Podcast Library

This episode introduces the basic structure of fraud in Canadian criminal law. It explains how the Criminal Code offence of fraud is built around conduct involving deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means, combined with deprivation or risk of deprivation to a person, the public, or another economic interest. Section 380 of the Criminal Code is the central statutory offence. The episode also explains why fraud law cannot be understood from the Criminal Code alone — the courts have shaped the practical meaning of dishonesty, deprivation, risk of loss, and the accused's mental state through major Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

This episode explains why R. v. Olan is one of the foundational Supreme Court of Canada fraud decisions. The case helped establish that fraud is not limited to direct lies — the offence can also be proven through broader dishonest conduct that causes deprivation or risk of prejudice to economic interests. Olan helped move Canadian fraud law toward the modern framework: dishonesty plus deprivation. It is especially useful for understanding why 'other fraudulent means' is a broad and flexible concept in Canadian fraud cases.

This episode explains R. v. Théroux, one of the most important Canadian fraud cases. Théroux sets out the modern structure of fraud by separating the offence into the prohibited act and the required mental state. The case explains that fraud requires dishonest conduct and deprivation or risk of deprivation, along with the accused's subjective awareness of the prohibited conduct and its possible consequences. A failed business deal is not automatically fraud — the evidence must show the dishonest act, the deprivation or risk, and what the accused knew at the relevant time.

This episode explains R. v. Zlatic and the meaning of 'other fraudulent means.' The case shows that fraud can involve dishonest business conduct even where there is no simple direct lie. The Supreme Court considered whether the use of sale proceeds in a way that exposed creditors' economic interests could amount to fraud by other fraudulent means. The episode focuses on how courts distinguish between ordinary business risk and dishonest conduct that crosses into criminal fraud, and it connects Zlatic back to Olan and Théroux.

This episode explains R. v. Riesberry and the importance of risk in Canadian fraud law. Riesberry confirms that fraud may involve not only actual financial loss, but also conduct that places economic interests at risk. Investigators should not only ask 'How much money was lost?' — they should also ask, 'What economic interest was put at risk, how was it put at risk, and what evidence proves that risk?'

This episode explains the early legal background behind Canadian fraud and conspiracy concepts. Cox and Paton v. The Queen is used as a historical bridge between older fraud principles and the modern Supreme Court framework developed later in Olan, Théroux, Zlatic, and Riesberry. Older cases helped shape the idea that fraud is not only about a single false statement — fraud can involve a broader plan, agreement, or course of dishonest conduct that affects property, money, economic interests, or public confidence.

This episode brings the four core fraud cases together. Olan explains dishonesty and deprivation. Théroux gives the modern fraud test. Zlatic develops the idea of other fraudulent means. Riesberry confirms the importance of risk to economic interests. Together, these cases form the backbone of modern Canadian fraud law. The episode is designed as a synthesis episode to help listeners move from the Criminal Code wording to a practical investigative framework.