Law360 Canada ( June 9, 2023, 5:33 AM EDT) -- Application by the plaintiffs for the return of their $50,000 cash deposit. In the alternative, the plaintiffs sought judgment against the defendant based on unjust enrichment and the doctrine of constructive trust. The plaintiffs owned a property in a condominium complex. The defendant also lived in the complex. The first plaintiff started a group text with the second plaintiff and defendant through which the latter agreed to see the property to discuss renovations the plaintiffs were planning. The plaintiffs and their son attended at the defendant’s home. Prior to that, the first plaintiff received an inheritance. The investment funds of $125,000 were deposited to the first plaintiff’s bank and subsequently, he withdrew $50,000 in cash. He handed the defendant the $50,000 in cash but no receipt was provided. The plaintiffs sought the return of their deposit allegedly given to the defendant to renovate their home. They claimed that the defendant fraudulently misrepresented that he would conduct renovation work on the property. The plaintiffs claimed the proposed renovation project was a “fraudulent sham” and the defendant “bilked” them of their $50,000 in cash. The issue to be determined was whether the plaintiffs did, in fact, hand the defendant $50,000 in cash....