The Fourth Report and the Record, Claim by Claim

On June 11, 2024 the court-appointed Monitor filed its Fourth Report on the property companies of the SID group, whose operating companies Robert (Robby) Clark led. Most of the 2024 news coverage drew on that report. This page sets each of its principal statements beside the rest of the public record: what the same report also says, the dates, the Monitor's own figures, the companies' sworn evidence and what the court did.

The companies' responses are taken from their counsel's letter of June 19, 2024 and the affidavit of Robert Clark sworn June 20, 2024, both filed with the court. They are the companies' position. The court made no finding on the report. Every answer ends with what cuts the other way.

On this page. The record in brief · The figures, side by side · The record in order · Before the filing · The plan for the proceeding · The investigation, and how the report was released · The report's statements, one at a time · Control, cost and outcome · The fraud question

The record in brief

• Before the filingMore than 800 properties, and a $75.85 million sale. The companies' sworn evidence is that the group "acquired, renovated, leased and/or sold over 800 underutilized and strategically located properties in Ontario". In May 2022 it sold 223 homes for $75,850,443. At the first hearing the court recorded that the companies and their affiliates "are one of the largest holders of residential real estate in Ontario". Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Clark affidavit para 4; Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.4.5 para 1; Endorsement of Justice Kimmel (Jan 23, 2024), para 5
• CourtNo court has made a finding on the report. On June 24, 2024 the court held that the companies "are entitled to test the evidence put against them by parties adverse in position, by cross-examination". The motions were resolved on consent the next day, and the court recorded that "no approval is sought at this time with respect to the Fourth Report or the activities summarized therein". Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 24, 2024), para 13; Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 25, 2024), paras 2 and 8
• MonitorThe report states that it was not audited. KSV "has not audited, or otherwise attempted to verify, the accuracy or completeness of the financial information relied on to prepare this Report in a manner that complies with Canadian Auditing Standards" and "expresses no opinion or other form of assurance". The Monitor "makes no findings" on funds that did not pass through the companies' bank accounts, and states that "certain portions of this Report could be subject to revision". Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.3.0 paras 3, 5 and 8
• MonitorNo draft went to the companies. The Monitor's supplement records that a draft "was not provided to any party (including the Applicants) prior to it being filed with the Court". The companies' sworn evidence is that their counsel asked to review a draft and "The Monitor refused", and that they had "approximately a week to review and respond" to a 92 page report with more than 2,100 pages of enclosures. The Monitor was given the powers of the companies' board fourteen days after the report was filed. Supplement to the Fifth Report (Jun 23, 2024), s.2.0 para 1; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Clark affidavit paras 56 and 69; Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 25, 2024), paras 2 and 6
• Monitor's figuresThe personal spending figure, and the figures beside it. The report's figure for spending that appears personal is "in excess of $1 million" over the five years to January 2024. The 2022 sale closed for $75,850,443, and on the companies' filed response $11,600,519.96 was left for the sellers after the promissory note lenders were repaid. The proceeding began on January 23, 2024. The Monitor's cash table to July 22, 2024 shows $4,846,000 of professional fees and states that the fees "are paid through May 31, 2024". Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.2.1 para 3 and s.4.5 para 1; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Exhibit O, item A.12; Sixth Report of the Monitor (Jul 24, 2024), s.4.0 paras 1 and 2(b)
• Monitor's interviewThe $11,082,375.97. The report says the amount "appears to have been paid to the Applicants in the form of promissory notes". On May 8, 2024 the broker had told the Monitor's counsel under oath: "we immediately disbursed every penny that was applicable to go direct to the lenders that it applied to." On June 10, 2024 the companies wrote that the amount was paid to the broker's firm for the promissory note lenders, and enclosed the cheques. The report, filed on June 11, quotes that letter. Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.4.5 paras 5 and 6; Monitor's Document Brief to the Fourth Report, Vol. 5 (Jul 5, 2024), including the interview transcript of Claire Drage (May 8, 2024), Drage transcript qq. 170 to 173
• Sworn evidenceRenovations: $748,502.86 of about $4.1 million. In January 2024 the Monitor told the court that the DIP loan "provides immediate capital to renovate 98 properties, which is expected to result in additional annual operating cash flow of approximately $5 million". The companies' sworn evidence is that $748,502.86 of the loan had been provided for renovations by June 20, 2024, that the rest was funded from rent, and that about 90 units were renovated. The Fourth Report puts gross monthly rent at "approximately $500,000" at filing and "approximately $564,000" at the date of the report. On June 17, 2024 the Monitor reported that it "does not intend approving any additional renovation costs". First Report of the Monitor (Jan 29, 2024), s.5.2; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Clark affidavit paras 33 and 34 and note 2; Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.4.3 paras 3 and 4; Fifth Report of the Monitor (Jun 17, 2024), Appendix D, note 4
• Monitor's reportsHow the proceeding ended. In January 2024 the Monitor wrote that "a sale of the Properties will result in depressed recoveries for Investors and/or will take several years to complete". About 82 per cent of the portfolio later passed to the mortgage lenders by credit bid. To July 2, 2026 the Monitor's account paid $10.09 million of professional fees and $1.99 million of DIP lender interest and fees. The Monitor projects about $800,000 for creditors beyond the proceeds of their own mortgaged properties, against claims it expects "to exceed $50 million". First Report of the Monitor (Jan 29, 2024), s.5.1; Thirteenth Report of the Monitor (Jul 21, 2025), s.3.1 paras 6 to 7; Fifteenth Report of the Monitor (Jul 21, 2026), s.9.0, s.6.0 para 5 and s.6.3 para 3(c)
• RegulatorThe fraud that was admitted was the broker's. In December 2025 the broker who raised the investor money admitted to fraud in a settlement with the Ontario Securities Commission. The Capital Markets Tribunal found that "Drage committed a large-scale fraud". The settlement records that her statements to investors were "false and misleading" and that the borrowers "had little to no communication with the Investors". No borrower company was a respondent. OSC Settlement Agreement, Claire Drage et al. (Dec 16, 2025), paras 17, 39 and 52; Capital Markets Tribunal reasons, 2026 ONCMT 1 (Jan 16, 2026), para 8
• Same reportWhat the same report says about the money used for the homes. "The funds that were used to purchase and renovate the Applicants' properties do not appear to have been used for an improper purpose." The report also "accepts that some payments to the Principals may have been justified as reimbursement for the Principals' use of personal credit cards to make bona fide business purchases for the Applicants". Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.7.0 paras 2 and 3
• Monitor's reportsBefore the Fourth Report. In each of its first three reports, between January and April 2024, the Monitor said the companies were "acting in good faith and with due diligence". First Report of the Monitor (Jan 29, 2024), s.7.0; Second Report of the Monitor (Mar 2024), s.6.3; Third Report of the Monitor (Apr 2024), s.7.0

