to a sexual act but which does not have [a significant risk of
serious bodily harm] might ground a civil action”. In the motion
judge’s view, while this may be true, “that civil action would
not be fraudulent misrepresentation for damages for non-pathological emotional harm”. I agree with that conclusion and,
as I will explain, none of the damages allegedly suffered by the
appellant — be they the damages set out in the claim or those
argued in the course of submissions by counsel — are properly
recoverable in a tort claim.
 To succeed on a civil claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, the appellant must establish the following: (1) the representation was made by the respondent; (2) the respondent knew
that the representation was false or was recklessly indifferent to
its truth or falsity; (3) the false statement was material and by it
the appellant was induced to act; and (4) the appellant suffered
damages: Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Hryniak,
 1 S.C.R. 126,  S.C.J. No. 8, 2014 SCC 8, at para. 21;
see, also, Parna v. G. & S. Properties Ltd.,  S.C.R. 306,
 S.C.J. No. 81, 15 D.L.R. (3d) 336, at p. 344 D.L.R.1 The
Supreme Court of Canada has consistently recognized that
“fraud without damage gives . . . no cause of action”: Hryniak, at
 The appellant maintains that the pleading has made out
all of the required elements for fraudulent misrepresentation
including damages. In his submission, the damages claimed —
be they for non-pathological emotional harm or for disruption of
his career and finances — while perhaps novel, should be left to
be determined after a trial.
 I have concluded that the appellant has not made out a
viable claim for recoverable damages. As I will explain, I regard
it as plain and obvious that those damages are not and, as
a matter of legal policy, ought not to be recoverable by way of a
fraudulent misrepresentation action.
 Before proceeding with my analysis of the damages issue,
I will briefly summarize the alleged facts on which my analysis
and conclusion are based.
 The relevant facts drawn from the pleading, which for the
purpose of this motion are assumed to be true, can be summarized as follows:
1 As this court noted in Singh v. Trump,  O.J. No. 5285, 2016 ONCA
747, at para. 141, it is not entirely clear from the recent case law that
an intention that the false representation be acted upon is a necessary
element of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim, but that is immaterial to
the present appeal.