a two-stage framework the Supreme Court of Canada set out for negligence claims. At the first stage, the court asks whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable and whether there was a close enough relationship between you and the other party that it would be fair to say they owed you a duty of care in the first place. Many everyday situations - a driver's duty to other road users, an employer's duty to employees, a store's duty to customers - already fall into recognized categories, so a court simply confirms the relationship fits and moves on to breach.

For situations that do not fit an existing category, the court also asks, at a second stage, whether there are broader policy reasons to limit or refuse a duty even where foreseeability and proximity exist - for example, concern about opening the door to unlimited claims, or conflict with an already-recognized set of obligations. In most personal injury claims, the duty question is not seriously contested; the real dispute is usually about whether the standard of care was met and what caused the injury. If your situation is unusual, the duty analysis becomes the central issue, and gathering evidence of foreseeability and relationship early is worthwhile.