The figures, side by side

Each figure is taken from the source named beside it. The Monitor's tables are unaudited. No filing separates the cost of the investigation from the other professional fees.

The record in order

Part 1. Before the filing

What had Robert (Robby) Clark's SID companies done before the CCAA filing?

In short. The companies' sworn evidence is that the group "acquired, renovated, leased and/or sold over 800 underutilized and strategically located properties in Ontario, that provide in aggregate over 1200 rental units". In May 2022 it sold 223 homes for $75,850,443. At the first hearing the court recorded that the companies and their affiliates "are one of the largest holders of residential real estate in Ontario".

What happened in the 2022 sale of 223 homes, and where did the money go?

In short. The sale closed in or around May 2022 at a stated price of $75,850,443. On the companies' filed response, the vendors' counsel's trust ledger shows $22,682,895.92 before promissory notes, $11,082,375.97 repaid to promissory note lenders, and $11,600,519.96 left for the sellers, of which $2,709,979.55 was due to the companies in the CCAA. The buyer held back 5 per cent of the price, which the Monitor reports "was never paid".

Who raised the investor money, and who dealt with the lenders?

In short. A mortgage broker and her firms. The court recorded at the first hearing that about 602 of the 802 promissory notes were issued to The Lion's Share Group Inc., an affiliate of the brokerage "that sourced and placed the First Mortgage Loans". The companies' sworn evidence is that they "generally did not deal directly with the Lenders". In December 2025 the broker admitted to fraud in a settlement with the Ontario Securities Commission.

Did the companies try to refinance before filing?

In short. Yes. The court recorded at the first hearing that the companies had been trying since August 2023, "with the assistance of a professional financial advisor", "to obtain a comprehensive refinancing solution for their funded indebtedness". Their sworn evidence refers to a $70 million letter of intent received on October 5, 2023 and to "approximately $70 million and $89 million term sheets received by the Applicants pre-filing". Mortgage debt at filing was about $90.1 million. A term sheet is an offer, not a completed financing.

