Court rules in favour of Canadian basketball star over former Burlington home of ‘Crypto King’

A ruling about voiding the sale of a Burlington home to NBA superstar Shai Gilgeous-Alexander has come down in his favour.

Gilgeous-Alexander, a Toronto native who was raised in Hamilton, sued the company that sold him a Burlington mansion previously owned by self-proclaimed Crypto King Aiden Pleterski.

Justice Robert J. Centa ruled that the corporate owner of the luxury Burlington home made a “fraudulent misrepresentation” of the $8-million property when it was marketed as “private and secure.”

According to the lawsuit, a mere four days after Gilgeous-Alexander and his partner, Hailey Summers, moved into the house on May 10, a stranger knocked on their door demanding to know the whereabouts of Pleterski.

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and his partner, Hailey Summers

SGA, as he’s known, told them he had no idea who that person was and confirmed that Pleterski did not live there.

Pleterski, the former tenant, is accused of scamming hundreds of investors out of millions of dollars.

Summers was later told that someone who was allegedly defrauded by Pleterski had threatened to burn down their new house.

The couple was “sufficiently alarmed by this news,” deciding to move out of their dream home and never return, the judge said.

The lawsuit stated that Gilgeous-Alexander and Summers purchased the property from an Ontario numbered company whose owner and sole director is Ray Gupta.

In March 2021, Gupta agreed to sell the Burlington home to Pleterski as part of a rent-to-own agreement which ultimately wasn’t completed. When the property was re-sold to Gilgeous-Alexander, Gupta and his son, Sandeep, were aware of the fraud allegations surrounding Pleterski and that investors were looking for the 25-year-old, said the judge.

Between the time Pleterski left the house and when it was sold to SGA, an employee who moved into the home to keep watch over it was harassed by visitors daily. It was so bad security had to be hired and the employee’s wife refused to live there.

“I find that the corporate owner of the Burlington property made a fraudulent misrepresentation to the plaintiff and failed to disclose a latent defect in the Burlington property.”

The judge agreed to cancel the real estate deal and awarded Gilgeous-Alexander “equitable damages” as the couple was not able to live at the house but still made mortgage and insurance payments.

“In my view, (the owner) should make the plaintiff whole for all such payments after the plaintiff first sought recission on June 6, 2023,” the judge ruled.

The $8M Burlington house at the centre of a legal dispute.