What are the elements of fraud and what is the test for fraud?

The fact findings of the learned trial judge are supported by the evidence and establish all the necessary ingredients of fraud. In Théroux v. The Queen (1993) 1993 CanLII 134 (SCC), 19 C.R. (4th) 194 (S.C.C.) McLachlin J. said at p. 206: "The personal feeling of the accused about the morality or honesty of the act or its consequences is no more relevant to the analysis than is the accused's awareness that the particular acts undertaken constitute a criminal offence." *** "These doctrinal observations suggest that the actus reus of the offence of fraud will be established by proof of: 1. the prohibited act, be it an act of deceit, a falsehood or some other fraudulent means; and 2. deprivation caused by the prohibited act, which may consist in actual loss or the placing of the victim's pecuniary interests at risk. Correspondingly, the mens rea of fraud is established by proof of: 1. Subjective knowledge of the prohibited act; and 2. Subjective knowledge that the prohibited act could have as a consequence the deprivation of another (which deprivation may consist in knowledge that the victim's pecuniary interests are put at risk). Where the conduct and knowledge required by these definitions are established, the accused is guilty whether he actually intended the prohibited consequence or was reckless as to whether it would occur. The inclusion of risk of deprivation in the concept of deprivation in Olan requires specific comment. The accused must have subjective awareness, at the very least, that his or her conduct will put the property or economic expectations of others at risk."