In a new court filing, Toronto investor John Ruffolo and managing partners in his private equity firm are denying a former tech executive’s allegations she wasn’t paid wages owed for 18 months of work.

“None of the plaintiff’s allegations have merit in law or in fact,” the defendants claimed in a statement of defence filed in the Ontario Superior Court on Friday. In the filing, they accused Chitra Anand of trying to “improperly exert undue pressure on the defendants publicly, all with the objective of attaining payment of exorbitant monies which she did not earn and to which she is not entitled.”

In a lawsuit filed last month, Anand claimed she worked for Maverix Private Equity for 18 months without being paid, and accused Ruffolo and his fellow managing partners Mark Maybank and Michael Wasserman of unjust enrichment from her unpaid labour. Her suit claims she worked with the understanding that she would be paid retroactively and would be offered formal employment when the firm closed its first fund. In the lawsuit, Anand said she was “blind sided” by the defendants, who she alleged unexpectedly let her go when the fund closed, reneging on a letter of employment and back pay. The lawsuit seeks $3.4 million in damages and fees; neither its allegations, nor those in the statement of defence, have been proven in court.

In their statement of defence, the Maverix partners denied owing Anand wages, and said she was never offered a position at the firm. “While the plaintiff was considered for potential employment or engagement with Maverix to start on completion of the Fund (which ended up being April 2021), she was never offered any employment or engagement nor promised any compensation,” reads the statement. 

The defendants took aim at what they called “false and misleading assertions of fact” in Anand’s suit, accusing her of intending to harm “the excellent reputations enjoyed by the defendants, earned over decades of business and community involvement.”

The defendants also rejected what they called Anand’s “innuendo” around diversity at Maverix. In her statement of claim, she alleged the defendants were “concerned with the imbalanced ratio of men and women on the team, as well as the racial diversity,” and that she represented diversity on the Maverix team. “Maverix is and, from the outset has been, committed to diversity, equity and inclusion,” the statement of defence reads. 

“Dr. Anand’s Statement of Claim speaks for itself, but we will also be delivering a Reply to directly refute the allegations in the Statement of Defence, and look forward to moving into examinations for discovery, where the evidence will speak for itself,” Anand’s lawyer Natalie MacDonald told The Logic.

Maverix’s response details the many accolades bestowed upon the defendants, particularly Ruffolo, including his being named Canada’s Most Powerful Business Person by Canadian Business and among Toronto Life’s most influential Torontonians. It also details Ruffolo’s track record in Canada’s technology and startup sector, including his roles as founder of OMERS Ventures and co-founder and vice-chair of the Council of Canadian Innovators. 

The defence challenges Anand’s characterization of the nature of the arrangement between her and Maverix, claiming she exaggerated her contributions to the firm. In her suit, Anand—a doctoral researcher whose previous positions include chief brand and communications officer for Microsoft Canada, marketing director at Telus and operations director at OpenText—claimed she acted as chief marketing officer and partner at Maverix in the year and a half leading up to its launch. However, in the documents filed Friday, the firm denied she held those titles and said she joined the team largely as a mentee, to gain experience and “[increase] her own profile.” 

“[The] plaintiff’s work product provided nominal tangible value to Maverix and was not used in any significant way,” the defence alleges.   

Throughout its statement of defence, Maverix claimed the partners at the firm repeatedly communicated to Anand that she would not be paid until the firm closed its first fund, and that employment was not guaranteed thereafter. 

In her lawsuit, Anand said in the period leading up to the firm’s launch she was offered a letter of employment outlining her salary and other details. The statement of defence claims while the defendants offered “proposed terms of her compensation if she were to become employed or engaged,” this was not a formal offer of employment. 

The defendants claimed Jan. 27, 2021 was the first time Anand raised questions about retroactive compensation, and that she agreed at the time to accept back pay only from that date, and only if the fund closed at over US$400 million. 

Maverix said it officially launched its US$500-million fund on April 13. A week before launch, the firm said it severed ties with Anand. The defendants claimed employment “ultimately did not materialize because of the plaintiff’s poor performance and gross misconduct.” Despite working in some capacity with Anand for 18 months, the defendants alleged “she lacked sufficient subject matter expertise, business and industry knowledge and competence to perform the role anticipated for her,” pointing to incidents where she allegedly took credit for others’ work and recorded a conversation with a colleague without their knowledge, alleging that she claimed it was “‘for her own protection’ in the event of a dispute.”

In the statement of defence, the managing partners claimed Maverix offered Anand $50,000 when they parted ways to “settle matters in connection with her services,” which they said she declined. 

The defendants are seeking to have the case dismissed, denying allegations that they owe Anand any money, or that they acted deceptively or misrepresented themselves in their dealings with her. They are also denying Anand’s claims that they caused her mental distress, for which she is seeking $500,000, and asking that she pay their legal fees.