Law360 Canada ( July 29, 2025, 3:15 PM EDT) -- Appeal by Su from judge’s decision granting Hougen Co. Ltd. (Hougen) leave to bring derivative action; appeal by Hougen from judge’s refusal to grant nunc pro tunc order to backdate leave to the date notice of claim was filed and from decision to award special costs to Su. Su and her husband, Han, operated as importers through Inspirza Management Group Inc. (Inspirza) and Nazda Holding Inc. (Nazda). Their business dealings extended into a new venture, Toyomoto, following a proposal agreed among Nazda, Hougen (whose principal was Gu), and PH International Co. Ltd. (PH). Under the agreement, Hougen held 51 per cent, Nazda 44 per cent, and PH five per cent of Toyomoto’s shares, with specific roles assigned to each. Su had been appointed CEO of Toyomoto. Despite substantial growth in sales revenue, Toyomoto consistently operated at a loss or marginal profit, which Su attributed to accounting mismanagement orchestrated by Hougen’s principal, Gu and the chief finance officer, Yang. When Toyomoto became insolvent, the owners agreed to wind up operations. Gu initiated a derivative action against Su, Han, and the corporate defendants for alleged malfeasance....