Canadian NBA player triumphs in fraudulent misrepresentation suit
Saghi Khalili
by Saghi Khalili with assistance from articling student James Moskowski
In a recent decision[1] involving the sale of a residential property to well-known Canadian NBA player Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the test for fraudulent misrepresentation in Ontario, underlining the importance of complete disclosure in real estate dealings.
A brief summary of the facts
In May 2023, with plans to start a family, Gilgeous-Alexander and his partner purchased a luxury home in Burlington, Ontario, through a holding company (the “Buyer”). They acquired the property from 1000176653 Ontario Inc. (the “Seller”), whose sole director and owner was Ray Gupta. The couple made the purchase on the understanding from the Seller, represented chiefly by Ray’s son, Sandeep, that the property was “private and secure”.
Shortly after closing, the couple learned that Aiden Pleterski, more widely known as Ontario’s infamous “Crypto King”, last lived at the property as the Guptas’ tenant. Given the widely publicised bankruptcy proceedings against Pleterski, stemming from allegations that he had defrauded cryptocurrency investors of over CAD 25 million, the property had been the subject of recent attempted break-ins and vandalism. Upon learning of the risks, the couple vacated the property and, through the Buyer, sued the Seller for fraudulent misrepresentation, among other claims.
Fraudulent misrepresentation
Fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when a defendant makes a false representation of fact, either knowing it was false or being reckless as to its truth, with the intention that it be acted upon by the plaintiff; the plaintiff does indeed rely on that statement and, as a result, suffers damages.[2]
How fraudulent misrepresentation was applied in the decision
At trial, the motion judge ordered recission of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale of the Property for fraudulent misrepresentation and latent defect. The Court of Appeal upheld the findings, holding that the Seller marketed the property to the couple as private and secure, while knowing there was a safety risk. Evidence had been adduced on the motion that Sandeep was worried about defrauded investors physically harming Pleterski at the property, and also knew that he had been kidnapped, and a CAD 3 million ransom had been sought for him.[3] The Court inferred the intention to defraud, holding that “silence can amount a fraudulent representation where, as here, the Seller failed to disclose relevant information about the Property”.[4] The couple relied on the Seller’s statements when buying the property and then suffered damages in the form of costs incurred from purchasing an unsafe property.
Going forward
This decision serves as a reminder to sellers that full disclosure in real estate transactions is essential, and includes providing accurate information about a property’s safety.
[1] 2024 ONCA 610.
[2] Ibid at para 24.
[3] Ibid at para 16.
[4] Ibid at para 24.
Saghi Khalili focuses on commercial real estate matters, including the acquisition, disposition, financing, and leasing of all types of real property. She regularly assists clients across all industries in drafting and negotiating commercial and real property-related agreements. Contact Saghi.
Author Saghi Khalili would like to thank articling student James Moskowski for his assistance in writing this article.
GGI member firmPallett Valo LLPMississauga (ON), CanadaT: +1 905 273 3022
Law Firm Services
Pallett Valo LLP is one of Ontario’s Top 10 Regional Law Firms. The firm practices in the areas of business law, commercial litigation, commercial real estate, construction, employment and labour, insurance defence and wills, estates, and trusts.
