What is the current state of the law on negligent misrepresentation?

In effect, rather than plead negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff has pleaded that the representations made on the packaging were false due to the negligence of the defendants. The plaintiff asserts that this is a different cause of action in negligence, with different essential elements. I am not persuaded by this assertion. The plaintiff’s claim is clearly in negligent misrepresentation, albeit improperly pleaded. This is clear from a reading of the statement of claim and from the common issues proposed by plaintiff, particularly common issues 1 to 4 (see below and see the attached appendix). As such, it suffers from the fatal defect that there is no pleading that the plaintiff relied on these misrepresentations and suffered damages as a result. The leading case is The Queen v. Cognos, 1993 CanLII 146 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87, [1993] S.C.J. No. 3, which sets out the essential ingredients of the pleading of this cause of action: (a) a duty of care based on a special relationship between the representor and the representee; (b) that the representation was untrue, inaccurate or misleading; (c) that the representor acted fraudulently or negligently in making the representation; (d) that the representee reasonably relied upon the representation; and (e) that the reliance was detrimental to the representee in the sense that damages resulted.