was to be directed toward and secured by a mortgage on “a house in Windsor Park.” Mr.
Breitkreutz’s moment of candour on re-examination shows that he was communicating details
about specific investments to Mr. Hogaboam for the purpose of communication to potential
investors. And it shows that Mr. Breitkreutz’s insistence that he only ever represented the rate,
term, and amount of investment opportunities is untrue.
 The investor witnesses believed that their investment in Base Finance was secured by
first mortgages on real estate. Some investor witnesses reported being told that Base Finance had
never had to foreclose on a borrower. Others were told that all the borrowers were long-time
clients of Base Finance. Many of the investor witnesses reported being told that their money was
being loaned to a specific borrower and was being secured by a mortgage against real estate,
typically a single-family home, in a specific quadrant or neighbourhood in Calgary or a nearby
municipality. Despite Mr. Breitkreutz’s denials, I accept the evidence of the many investor
witnesses who reported being told details about specific investment opportunities.
 I pause to observe that one must not miss the forest for the trees. Every one of the
investor witnesses wanted a safe, secured, local, mortgage-backed investment. None of them
wanted to invest in speculative Texas oil plays, or thought this is what they were doing. It
therefore makes sense that Mr. Breitkreutz was telling the investors these things, contrary to his
denials. Getting people to put more money into Base Finance depended on them believing it was
a safe, secured, local, mortgage-backed investment. Their evidence about Mr. Breitkreutz’s
representations makes sense, whereas his version does not.
 In addition to overt misrepresentations, Mr. Breitkreutz also deceived investors by
omission. He testified that he had an arrangement with Mr. Fox or Saddle Lake to get what he
described as a “residual” on the Texas oil properties after Base Finance investors were paid back.
Mr. Breitkreutz did not explain whether the “residual” was some sort of royalty on production,
an ownership interest in Saddle Lake, or something else. This prospect of a personal gain was not
disclosed to investors in Base Finance. Of course, for Mr. Breitkreutz to have disclosed that he
had a personal financial incentive to loan their money to Saddle Lake for its Texas oil play, he
would have had to disclose to investors in Base Finance that their money was being invested
with Saddle Lake in a Texas oil play. The fact that Mr. Breitkreutz had a collateral motive for
advancing money to Mr. Fox and Saddle Lake is an important fact that investors would have
wanted to have known.
In R v Lauer, 2011 PECA 5 at para 80, the PEI Court of Appeal reviewed what actions
constitute deceit, falsehood, and “other fraudulent means.” In listing acts of fraud by way of
“deceit”, the Court stated that inducing a person to believe a thing is true when it is false, and the
representor knows it is false, is deceit and that deceit may be practiced by way of oral or written
representation and may be in relation to a fact or an intention.
 “Falsehood” means something which is untrue, contrary to fact, or a misrepresentation of
the facts: Lauer at para 81. What constitutes “other fraudulent means” is a question of fact to be
established an objective standard. It includes the non-disclosure of material facts as well as
unauthorized use of funds: Lauer at paras 82-83, Iyer at paras 26-28. Reliance upon this third
category usually occurs when the first two cannot be established: Zlatic at para 44. In this case, I
find that all three forms of the prohibited act have been established on the evidence.
 Telling investors that their funds were going to be used in relation to residential or
commercial mortgage lending in Alberta when that was not the case, or was only partially or