R v Théroux
[1993] 2 SCR 5
Supreme Court of CanadaQuebec1993Elements of fraud — dishonest act and subjective knowledge
View source Case Overview
A real-estate developer took deposits from home buyers while misrepresenting that the deposits were insured. When the project failed, buyers lost their money.
Legal Issue
Elements of fraud — dishonest act and subjective knowledge
Decision
Set out the modern two-element test for fraud: dishonest act + deprivation, with subjective knowledge of both.
Why this Case Matters
Clarified that the actus reus of fraud is a dishonest act causing deprivation or risk of deprivation, and the mens rea is subjective knowledge of that conduct.
What Changed Because of This Case
Replaced earlier formalist approaches with a functional, two-element test grounded in dishonesty and deprivation.
Practical Implications for Investigators
Document the dishonest representation and tie it directly to the victim's loss or exposure to loss.
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 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