A city council candidate running for Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim’s ABC party is being sued by a company she helped co-found, which alleges she and two others misappropriated company funds. Joyce Gillespie, her husband Tony Lam, and CLB Interactive Inc. are listed as defendants in a civil claim filed April 30, 2026. The plaintiff, GigHound Inc., is a company that matches employers with temporary and gig workers. Gillespie is listed as a former director and president of the company, while Lam was GigHound’s former chief executive officer and chief financial officer, as well as the sole director and officer of CLB Interactive. Gillespie announced in August that she would run for council in the upcoming municipal election. Her campaign biography does not name GigHound. Instead, it describes Gillespie as an entrepreneur who, in 2020, “co-founded a technology platform that helps Canadians find work quickly and get paid within 24 hours.” Her nomination papers list GigHound as an asset she holds. In a statement to CTV News, ABC said Sim is aware of Gillespie being sued and that it was disclosed during the candidate vetting process. Asked for her response to the allegations, Gillespie said: “I cannot comment on active litigation as this is going before the courts. I believe the court will make the right decision.” The alleged misappropriation According to the notice of civil claim, GigHound director Justin Ober became concerned in August 2024 that the company was operating at a loss and began reviewing its finances. The claim alleges his review uncovered non-business-related expenses charged to GigHound by Lam, as well as overbilling by CLB Interactive. Two other GigHound directors, Cole Derochie and Mike Tipper, are also named in the suit. Among the allegations are that Gillespie and her mother were overpaid on loans they had made to GigHound, and that company funds were used to pay personal taxes and non-business expenses, including flights, accommodations and entertainment. The alleged misappropriation occurred between October 2022 and August 2024. During that period, the company says it met with Lam to discuss the alleged misappropriation and that he admitted to it. The defendants dispute that allegation in their response. GigHound also investigated Gillespie, alleging that she was a recipient or beneficiary of funds allegedly misappropriated by Lam and that she was Lam’s direct superior. $6.3 million owed to CRA GigHound owes approximately $6.3 million to the Canada Revenue Agency, according to the civil suit, which alleges Lam made false assurances arrears were paid and that the company’s tax filings were up to date. During the company’s investigation, GigHound said it discovered the CRA had attempted to speak with Gillespie and Lam regarding the accruing arrears. The plaintiff alleges neither Lam nor Gillespie advised it the company was in arrears, or attempted to take any steps to address it. In 2024, the CRA began garnishing wages from one of GigHound’s largest clients, as per the filing. Signatures allegedly applied without consent GigHound’s investigation also touched on claims that before Lam left his role, he made a copy of the company’s electronic files, which included legal and financial documents. Around November 2024, GigHound claims it demanded Lam return the documents, and that he replied that he gave them to Gillespie. The filing states that around February 2023, someone applied the signatures of Ober, Tipper, Derochie and Gillespie’s—without the consent of Ober, Tipper and Derochie—to financial statements. One month later, the claim states the three men’s signatures, as well as Gillespie’s were applied again without their consent, purportedly declaring a cash dividend. “Neither Ober, nor Tipper, nor Derochie agreed to declare a dividend, nor did they receive the purportedly declared dividend,” the filing states. “The identity of the individual who applied the signatures of GigHound’s directors and shareholders without consent and authorization is yet unknown to GigHound,” it adds. Termination The notice of civil claims states that due to this conduct, Gillespie was removed as president in February 2026 “for poor performance and for committing actions against the company’s interests.” The claim went on to add, “by reason of the conduct described above, each of Gillespie, Lam, and CLB breached their fiduciary duties to GigHound.” GigHound alleges “Gillespie knew Lam and CLB owed GigHound fiduciary duties, and as Lam’s direct superior, she assisted Lam and CLB’s breaches of fiduciary duty by being reckless or wilfully blind to their conduct.” It also alleges she received or benefited from funds misappropriated by Lam and, or CLB. The plaintiff is seeking punitive damages, adding Gillespie, Lam, and CLB have caused and continue to cause GigHound loss, damage, and expenses, for which they are liable. “The conduct of the defendants was callous and high-handed and represents a reprehensible and marked departure from the ordinary standards of conduct,” the claim states. Defendants’ response Gillespie, Lam and CLB Interactive have filed a response to the civil claim, disputing the allegations. Their response, dated May 25, 2026, claims Gillespie has never validly been removed as either a director or president of GigHound, and that she received no remuneration for her services in her role as president. The filings also state that Gillespie had appointed Lam as her proxy, “out of recognition of the potential for conflicts of interest due to her spousal relationship with the CEO.” Gillespie’s lawyer argued she had no knowledge of whether or not Lam or CLB misappropriated funds from GigHound as alleged. Second response Another civil claim response was filed on June 10 by the defendants who are referred to as the CLB defendants in the suit, denying that they misappropriated the company’s funds. The document states that any overpayment of loans made by Gillespie or Gillespie’s mother to the company was inadvertent, and that GigHound also overpaid amounts owing to Tipper. “Once he was aware of it, Mr. Lam sought recovery of any amounts overpaid on behalf of the company,” the claim said.It adds, he reimbursed GigHound or intended to reimburse GigHound for any personal expenses charged. The claim also challenges the allegation regarding Lam making copies of GigHound’s internal documents, stating he made lawful copies. “Mr. Lam returned any of the company’s property in his possession after the CLB Defendants’ termination,” the claim states. “The CLB defendants do not possess any of the company’s property.” None of the allegations have been proven in court.