Part 2. The plan for the proceeding

Why did the companies file under the CCAA, and what did the Monitor say about the plan at the start?

In short. The companies' sworn evidence is that the proceeding was commenced to "complete value accretive renovations on their incomplete Properties" and to "identify a comprehensive refinancing and/or restructuring transaction". In January 2024 the Monitor wrote that "a sale of the Properties will result in depressed recoveries for Investors and/or will take several years to complete", and that the DIP loan "will allow the Applicants to refinance or restructure, which is a superior result to a multi-year liquidation".

How much of the renovation money was released, and what did it produce?

In short. The DIP agreement contemplated about $4.1 million of renovations, and the Monitor's first cash flow forecast showed $3 million of renovations by March 28, 2024. From February 15, 2024 every payment required the Monitor's prior written consent. The companies' sworn evidence is that $748,502.86 of the loan had been provided for renovations by June 20, 2024, that the rest was funded from rent, and that about 90 units were renovated. The Fourth Report shows tenanted units rising from 424 to 456 and gross monthly rent from "approximately $500,000" to "approximately $564,000". On June 17, 2024 the Monitor reported that it "does not intend approving any additional renovation costs".

What did the Monitor say about the companies' conduct before the Fourth Report?

In short. In each of its first three reports, between January and April 2024, the Monitor said the companies were "acting in good faith and with due diligence". On March 28, 2024 the court recorded the Monitor's statement that "the Investigation remains ongoing and the Monitor has not yet come to any conclusions".

Part 3. The investigation, and how the report was released

Who asked for the Monitor's investigation, and did the companies cooperate?

In short. The court recorded that the Monitor's investigation powers were "requested by the Secured Lenders and supported by all other parties". The Fourth Report records that "the Applicants and their counsel consented to an order empowering the Monitor and its counsel" to investigate, and that the investigation "involved the review of thousands of documents produced by the Applicants, Investors, the Principals and others". The companies' sworn evidence is that the principals "agreed to participate in voluntary interviews under oath".

Did the companies see the Fourth Report before it was filed, and how long did they have to respond?

In short. No draft was provided. The Monitor's supplement records that a draft "was not provided to any party (including the Applicants) prior to it being filed with the Court", and the report states that the Monitor and its counsel "have not discussed or corresponded with the Applicants" about its findings. The companies' sworn evidence is that their counsel asked to review a draft and "The Monitor refused". The report was filed on June 11, 2024. The motion to expand the Monitor's powers was heard on June 24, 2024, and the order was made on June 25.

Was the Fourth Report audited, and what does it say about its own limits?

In short. It was not audited. The report states that KSV "has not audited, or otherwise attempted to verify, the accuracy or completeness of the financial information relied on to prepare this Report in a manner that complies with Canadian Auditing Standards", and "expresses no opinion or other form of assurance". It states that the Monitor "makes no findings" on funds that did not pass through the companies' bank accounts, that it "did not trace funds directed from Windrose to the Applicants' real estate lawyers", and that "certain portions of this Report could be subject to revision".

Has any court ruled on the Fourth Report?

In short. No. On June 24, 2024 the court held that the companies "are entitled to test the evidence put against them by parties adverse in position, by cross-examination", and directed that the Monitor "will respond to reasonable and proportionate written interrogatories". The next day the motions were resolved on consent, and the court recorded that "no approval is sought at this time with respect to the Fourth Report or the activities summarized therein". Among the orders posted on the Monitor's website to July 30, 2026, none approves the Fourth Report.

Part 4. The report's statements, one at a time

The report says funds were "diverted, misused or misappropriated". What does the record show beside that?

In short. The court made no finding on the statement. The same report states that "the funds that were used to purchase and renovate the Applicants' properties do not appear to have been used for an improper purpose", and that the Monitor "accepts that some payments to the Principals may have been justified as reimbursement" for business purchases made on personal credit cards. On the report's own table, debt service to lenders was the largest use of money, at $24.69 million of $69.74 million. Mr. Clark's sworn evidence is that the report "suggests that the Principals operated the Applicants in a manner that favoured our interests over the interests of the Applicants and its various stakeholders, which was not the case".

The report says about $6 million net was paid to the principals personally. What does the record show?

