Law360 Canada ( May 21, 2020, 9:06 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the defendant from trial judgment requiring her to return $300,000 to the respondent based on unjust enrichment. The unjust enrichment arose from a scheme that the trial judge concluded was intended to deceive immigration authorities for the respondent to obtain resident status in Canada. As part of the scheme, the respondent agreed to purchase a restaurant from the appellant and to pay the operating expenses of the restaurant to the appellant. The appellant misrepresented the operating expenses. When the respondent challenged the accuracy of the expenses, the scheme collapsed, and the appellant terminated the respondent’s immigration application. While the appellant did not challenge the trial judge’s conclusion that the payment made in respect of the overstated expenses met the test for an unjust enrichment, she argued that the transaction was tainted by an illegal purpose, and the doctrine of illegality thus barred recovery by the respondent. The respondent cross‑appealed the decision dismissing her unjust enrichment claim with respect to the payment made to purchase the restaurant on the basis that the contract relied on by the trial judge as a juristic reason for retention of the funds was an unconscionable contract....