Robby Clark and SID Developments: Questions and Answers
Short answers to the questions most often asked about Robert (Robby) Clark, SID Developments and the 2024 insolvency of the group's property companies. Each answer gives its source in the public record, and links to the page that sets it out in full.
Who is Robby Clark?
Robert (Robby) Clark is a former television actor who led SID Developments, an Ontario group that bought, renovated, rented and sold single family homes. The companies' sworn evidence is that the group acquired, renovated, leased or sold more than 800 properties, providing more than 1,200 rental units. In May 2022 the group sold 223 homes for $75,850,443. In January 2024 its property companies sought court protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).
Robby Clark and SID Developments
Is Robby Clark the actor from The Zack Files and Strange Days at Blake Holsey High?
Yes. Before his real estate career Mr. Clark had lead roles in the television series The Zack Files and Strange Days at Blake Holsey High, and received Young Artist Awards in 2001 and 2002.
When did Robby Clark start in real estate?
The Globe and Mail reported in July 2024 that Mr. Clark said he acquired his first property in 2013, a duplex in St. Catharines, Ontario, that he renovated and sold for a profit. A podcast episode page dated November 1, 2019 states that he "bought his first rental property 7 years ago" and was then approaching 200 units. The companies that later sought court protection began borrowing through the broker's firm in 2018.
Robby Clark and SID Developments
Did a court find that Robby Clark misappropriated investor funds?
No. The allegation comes from one document, the Monitor's Fourth Report of June 11, 2024. The report says it "appears" funds were "diverted, misused or misappropriated", and states that the Monitor "has not audited, or otherwise attempted to verify" the financial information. On June 24, 2024 the court held that the companies were entitled to cross-examine on the report. The matter was resolved on consent the next day. The report was never tested, and no approval of it was sought. No court made that finding.
Did the companies oppose the investigation?
No. The investigation was ordered on February 15, 2024. The Globe and Mail reported that the companies' counsel told the court the companies were "pleased to see this investigation taking place" and did not expect it to turn anything up. The Monitor filed its report on June 11, 2024, and has recorded that a draft "was not provided to any party (including the Applicants) prior to it being filed with the Court".
Did the Monitor find that the money for buying and renovating the homes was misused?
No. The Monitor's report concludes: "The funds that were used to purchase and renovate the Applicants' properties do not appear to have been used for an improper purpose." The same paragraph alleges that other funds were diverted to the principals and their corporations, an allegation the companies dispute and that was never tested. The report also "accepts that some payments to the Principals may have been justified as reimbursement" for business purchases made on personal credit cards.
Is a Monitor's report a court ruling?
No. In a CCAA proceeding the Monitor is a court officer that files reports with the court. A report is the Monitor's document. It is not a decision of the court. The Fourth Report was unaudited and was never tested by cross-examination. In each of its first three reports, between January and April 2024, the same Monitor said the companies were "acting in good faith and with due diligence". The Monitor has recorded that a draft of the Fourth Report "was not provided to any party (including the Applicants) prior to it being filed with the Court".
Did Robby Clark spend investor money on private jets?
The Monitor's figure for spending it described as personal is "in excess of $1 million", out of $69.7 million of disbursements it reviewed over five years. That review left out about $81.5 million of mortgage proceeds paid directly to real estate lawyers. Counting both, the figure is about two thirds of 1 per cent of the money that moved through the companies. The report describes the "private jets" item as a payment of $42,174.66 for "a private jet rental": a chartered flight, not an aircraft. It dates that payment and the luxury rentals to three weeks between December 29, 2021 and January 18, 2022, about four months before the companies closed a $75.85 million sale. The companies' response is that the jet payment was miscoded in one company's ledger, and that the expenses of that period were incurred when the companies had significant equity and were current on substantially all interest. No court has ruled on any of it. The percentage is this site's arithmetic.
Was the "lavish lifestyle" footage filmed while the business was failing?
