What is the duty of care of a non-contractor of a potential tortfeasor?

This case is to be distinguished from those cases, such as Haig v. Bamford, 1976 CanLII 6 (SCC), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 466, [1976] 3 W.W.R. 331, 27 C.P.R. (2d) 149, 72 D.L.R. (3d) 68, 9 N.R. 43, dealing with the general duty of care which extends to a limited group of non-contracting persons where the potential tortfeasor is acting in a professional capacity (chartered accountant, lawyer, engineer etc.) and where that limited group of non-contracting persons actually, to their detriment, place reliance on the professional skill and responsibility of the potential tortfeasor. Legislatures, on behalf of all persons within the jurisdiction, grant exclusive practising privileges to professionals. Professional status, thus protected by statute, is held out to all the world and represented to be of exceptional qualification, competence and responsibility upon which particular reliance may be placed by a limited group not actually privy to any contract with the potential tortfeasor. This representation of professional skill and competence provides a nexus in such cases which simply does not obtain in this case.