Strength-N-U Inc. v. Daniel Silva
STRENGTH-N-U INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Lockyer + Hein LLP
Lawyer(s)

Darren Frank

DANIEL SILVA
Law Firm / Organization
Kronis, Rotsztain, Margles, Cappel LLP
Lawyer(s)

Allan Dov Weiss

JERIKKA NAHIBUAN
Law Firm / Organization
Kronis, Rotsztain, Margles, Cappel LLP
Lawyer(s)

Allan Dov Weiss

PERFORMANCE RECOVERY THERAPY INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Kronis, Rotsztain, Margles, Cappel LLP
Lawyer(s)

Allan Dov Weiss

Background

  • Parties: Strength-N-U Inc. (plaintiff) vs. Daniel Silva, Jerikka Nahibuan, and Performance Recovery Therapy Inc. (defendants).
  • Issue: Plaintiff alleged breach of fiduciary duties, misuse of confidential information, and contractual violations by the defendants after they started a competing business.

Decision 1: Injunction Motion (2024 ONSC 4009)

  • Outcome: Motion dismissed.
  • Reasoning:
    • Fiduciary Duties: Plaintiff failed to show Silva and Nahibuan were fiduciaries; evidence indicated they were not key to management.
    • Confidential Information: A substantial issue existed regarding client data use, but no clear misuse was proven.
    • Restrictive Covenants: Clauses were overly broad and ambiguous, likely unenforceable.
    • Irreparable Harm: Plaintiff did not prove irreparable harm, as damages could be calculated.
    • Balance of Convenience: Favored defendants, emphasizing competition and patient choice.

Decision 2: Costs Award (2024 ONSC 5372)

  • Outcome: Costs of $32,672 awarded to defendants.
  • Reasoning: Defendants were entitled to costs due to the complexity and significance of the issues, and the plaintiff's rejection of a prior settlement offer.

Final Outcome

  • Defendants Prevailed: The injunction was denied, allowing the defendants to continue their business.
  • Costs Awarded: Plaintiff was ordered to pay $32,672 to the defendants, further solidifying the defendants' victory. The rulings favored competition and rejected the plaintiff’s broad restrictive claims.
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CV-23-711209-0000
Employment law
$ 32,672
Defendant