In short. The report's table shows about $6.0 million of net payments to individuals over five years, which the principals said were reimbursements for business expenses charged to their personal credit cards. The same report "accepts that some payments to the Principals may have been justified as reimbursement". The companies' filed response is that business expense reimbursements account for "approximately $4.4 million of the approximately $6 million", and that the practice "has continued under the oversight of the Monitor, without any objection by the Monitor". The report's line for Mr. Clark is a net $795,518 over five years.

The report says about $7.4 million net was paid to companies owned or controlled by the principals. What does the record show?

In short. The report's table shows $7.44 million of net payments to related corporations over five years. The companies' filed response is that about $6.6 million of the $7.4 million "have previously been explained in writing or are otherwise explained herein": expense reimbursements, an authorized dividend, services rendered, and transfers made to preserve liquidity that were later used for the companies' benefit. The table includes $1.8 million net to the renovation company, which on the companies' evidence carried out about $13.6 million of renovations.

The report says more than $1 million went on expenses that appear personal, including a private jet. What does the record show?

In short. The report's figure is "in excess of $1 million" over the five years from 2019 to January 2024. Its own table puts retail, travel and meals and entertainment at $679,163 of $69,735,563 of disbursements, and a footnote says the $1 million adds "select amounts" from other disbursements. In May 2022 the companies sold 223 homes for $75,850,443, and on the companies' filed response $11,600,519.96 was left for the sellers after the promissory note lenders were repaid. The proceeding began on January 23, 2024, and the Monitor's cash tables show $4,846,000 of professional fees paid through May 31, 2024. The report states that it was not audited.

The report says $11,082,375.97 of the 2022 sale proceeds appears to have been paid to the companies. What does the record show?

In short. The report says the amount "appears to have been paid to the Applicants in the form of promissory notes". The record contains statements made before the report was filed that the money went to the promissory note lenders: by Mr. Clark on April 25, 2024, by another director on May 6, by the broker under oath on May 8, and by the companies in writing on June 10, enclosing the cheques. The report itself quotes the June 10 letter. Mr. Clark's sworn evidence is: "No such funds were paid to the Applicants or their principals in the form of promissory notes."

The report says tens of millions of dollars were not recorded in the companies' ledgers. What does the record show?

In short. The report says "tens of millions of dollars of receipts and disbursements were not recorded in the general ledgers". The same report explains that "in almost all cases, real estate was purchased with funds directed by Windrose to law firms and, as such, these funds were never deposited into and/or disbursed from the Applicants' bank accounts and were therefore not recorded in the general ledgers". The companies' filed response is that they provided "copies of the statements of adjustment and trust ledgers for each of the Applicants' owned properties".

The report says the companies kept borrowing when their solvency was highly questionable. What does the record show?

In short. The report states "serious concerns regarding the continued borrowing from Investors" when solvency "was highly questionable". The same report places the depletion of the 2022 sale proceeds "on or around November 2022". The companies' filed response is that borrowing after that was "on a limited basis and for proper purposes", that three first mortgage loans were obtained in 2023 out of about 390, and that letters of intent from November 2022, August 2023 and October 2023 showing their refinancing efforts were given to the Monitor.

The report says investors appear to have been misled about the use of funds. Who dealt with the investors?

In short. The broker did. The report says the lenders "appear to have been misled as to how the funds they were lending to the Applicants would be used". The same report states that the broker's firms "appear to have been highly integrated into the Applicants' business from the perspective of raising funds". The companies' sworn evidence is that the notes were prepared by the broker's firms and contain no covenants on the use of funds, and that the companies "generally did not deal directly with the Lenders". In December 2025 the broker admitted to fraud, and the settlement records that her statements to investors were "false and misleading".

The report says the companies failed to provide information in a timely manner. What does the record show?

In short. The report says the companies "failed to provide all of the information requested in a timely manner". The same report records that the investigation "involved the review of thousands of documents produced by the Applicants, Investors, the Principals and others", that the Monitor received "numerous documents" from the companies' counsel on May 28, 2024, and that parts of the report "could be subject to revision if further relevant information or documents are provided". The companies' sworn evidence is that they "responded to a significant number of the Monitor's requests, and in doing so, produced thousands of documents".

The report says a significant number of the properties remain uninhabitable. What does the record show?

