In what circumstances can a solicitor be said to be present in a transaction where the solicitor's proximity to investors was so close to the investors' solicitor that the solicitor failed to inquire?

In the case at bar the investors wish to expand upon the principles set out in Tracy v. Atkins and argue that proximity between the solicitor and the investors might be said to be present because the solicitor did work that would normally have been done by the investors' solicitor. Thus, the solicitor knew, or ought to have known, that the investors were or might be relying on the solicitor to protect their interests. As well, the solicitor should have been alerted to the possibility of harm arising from various unusual features of the transaction. The solicitor could reasonably foresee that damages to the plaintiffs could arise, and they did. In Tracy v. Atkins, supra, Nemetz C.J.B.C. held that the damage suffered by the plaintiffs was a direct consequence of the solicitor's careless failure to inquire. In the case at bar the investors argue that the damage to them was caused by the solicitor's failure to act upon known material facts.