Prominent Toronto investor John Ruffolo and his new firm Maverix Private Equity are being sued by a former tech executive who claims she wasn’t paid for 18 months of work as a partner in the company. 

Chitra Anand is seeking $3.4 million in damages and fees, according to a statement of claim filed with the Ontario Superior Court June 23. Ruffolo’s fellow managing partners, Mark Maybank and Michael Wasserman, are also named in the suit.  

The claim states that the defendants were “unjustly enriched as a result of the eighteen (18) months of work done by the Plaintiff as their Partner, and for which she was never paid.” It also claims the defendants “intentionally, and/or negligently misrepresented themselves to the Plaintiff when they repeatedly advised the Plaintiff she would be paid retroactively for the eighteen (18) months worth of work she did for the Defendants as their Partner.” 

The allegations have not been proven in court. “The defendants are in the process of reviewing the Statement of Claim,” said Joe Conforti, a lawyer at Goodmans LLP representing the defendants, in an email to The Logic. “A Statement of Defence will be delivered in due course which will outline in detail the defendants’ comprehensive response to the claims. All of the defendants deny the allegations made against them and deny that the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies claimed. It is premature for me or the defendants to offer any further substantive comment at this time.”

Maverix launched with substantial fanfare in March, six months after Ruffolo, who founded the firm, was hit by a transport truck while cycling north of Toronto and suffered life-threatening injuries. The US$500-million fund aims to fill a gap in the Canadian investment space by contributing growth equity to legacy companies retooling to take on disruptors in sectors like transportation and logistics, retail, health care and financial services. Ruffolo founded OMERS Ventures in 2011, at a time when it was still considered cutting edge for a public pension fund in the country to invest in tech and startup ventures. Other Canadian pension funds have since followed suit, helping to fuel steady growth in the country’s venture capital ecosystem over the past decade.

In the lawsuit, Anand—a doctoral researcher who previously worked as chief brand and communications officer for Microsoft Canada, director of marketing at Telus and director of operations at OpenText—claims she was a member of Maverix’s founding team, holding the titles of chief marketing officer and partner in the year and a half leading up to the firm’s launch in March 2021. “All the Founding Members, the Plaintiff included, operated as Partners with a common understanding that they would be retroactively paid for their work and time,” the lawsuit says. 

Anand alleges she was offered a salary in early 2021, to be paid once the firm closed its first funding round. The statement of claim alleges that Ruffolo told her by email in late January that she would be compensated back pay once the firm raised $400 million, which the suit claims it did by March 20. 

However, Ruffolo and Wasserman met with Anand on April 6 and informed her that they no longer needed her services, according to the suit. In it, Anand claims Ruffolo sent her an email the following week saying she would not be paid for the previous 18 months and denying that she was ever an employee of Maverix. 

Leading up to that point, the suit claims, Ruffolo, Maybank and Wasserman routinely referred to her as “partner” in the firm, and she was given the title on Maverix’s press and investor material, and in her bio on the firm’s website. Anand alleges her work involved creating branding for Maverix, including designing its website and logo, managing press for the company and creating social media platforms, as well as liaising with investors, among other tasks. 

In press material sent to The Logic leading up to the firm’s launch in March, Anand’s title is listed as “Partner, Brand & Thought Leadership.” Her job description reads, “Chitra is responsible for shaping Maverix’s brand and marketing strategy. This includes overseeing all digital marketing, branding, research and insights and thought leadership functions. She leads Maverix efforts to support portfolio companies in the areas of organization development, sustainable innovation, positioning and narrative development.”

Anand claims that her role at the firm was more involved than that of a typical CMO or partner. About a year after she began working with Maverix, Ruffolo was in a near-fatal accident that left him paralyzed from the waist down. “As part of the Plaintiff’s role at the firm, which was confirmed by the managing partners, the Plaintiff supported Mr. Ruffolo when he had his accident, which included, amongst other duties, managing his personal media,” reads the lawsuit, which describes a close relationship between Ruffolo and Anand.  

“During Mr. Ruffolo’s long recovery, the Plaintiff would check in with Mr. Ruffolo to see how he was doing via text messaging,” the document reads. “On two occasions, the Plaintiff prepared and provided him with home cooked meals hoping that her nutritious food would assist in his recovery while in rehabilitation. She also met with him briefly outside for a visit, where he assured her that [Maverix] would be ‘a career highlight for her,’ thanking her for the home cooked food and expressing that he ‘loved her.’”

The statement of claim describes a high-pressure environment leading up to the fund’s closing, during which time the managing partners often praised Anand’s work. 

On January 27, the lawsuit alleges, Anand received an offer letter that outlined $180,000 in annual wages, plus equity in the company worth an estimated $550,000 over five years. “You are without a doubt a critical member of the founding Maverix team and we sincerely look forward to working together for years to come,” reads the letter, signed by Ruffolo, Maybank and Wasserman and filed as part of the suit. 

Less than three months later—shortly after the firm announced it was poised to close an oversubscribed fund of US$500 million—Anand alleges she was “blind sided” by the defendants, who she claims denied her back pay, and that she was ever given an offer of employment. 

“You have not nor ever been employed with Maverix. We have not nor ever engaged you as a consultant with Maverix,” reads an email filed as part of the lawsuit, which Anand claims she received from Ruffolo on April 12. “It has been made abundantly clear several times you were not being compensated and you acknowledged that several times with many of us. It is unfortunate you have taken a view that you were somehow working for Maverix when you volunteered to join us in meetings and you did a few things under your understanding you might be working for us.”

The suit alleges that Anand was “dumbfounded” by the “icy email.” Shortly after receiving it, she claims, she was contacted by LinkedIn, notifying her that Maverix had filed a complaint to the online networking platform claiming Anand had misrepresented herself by including the title “partner” at Maverix on her profile. “She was given 14 days to change it, or her account would be disabled,” the statement reads. “This is notwithstanding that for eighteen (18) months, she had consistently been referred to as a Partner, not only by the Managing and Founding Partners, but on all promotional material, the website, and in all media articles, most recently, the Globe and Mail article of March 20, 2021.”

Anand declined to comment. Her lawyer, Natalie MacDonald told The Logic, “We will stand behind the statement of claim. It really does, in my view, tell the story.” 

The $3.4 million in damages and fees Anand is seeking include $700,000 “for the unjust enrichment of the Defendants,” or, alternatively, the same amount for services rendered over the 18 months during which she was not paid. She’s seeking another $1.2 million in tort damages for claims the defendants “intentionally, and/or negligently misrepresented themselves to the Plaintiff when they repeatedly advised the Plaintiff she would be paid retroactively for the eighteen (18) months worth of work she did for the Defendants as their Partner,” and $500,000 for “mental distress,” as well as $1 million in punitive damages. “The Defendants’ actions, and inactions … were so harsh, vindictive, reprehensible and malicious that they are deserving of punishment on their own by this Honourable Court,” the statement reads.