R v Olan
[1978] 2 SCR 1175
Supreme Court of CanadaOntario1978Whether risk of economic loss satisfies the deprivation element
View source Case Overview
Corporate officers used company funds in ways that placed the company's economic interests at risk.
Legal Issue
Whether risk of economic loss satisfies the deprivation element
Decision
Risk of economic loss is sufficient — actual loss is not required.
Why this Case Matters
Confirmed that placing a victim's economic interests in jeopardy is enough to satisfy the actus reus of fraud.
What Changed Because of This Case
Expanded the reach of fraud beyond cases involving completed economic loss.
Practical Implications for Investigators
Capture evidence of exposure to risk, not just realized loss, when building a fraud file.
Related Sections
Related Episodes
- Episode F1 — The Canadian Fraud Framework: From the Criminal Code to the Courts
- Episode F2 — R. v. Olan: Dishonesty, Deprivation, and the Foundation of Canadian Fraud Law
- Episode F3 — R. v. Théroux: The Modern Fraud Test
- Episode F4 — R. v. Zlatic: Other Fraudulent Means and Dishonest Business Conduct
- Episode F5 — R. v. Riesberry: Risk of Economic Harm and Fraud
- Episode F6 — Cox and Paton v. The Queen: Early Fraud and Conspiracy Foundations
- Episode F7 — How Olan, Théroux, Zlatic, and Riesberry Fit Together
- Episode F8 — Fraud Actus Reus: Deceit, Falsehood, and Other Fraudulent Means
- Episode F9 — Fraud Mens Rea: What Did the Accused Know?
- Episode F10 — Deprivation in Fraud: Actual Loss, Risk of Loss, and Economic Prejudice
- Episode F11 — Fraud Over $5,000 and Fraud Under $5,000: Why Value Matters
- Episode F12 — Identity Fraud, Identity Theft, and Fraud-Related Personal Information
- Episode F13 — Forgery, False Pretences, and Fraud: Understanding the Differences
- Episode F14 — Investment Fraud, Ponzi Schemes, and Dishonest Business Representations
- Episode F15 — Fraud Investigations: Evidence, Red Flags, and Practical Lessons
Related Offences