COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 71
February 22, 2002 that led to Bruno‟s investment. And, of course, we also accept that
Bruno lost his entire investment.
[169] What is not clear on the record is whether Hryniak made any statement that
induced Bruno to invest with him. The motion judge did not address this important
element of a cause of action in civil fraud. As we read his reasons, he concluded that
because Hryniak had dishonestly converted Bruno‟s money to his own use, Hryniak was
liable to Bruno in fraud. In other words, fraud was made out because Hryniak deprived
Bruno of his money and did so in a dishonest way.
[170] The notion of deprivation underlies both the tort of conversion and civil fraud: see
Philip H. Osborne, The Law of Torts, 4th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2011), at pp. 308-309.
But proof of civil fraud requires proof of some additional elements; depriving the
plaintiff of his goods is not enough. Fraud requires a false statement knowingly made that
induces the victim to act to the victim‟s detriment. On the record before us, Bruno wired
his U.S.$1 million investment to the Cassels Brock trust account without ever having met
or spoken to Hryniak. He sent his investment after a short meeting with Peebles and
Cranston, and first spoke to Hryniak a month or more later.
[171] Bruno acknowledges that he invested before meeting or talking to Hryniak. He
contends, however, that Peebles acted as Hryniak‟s agent in inducing Bruno to invest. A
person may commit fraud through an agent: see G.H.L Fridman, Canadian Agency Law,
(Markham: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2009), at pp. 190-93. But we have no compelling