The SooToday "Used Investors' Cash" Article, and the Record
On June 19, 2024, eight days after the Monitor filed its Fourth Report, SooToday published an article about the SID companies and Robert (Robby) Clark headlined Insolvent landlords with $144M debt used investors' cash on 'extravagant' expenses, report claims. The article reports the companies' statement disputing the report. This page sets its main statements, in summary, beside the public record.
The report the article describes is the Monitor's report, not a finding of the court. It was unaudited, it was not tested in court, and no approval of it was sought. No court has found that Mr. Clark or the companies misappropriated funds.
What the article reports, and what the record shows
| What the article reports | What the record shows |
|---|---|
| The headline says the landlords used investors' cash on extravagant expenses, "report claims". | The report is the Monitor's Fourth Report of June 11, 2024. It is a document the Monitor filed with the court, not a decision of the court. 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 "in a manner that complies with Canadian Auditing Standards". The same report states that the funds used to purchase and renovate the 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 June 24, 2024 the court held that the companies were entitled to cross-examine on the evidence put against them. The matter was resolved on consent the next day. The report was not tested in court, and no approval of it was sought.Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.2.4 para 6, s.3.0 para 3 and s.7.0 paras 2 and 3; Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 24, 2024), para 13; Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 25, 2024), paras 2 and 8 |
| Millions of dollars of investors' money went on luxury items and extravagant expenses, including private jet travel and luxury hotels. | The Monitor's figure is "in excess of $1 million", out of $69.7 million of disbursements it reviewed over five years. That review did not include 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 "private jets" item is a payment of $42,174.66 that the report describes as "a private jet rental". The report dates the jet rental 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. Further down, the article itself gives the report's figure of more than $1 million, and reports the companies' statement that the spending related to company retreats and capital raising and was a very small part of overall expenses. The percentage is this site's arithmetic.Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.2.1 para 3 and note 4, s.2.5 para 1, s.5.3.2 para 9 and s.5.3.5 paras 2 and 4; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Exhibit O, items A.3 and A.12; SooToday, Jun 19, 2024 |
| The corporations entered bankruptcy protection after falling $144 million into debt. | The companies applied for protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act on January 23, 2024. A CCAA proceeding is a court-supervised restructuring, not a bankruptcy. $144 million was the debt figure at filing: about $90.1 million of mortgages and $54.2 million of promissory notes. The Monitor's pre-filing report put the estimated appraised value of the homes at about $173 million. 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.Endorsement of Justice Kimmel, Jan 23, 2024; Third Report of the Monitor (Apr 2024), s.2.0; Pre-Filing Report of the Proposed Monitor (Jan 2024), s.2.0 paras 3 to 4; Eleventh Report of the Monitor (Feb 20, 2025), s.2 para 3; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Clark affidavit para 21(h) |
| The report claims the landlords diverted, misused or misappropriated funds borrowed from investors. | The companies' filed response is that all or substantially all of the first mortgage proceeds, about $81.5 million, went to acquire the properties and "were never available for any other use", that about $16.8 million of promissory note proceeds went to closing costs and other payments, and that about $13.6 million was spent on renovations. The Monitor's table shows $24.7 million of debt service paid through the companies' bank accounts over the five years. Where the money went.Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Exhibit O, item A.1; Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.2.5 para 1 |
| The Monitor said the funds used to buy and renovate the properties do not appear to have been used improperly. | The article reports this accurately. It is the report's conclusion: "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 goes on to allege that significant funds were regularly diverted to the principals and their corporations.Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.7.0 para 2 |
| More than $12 million moved among the 11 corporations, apparently without adequate disclosure to investors. | The companies' sworn evidence is that the applicants "operate collectively as an integrated company", that the notes carried no restrictions on the use of funds, and that the companies did not deal with the lenders directly: the broker's firms prepared the notes and the marketing.Application Record, Vol. 1, including the first affidavit of Robert Clark (Jan 23, 2024), first affidavit para 17; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Clark affidavit para 72(b)(i) and (v); Factum of the Applicants (Jun 23, 2024), para 5 |
