Law360 Canada ( October 31, 2024, 4:10 PM EDT) -- Appeal by 2649360 Ontario Inc. ("Appellant") from a motion decision granting the Respondent Grant Thornton Limited ("Grant Thornton") relief from forfeiture of a $500,000 real estate purchase deposit. Pleterski and Murphy agreed to purchase a commercial property in Ajax from the Appellant for $5 Million. Pleterski paid a $500,000 deposit using the funds obtained from investors under the pretext of investing in cryptocurrency. Before the scheduled closing date, some of Pleterski's creditors successfully applied to have him and his company declared bankrupt, with Grant Thornton appointed as the Trustee. Grant Thornton and Murphy informed the Appellant that they would not complete the transaction. The Appellant treated this as an anticipatory breach and later sold the property to another buyer for $300,000 more than Pleterski and Murphy had agreed to pay. However, the Appellant claimed to have incurred expenses for repairing damage caused by Pleterski and Murphy. Grant Thornton moved for relief from forfeiture of the $500,000 deposit under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act. The motion judge granted the relief, ordering the deposit to be returned to Grant Thornton to benefit Pleterski's creditors. The motion judge found that the forfeited deposit was out of proportion to the damages suffered, and it would be unconscionable for the seller to retain the deposit. The Appellant argued that the motion judge erred by considering the interests of Pleterski's creditors, who were not parties to the purchase agreement, and by characterizing Grant Thornton as "innocent" despite causing the breach by choosing not to complete the transaction....