R v Riesberry
2015 SCC 65
Supreme Court of CanadaOntario2015Causation and risk of deprivation in fraud
View source Case Overview
A horse trainer injected racehorses with performance-altering drugs, affecting parimutuel betting outcomes.
Legal Issue
Causation and risk of deprivation in fraud
Decision
Fraud is made out where dishonest conduct puts the victim's economic interests at risk, even if no individual victim relied on the deceit.
Why this Case Matters
Confirmed that fraud captures conduct that exposes victims to risk of loss, even without direct reliance on a misrepresentation.
What Changed Because of This Case
Tightened the link between dishonest conduct and risk of deprivation as a basis for liability.
Practical Implications for Investigators
Frame the theory of deprivation around the risk created by the dishonest scheme, not only realized losses.
Related Sections
Related Episodes
- Episode F1 — The Canadian Fraud Framework: From the Criminal Code to the Courts
- 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 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 F14 — Investment Fraud, Ponzi Schemes, and Dishonest Business Representations
- Episode F15 — Fraud Investigations: Evidence, Red Flags, and Practical Lessons
Related Offences