| Millions of dollars were transferred to the landlords personally. | The companies' filed response puts net payments to the four principals at about $6 million, and states that about $4.4 million of that reimbursed business expenses incurred on the companies' behalf. The Monitor's report accepts that some payments to the principals "may have been justified as reimbursement" for business purchases made on personal credit cards. The article itself reports the companies' statement that most of the payments were reimbursements for business expenses such as renovations and utilities.Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Exhibit O, items A.1 and A.5; Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.7.0 para 3; SooToday, Jun 19, 2024 |
| The landlords kept borrowing and renewing loans when they knew or should have known they could not repay them. | The companies' sworn evidence at filing is that the group "began exploring refinancing and sale opportunities in early 2022", and that its financing efforts were "hampered by the Bank of Canada's repeated interest rate increases commencing in March 2022 and falling home prices". In May 2022 the companies closed the sale of 223 homes for $75,850,443, which left $11.6 million for the sellers after the lenders were repaid.Application Record, Vol. 1, including the first affidavit of Robert Clark (Jan 23, 2024), first affidavit paras 10 and 102; Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.4.5 para 1; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Exhibit O, item A.12 |
| Loans were renewed on a property that had already been sold and on one that had burned down. | The companies' response is that these were renewals of existing notes, prepared by the broker's firm and sent for signature, that they produced no new money, and that the broker's firm had been told of the fire and had access to a live record of property sales.Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Exhibit O, items B.8 and B.9 |
| The investigation needed significant additional professional resources. | In April and May 2024, the two months before the report was filed, the Monitor and its counsel billed $1.58 million before tax. Professional fees in the proceeding reached $10.09 million by July 2, 2026.Sixth Report of the Monitor (Jul 24, 2024), s.7.0 para 1 and fee affidavit of counsel, para 2; Fifteenth Report of the Monitor (Jul 21, 2026), s.9.0 |
The two weeks after the report, and since
The Monitor files its Fourth Report. The report states that the Monitor "has not audited, or otherwise attempted to verify" the financial information "in a manner that complies with Canadian Auditing Standards". Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.3.0 para 3
The secured lenders' motion to expand the Monitor's powers is scheduled, with the Fourth Report as "the principal evidentiary basis". Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Exhibit O, cover letter
CBC News, SooToday and CTV News report the report's allegations. CBC News, Jun 14, 2024; SooToday, Jun 19, 2024; CTV News, Jun 19, 2024
The companies send the Monitor a letter identifying more than 30 issues with the report and ask for a revised report. Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Clark affidavit para 70, Exhibit O
The companies file sworn evidence in response. Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Clark affidavit para 72
The Monitor files a supplement. It records that a draft of the Fourth Report "was not provided to any party (including the Applicants) prior to it being filed with the Court", and says the companies' materials "do not change the principal conclusions" of the report. No revised report is issued. Supplement to the Fifth Report (Jun 23, 2024), s.2.0 paras 1 and 2
The court holds that the companies "are entitled to test the evidence put against them" by cross-examination. Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 24, 2024), para 13
The motions are resolved on consent without a contested hearing. No approval of the Fourth Report is sought. The report is not tested in court. Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 25, 2024), paras 2 and 8
The broker who raised the investor money admits to fraud before the Ontario Securities Commission. OSC Settlement Agreement, Claire Drage et al. (Dec 16, 2025), para 52
The coverage, article by article · No court finding: the direct answer · Why control passed to the Monitor · Where the money went · The response, item by item · Questions and answers
- The article accurately reports what the Monitor's report alleged. The report alleges that significant funds were regularly diverted to the principals and their corporations. Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.7.0 para 2
- The article reports the companies' response: a spokesperson's statement, and that the principals dispute the report. SooToday, Jun 19, 2024
- The Monitor's supplement of June 23, 2024 says the additional materials it received "do not change the principal conclusions" of the report. Supplement to the Fifth Report (Jun 23, 2024), s.2.0 para 2
- 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