Search by
Riva Plumbing alleged Tony Ferrari breached fiduciary and non-compete duties post-share sale
Accusations centered on formation of Icon Plumbing and whether Tony was secretly involved
Surveillance and anecdotal evidence failed to establish unlawful competition or misuse of confidential info
No direct or circumstantial evidence showed any economic interest or unlawful action by Tony
Damages claim was unsupported, relying on hearsay and inadmissible opinion evidence
Court dismissed the claim and upheld counterclaims for unpaid bonuses by former employees
Facts of the case
This case traces back to a shareholder dispute between Luca Montanaro and Tony Ferrari, former co-owners of Riva Plumbing Limited, a successful plumbing company serving homebuilders in the Greater Toronto Area. In 2008, Luca suspected Tony of financial misconduct, leading to deep internal conflict and workplace tension. The situation culminated in an oppression application by Luca, which was settled on October 3, 2012. Luca agreed to purchase Tony’s shares for $4 million, with closing set for November 5, 2012.
Tony informed staff that he would be leaving the company pending the buyout. One of the staff, foreman Mike Ladisa, who had a strained relationship with Luca, began preparations to form his own business, eventually launching Icon Plumbing. He resigned from Riva on November 2, 2012. Following the closing of the share sale, Luca promptly dismissed Tony’s children, Anna and Robert Ferrari, from Riva Plumbing. Robert, initially intending to remain, resigned the same day due to Luca’s actions and joined Icon Plumbing.
Luca suspected that Tony was involved in forming Icon Plumbing as a means to compete with Riva in breach of a non-competition clause from their shareholder agreement. Surveillance efforts were initiated, and Luca interpreted Tony’s presence at Icon Plumbing’s premises, including riding a forklift and socializing, as evidence of unlawful competition. He commenced a lawsuit against Tony, Mike, Joseph Ferrari, and their companies, alleging various economic torts and breaches of duty.
The trial and the court’s findings
Twelve years after the initial events, the case went to trial. The court found that Luca failed to prove any of the alleged misconduct. The evidence did not establish that Tony had any economic interest in Icon Plumbing, nor that he breached any legal duties. Surveillance footage showed Tony casually visiting and performing minor tasks, such as driving a forklift or drinking coffee with colleagues. None of this amounted to competition or a breach of fiduciary obligations.
Importantly, the court emphasized the lack of direct or inferential evidence tying Tony to ownership, direction, or unfair competition. No builders testified they had given business to Icon Plumbing due to Tony’s involvement. On the contrary, two testified that they severed ties with Riva Plumbing specifically because of Luca. There was also no proof that former Riva employees were solicited or that proprietary business information was misused.
In terms of damages, the plaintiffs’ case lacked credibility. They failed to produce financial statements, expert reports, or reliable accounting. Their damage estimates were based on inadmissible lay opinions and hearsay, which the court found unpersuasive and unsupported.
Outcome
The plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed in its entirety. The court held that Tony, Mike, Joseph, and their companies did not breach any duties, nor did they engage in unlawful competition. Further, the court awarded Mike Ladisa and Joseph Ferrari their counterclaims for unpaid bonuses of $49,725 each, with prejudgment interest from July 17, 2013. The court found the bonus program was nondiscretionary, profit-based, and not conditional on continued employment.
This decision underscores the high evidentiary threshold required to establish economic torts, breach of fiduciary duty, and damages, particularly when years have passed and claims rely on suspicion rather than proof.
Download documents
Plaintiff
Defendant
Court
Superior Court of Justice - OntarioCase Number
CV-13-481063-0000Practice Area
Corporate & commercial lawAmount
Not specified/UnspecifiedWinner
DefendantTrial Start Date