What is the test for setting aside a contract that has been induced by fraud?

It is also clear that, when a party seeks to set aside a contract that has been induced by fraud, he must allege that on discovering the fraud he repudiated the transaction. The reason for this is clear because a contract induced by fraud is voidable only and not void. The case of Int. Harvester v. Smith (1916) 1916 CanLII 220 (SK CA), 9 WWR 1033, 9 Sask LR 46, 33 WLR 540, relied upon by the defendants, was a case where the defendant was sued under a contract which he alleged had been induced by fraud. It was held that he must not only set out the fraud with particulars but must also allege repudiation because without such repudiation he was still liable under the contract.