The footage CBC News reported in February 2024 is dated by the article itself: a promotional video posted in March 2022 and a video from 2021. On February 24, 2022 the companies had signed an agreement to sell 223 homes. The sale closed in May 2022 for $75,850,443 and left $11.6 million for the sellers after the lenders were repaid. The companies sought court protection on January 23, 2024, about 22 months after the video was posted.
The CBC article, and the dates
Did the companies owe investors $144 million?
$144 million was the debt figure at filing: about $90.1 million of mortgages and $54.2 million of promissory notes. The Monitor's own pre-filing report put the estimated appraised value of the homes at about $173 million, based on appraisals of about 30 per cent of them. 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' own reconciliation puts the promissory note debt at about $22.06 million. A claims process opened on July 30, 2026 to determine the amount.
The $144 million, and what it leaves out
Who raised the money from investors?
A mortgage broker, Claire Drage, and her companies, including The Lion's Share Group. In a December 2025 settlement with the Ontario Securities Commission she admitted to fraud. The settlement records that the borrowers "had little to no communication with the Investors", and that investors were solicited with statements that were "false and misleading". The Capital Markets Tribunal found that "Drage committed a large-scale fraud". No borrower company was a respondent, and no borrower is named in the settlement.
Where did the $11 million from the 2022 sale go?
The Monitor's report said $11,082,375.97 of the sale proceeds "appears to have been paid to the Applicants in the form of promissory notes". The companies' sworn evidence is that the money repaid promissory notes on the homes that were sold, paid through the broker's firm: "No such funds were paid to the Applicants or their principals in the form of promissory notes." On May 8, 2024, before the report was filed, the broker told the Monitor's counsel under oath that sale funds paid to her firm were "immediately disbursed" to the lenders. No court has decided the point.
Why did the companies hand control to the Monitor in June 2024?
Control passed to the Monitor under a consent order on June 25, 2024. The day before, the court had held that the companies were entitled to cross-examine on the Monitor's report. The motions were then resolved on consent without a contested hearing. No approval of the report was sought, and the consent order ended the companies' obligation to respond to investigation requests. No finding of misappropriation was made.
What did the CCAA cost, and where did the money go?
From January 2024 to July 2, 2026 the Monitor's account paid $10.09 million in professional fees and $1.99 million in DIP lender interest and fees. Through May 31, 2024, professional fees ran at $1.0 million to $1.1 million a month. On the companies' sworn evidence, $748,503 had been provided for renovations by June 20, 2024, against a plan of about $4.1 million; the Monitor then stated that it did not intend to approve any further renovation costs. The Monitor estimates about $800,000 for unsecured creditors. The monthly average is this site's arithmetic.
What happened to the homes?
At filing the companies owned 405 properties with 631 rental units, 424 of them tenanted. Eighty-two per cent of the portfolio passed to the mortgage lenders by credit bid, in exchange for their mortgage claims. Of 74 properties listed for sale, 67 sold for net proceeds of about $9.5 million.
Was the 2022 sale price paid in full?
No. The buyer held back 5 per cent of the price, about $3.8 million, due in May 2023. The Monitor's report states that the holdback "was never paid and may be subject to a future claim". After taking control, the Monitor reported that it "does not have the resources or stakeholder support to pursue it". In July 2025 the court approved the assignment of the claim to the replacement DIP lender.
- The Monitor's Fourth Report says Mr. Clark had an undocumented ownership interest in the companies and described himself as having the "final say" on their decisions. Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.2.3 para 4, s.5.1 para 4
- The Monitor's Fourth Report describes the companies' books and records as incomplete and says many transactions could not be traced. Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.2.3
- On December 6, 2024 the court found the companies' $140M valuation of the portfolio "not credible". Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Dec 6, 2024), paras 10 to 11
- The companies filed for protection with about $144M of funded debt and 207 vacant units. Pre-Filing Report of the Proposed Monitor (Jan 2024), s.2.0