What is the test for a fraudulent misrepresentation to be a material cause to a contract?

Fraud involves intentional dishonesty. Repap must show that the fraud was an inducing cause to the contract. If the statements would not have changed the plaintiffs conduct, then they are not material. They must be of a type likely to make the plaintiff act upon it. Only then can it be interred that the defendant had the intent to make the plaintiff act accordingly. In Hinchey v. Gonda, Schroeder J. stated the proposition in this way: A misrepresentation to be material, must be one necessarily influencing and inducing the transaction and affecting and going to its very essence and substance… The test, therefore, of material inducement is not whether the person’s conduct would, but whether it might have been different if the misrepresentation had not been made.[19]