What is the state of the mind of the accused in a civil fraud case?

The accused cannot and does not deny his civil liability, and indeed almost the entirety of the losses was repaid to the victims alleged, after the preliminary hearing. Defence counsel admits carelessness, as there undoubtedly was, but says that the facts do not prove the necessary ingredient of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. But carelessness can bring criminal responsibility as well as civil. In Leary v. R., 1977 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 29, 37 C.R.N.S. 60 at 76, [1977] 2 W.W.R. 628, 33 C.C.C. (2d) 473, 74 D.L.R. (3d) 103, 13 N.R. 592, Dickson J. says: “The notion that a court should not find a person guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has a blameworthy state of mind is common to all civilized penal systems. It is founded upon respect for the person and for the freedom of human will. A person is accountable for what he wills. When, in the exercise of the power of free choice, a member of society chooses to engage in harmful or otherwise undesirable conduct proscribed by the criminal law, he must accept the sanctions which that law has provided for the purpose of discouraging such conduct. Justice demands no less. But, to be a criminal, the wrongdoing must have been consciously committed. To subject the offender to punishment, a mental element as well as a physical element is an essential concomitant of the crime. The mental state basic to criminal liability consists in most crimes in either (a) an intention to cause the actus reus of the crime, i.e., an intention to do the act which constitutes the crime in question, or (b) foresight or realization on the part of the person that his conduct will probably cause or may cause the actus reus, together with assumption of or indifference to a risk, which in all of the circumstances is substantial or unjustifiable. This latter mental element is sometimes characterized as recklessness.”