Fraud
Fraud under Canadian criminal law is more than lying or breaking a promise. It requires dishonest conduct that causes deprivation — or risk of deprivation — to another person, combined with the accused's knowledge that the conduct is dishonest.
Overview
Sections
Case Law
Podcasts
Maps
Investigator Lessons
Criminal Code Sections
View all sections →s. 380
Fraud
Full text →
s. 380(1)(a)
Fraud over $5,000
Full text →
s. 380(1)(b)
Fraud not exceeding $5,000
Full text →
s. 380.1
Sentencing — aggravating circumstances for fraud
Full text →
s. 402.2
Identity theft / trafficking in identity information
Full text →
s. 403
Identity fraud
Full text →
s. 462.31
Laundering proceeds of crime
Full text →
s. 362
False pretence or false statement
Full text →
s. 366
Forgery
Full text →
s. 368
Use, trafficking or possession of forged document
Full text →
s. 487.014
General production order
Full text →
s. 490
Detention of things seized
Full text →
Leading Case Law
View all cases →| Case | Main Issue | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| R v Olan | Whether risk of economic loss satisfies the deprivation element | Established the broad modern meaning of 'deprivation' under the fraud offence. |
| R v Théroux | Elements of fraud — dishonest act and subjective knowledge | Foundational Canadian case on fraud — cited in nearly every subsequent fraud decision. |
| R v Zlatic | Whether reckless conduct can amount to 'other fraudulent means' | Confirms that 'other fraudulent means' captures dishonest conduct beyond lies and false pretences. |
| R v Riesberry | Causation and risk of deprivation in fraud | Reaffirmed that risk of deprivation is enough and clarified causation in fraud. |
| Cox & Paton v The Queen | Early principles of fraud and conspiracy involving a common dishonest plan | Historical bridge between older fraud principles and the modern Supreme Court framework later developed in Olan, Théroux, Zlatic, and Riesberry. |
| Germany (Federal Republic) v Schreiber | Tax-related deception and the public treasury as an economic interest | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| Germany (Federal Republic) v Schreiber | Extradition and tax fraud allegations involving public revenue | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Ellis | Fraud mens rea and accused knowledge | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Wolsey | Knowledge and dishonest conduct in fraud | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Bailey | Fraud proof and state of mind | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Leclair | Wilful blindness and knowledge in fraud analysis | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Cameron | Recklessness and awareness of risk | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Long | Fraud mens rea and accused knowledge | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Earle | Fraud, knowledge, and wilful blindness | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Eizenga | Fraud and the accused's subjective state of mind | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Bisram | Dupe defence and innocent participation in fraud | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Milec | Fraud participation and accused knowledge | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Duffy | Civil dispute, accused explanation, and fraud proof | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Must | Debt collection and dishonest means | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Kingsbury | Fraud, causation, and deprivation | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Suzi | Debt-related conduct and fraud analysis | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v McCague | Fraud and self-help collection issues | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Wolf | Fraud and accused justification | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Doren | Sharp practice does not automatically equal fraud | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Chabot | Business conduct and fraud analysis | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Gatley | Civil/commercial context and fraud | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Lajoie | Business dealings and fraud | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Mercer | Fraud and commercial conduct | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Lawson | Meaning of deceit in fraud | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Stephenson | Falsehood and accused knowledge | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Garrick | Fraud proof through representations and records | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Sebe | False representations and fraud | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Horsman | Use of funds for a purpose other than represented | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Pchajek | Victim carelessness and false representation | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Mastronardi | Relationship-based deception and victim trust | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Revington | False claims and institutional victim reliance | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Rutenberg | False invoices and whether work was actually done | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v MacMullin | False accounting records and fraud proof | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v McCarthy | Document-heavy fraud proof | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Wilson | Social assistance fraud and false benefit information | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Bavarsad | Accused knowledge and welfare fraud | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v D'Amour | Government records and fraud proof | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Gibb | Misrepresentation of an investment opportunity | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Iyer | Investor interests and economic prejudice | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Drabinsky | Financial misrepresentation and risk of economic prejudice | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Singer | Repair or service misrepresentation | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Ontario Chrysler (1977) Ltd. | Consumer misrepresentation and vehicle sales | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Marquardt | Personal or unauthorized use of company assets | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Verville | Corporate asset misuse and fraud | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Black and Whiteside | Corporate control and fraud | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Potter; R v Colpitts | Corporate obligations and criminal fraud analysis | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Monkman | Use only if uploaded or otherwise available | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Emond | Material non-disclosure and fraud | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Vanderveen | Non-disclosure and fraud analysis | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Easte | Limits of fraud by silence | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Feddema | Duty to disclose and material omission | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Lauer | Diversion of funds or property and fraud | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Gaetz | Economic deprivation and risk | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Gaetz | SCC treatment of deprivation issues | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Kirkwood | Economic risk and fraud | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Knowles | Victim decision-making and deprivation | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| United States of America v Schrang | Risk arising when assets are transferred | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Huggett | Accused need not personally obtain the property | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| Libman v The Queen | Real and substantial connection for jurisdiction | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| R v Warren | Use only if uploaded or otherwise available | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
| The Queen v Lemire | Direction from a superior and fraud responsibility | Useful illustration of how courts apply the dishonesty + deprivation framework. |
Podcast Episodes
View all episodes →Episode F1 — The Canadian Fraud Framework: From the Criminal Code to the Courts
Episode F1 · 45 min
▶
Episode F2 — R. v. Olan: Dishonesty, Deprivation, and the Foundation of Canadian Fraud Law
Episode F2 · 49 min
▶
Episode F3 — R. v. Théroux: The Modern Fraud Test
Episode F3 · 41 min
▶
Episode F4 — R. v. Zlatic: Other Fraudulent Means and Dishonest Business Conduct
Episode F4 · 36 min
▶
Episode F5 — R. v. Riesberry: Risk of Economic Harm and Fraud
Episode F5 · 32 min
▶
Episode F6 — Cox and Paton v. The Queen: Early Fraud and Conspiracy Foundations
Episode F6 · 30 min
▶
Episode F7 — How Olan, Théroux, Zlatic, and Riesberry Fit Together
Episode F7 · 35 min
▶
Episode F8 — Fraud Actus Reus: Deceit, Falsehood, and Other Fraudulent Means
Episode F8 · 34 min
▶
Episode F9 — Fraud Mens Rea: What Did the Accused Know?