In short. The report says "a significant number of the Applicants' Properties remain uninhabitable as a result of damage and/or disrepair". The companies' sworn evidence is that the business buys homes "in a state of disrepair" to renovate, that about 207 of 631 units were unrenovated at filing, and that completing them was a purpose of the proceeding. In January 2024 the Monitor told the court the DIP loan would fund the renovation of "98 Properties, comprising 206 vacant units". The next paragraph of the Fourth Report states that 456 units were rented at the date of the report, up from 424.

The report refers to "an extreme lack of business acumen". What does the record show about the business?

In short. The report refers to "practices that exhibit, at best, an extreme lack of business acumen of the Principals". Beside that, the record shows: more than 800 properties acquired, renovated, leased or sold, on the companies' sworn evidence; a sale of 223 homes for $75,850,443 in 2022; the court's description of the group as "one of the largest holders of residential real estate in Ontario"; and, in the first five months of the proceeding, about 90 units renovated on the sworn evidence, with the Fourth Report showing tenanted units up from 424 to 456 and gross monthly rent up from "approximately $500,000" to "approximately $564,000".

The report questions second mortgages, rent deductions, bank transfer labels and sales to related buyers. What did the companies answer?

In short. On second mortgages, the companies' sworn evidence is that nothing suggests the issue extended beyond "three of 407 properties", and that they dealt with the broker and not with the first mortgage lenders. On the January 2024 rent deductions, it is that the deductions "were specifically applied in consultation with, and with the approval of, the Monitor". On the bank label, the response is that the bank applies it to electronic transfers generally. On the sales, it is that the properties "were sold at market value" and the proceeds "were used to pay down debt". The court made no finding either way.

Part 5. Control, cost and outcome

How did control of the companies pass to the Monitor?

In short. By an order made on consent on June 25, 2024, fourteen days after the Fourth Report was filed. The motion was brought by the secured lenders, with the report, in the words of the companies' counsel, as "the principal evidentiary basis", and the Monitor's Tenth Report records that it was "supported by the Monitor". On June 13, 2024 the Monitor's aide memoire stated that the motion "should be heard and determined as soon as possible". On June 24 the court held that the companies were entitled to cross-examine on the evidence put against them. The motions were resolved on consent the next day, and no approval of the Fourth Report was sought.

What happened to the companies' refinancing efforts?

In short. No refinancing closed. The companies entered the proceeding with term sheets of about $70 million and about $89 million. A sale and refinancing process was approved on April 12, 2024, with letters of intent due June 10. The companies' sworn evidence is that the Monitor then informed them that they "will not be permitted to receive copies of the LOIs or participate as Reviewing Parties in the SISP". The Monitor was given the powers of the companies' board on June 25, 2024. About 82 per cent of the portfolio later passed to the mortgage lenders by credit bid.

What did the proceeding cost, and what is projected for the creditors?

In short. From January 2024 to July 2, 2026 the Monitor's account paid $10.09 million of professional fees and $1.99 million of DIP lender interest and fees. On the companies' sworn evidence, $748,502.86 of the loan had been provided for renovations by June 20, 2024. The Monitor projects "approximately $800,000" for creditors beyond the proceeds of their own mortgaged properties, against claims it expects "to exceed $50 million (and may be substantially more)".

Where does the $144 million debt figure come from?

In short. From the companies' first filing in January 2024: about $90.1 million of mortgages and $54.2 million of promissory notes. The Monitor later described the $54.2 million as "the amount initially provided by Ms. Drage", the broker, and reported that a reconciliation "has not been completed". The companies' sworn evidence is that their own reconciliation puts the unsecured debt at "approximately $22.06 million (and not $54.2 million as reflected in the records provided by Windrose and Lion's Share)". The broker admitted to fraud in December 2025.

Part 6. The fraud question

Was anyone found to have committed fraud in this matter?

In short. The broker who raised the investor money. In December 2025 she admitted to fraud in a settlement with the Ontario Securities Commission, and the Capital Markets Tribunal found that "Drage committed a large-scale fraud". In March 2026 the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario imposed $600,000 in penalties. No borrower company was a respondent, and no borrower is named in the settlement. No court or regulator has made a finding of fraud against Mr. Clark or the companies.

The response, item by item · No court finding: the direct answer · The June 2024 report · The Core Sale · The $1 million, in context · Cost of the CCAA · Renovations and rent · Why control passed to the Monitor · Who raised the money · Robby Clark and SID Developments · Questions and answers