Episode F9 · 34 min
▶
Episode F10 — Deprivation in Fraud: Actual Loss, Risk of Loss, and Economic Prejudice
Episode F10 · 34 min
▶
Episode F11 — Fraud Over $5,000 and Fraud Under $5,000: Why Value Matters
Episode F11 · 30 min
▶
Episode F12 — Identity Fraud, Identity Theft, and Fraud-Related Personal Information
Episode F12 · 36 min
▶
Episode F13 — Forgery, False Pretences, and Fraud: Understanding the Differences
Episode F13 · 37 min
▶
Episode F14 — Investment Fraud, Ponzi Schemes, and Dishonest Business Representations
Episode F14 · 38 min
▶
Episode F15 — Fraud Investigations: Evidence, Red Flags, and Practical Lessons
Episode F15 · 42 min
▶
Episode F16 — Tax Evasion as Fraud: When Cheating the Revenue Becomes Criminal Fraud
Episode F16 · 32 min
▶
Episode F17 — Recklessness and Wilful Blindness in Fraud: "I Didn't Want to Know"
Episode F17 · 32 min
▶
Episode F18 — The Dupe Defence: Innocent Participant or Fraudster?
Episode F18 · 32 min
▶
Episode F19 — Self-Help Debt Collection and Fraud: You Cannot Collect by Deceit
Episode F19 · 32 min
▶
Episode F20 — Business Failure, Sharp Practice, or Criminal Fraud?
Episode F20 · 32 min
▶
Episode F21 — Deceit and Falsehood: What Counts as a Criminal Lie?
Episode F21 · 32 min
▶
Episode F22 — Victim Carelessness Is Not a Defence
Episode F22 · 32 min
▶
Episode F23 — False Invoices and False Accounting Documents
Episode F23 · 32 min
▶
Episode F24 — Welfare and Social Assistance Fraud
Episode F24 · 32 min
▶
Episode F25 — Insurance Fraud: False Claims and False Documents
Episode F25 · 32 min
▶
Episode F26 — Investment Opportunity Fraud: Selling a Story That Was Never Real
Episode F26 · 32 min
▶
Episode F27 — Romance and Online Dating Fraud: Trust, Lies, and Financial Deprivation
Episode F27 · 32 min
▶
Episode F28 — Repair Scams and Service Fraud
Episode F28 · 32 min
▶
Episode F29 — Dealership and Consumer Misrepresentation
Episode F29 · 32 min
▶
Episode F30 — Misuse of Corporate Assets: Fraud Inside the Company
Episode F30 · 32 min
▶
Episode F31 — Breach of Trust and Exploiting Weakness
Episode F31 · 32 min
▶
Episode F32 — Fraud by Silence: Material Non-Disclosure
Episode F32 · 32 min
▶
Episode F33 — Unauthorized Diversion of Funds or Property
Episode F33 · 32 min
▶
Episode F34 — Deprivation Without Actual Loss: Risk, Opportunity, and Economic Prejudice
Episode F34 · 32 min
▶
Episode F35 — Fraud Proof Toolkit: Jurisdiction, Documents, Parties, Attempts, Victims, and Charges
Episode F35 · 32 min
▶
Investigator Lessons
- • Fraud requires both a dishonest act and deprivation (or risk of deprivation)
- • Risk of economic loss is enough — actual loss is not required
- • Dishonesty is measured against the standards of a reasonable person
- • The accused must subjectively know the conduct is dishonest
- • Investigators must prove both the conduct and its economic impact
Visual Mind Map
View full map →Fraud
s. 380 Criminal Code
Deceit
Express misrepresentation
Falsehood
Known-untrue statements
Other fraudulent means
Reckless / trust-breaching conduct
Dishonest conduct
Departure from honest standards
Deprivation
Actual loss to victims
Risk of deprivation
Exposure to economic loss
Accused's knowledge
Subjective awareness
Victim loss
Documenting impact
Economic prejudice
Harm to protected interests
Leading cases
Olan, Théroux, Zlatic, Riesberry
Investigator lessons
Conduct case + deprivation case