The SooToday "Ordered to Give Up Control" Article, and the Record
On July 4, 2024, nine days after the court's order of June 25, 2024, SooToday published an article about the SID companies and Robert (Robby) Clark headlined Insolvent out-of-town landlords ordered to give up control of real estate business. This page sets its main statements, in summary, beside the public record.
Control passed under an order made on consent on June 25, 2024. No court found wrongdoing. The day before, the court had held that the companies "are entitled to test the evidence put against them" by cross-examination. The motions were then resolved on consent without a contested hearing, and the court recorded that "no approval is sought at this time with respect to the Fourth Report or the activities summarized therein".
What the article reports, and what the record shows
| What the article reports | What the record shows |
|---|---|
| The headline says the landlords were ordered to give up control of the real estate business. | The order of June 25, 2024 was made on consent, without a contested hearing. The day before, the court had held that the companies "are entitled to test the evidence put against them" by cross-examination. 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 |
| The Monitor's investigation concluded that the landlords diverted, misused or misappropriated borrowed funds. | 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. 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 25, 2024), para 8 |
| Some of the money went on private jets 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. 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 |
| Lenders have lost confidence in the landlords' management. | The article reports this accurately. On June 25, 2024 the court recorded that the stakeholders, including all of the secured and unsecured lenders, "have lost all confidence in management of the Applicants". The motion to expand the Monitor's powers was brought by the secured lenders, with the Fourth Report, filed two weeks earlier, as "the principal evidentiary basis". The companies consented to the order.Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 25, 2024), paras 2 to 5; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Exhibit O, cover letter |
| The Monitor now has essentially complete control of the business and finances of the 11 corporations. | The order expanded the Monitor's powers so that it would "effectively have the powers which may be properly exercised by a Board of Directors or the officers of the Applicants". The group's management company kept running the homes after the order. A month later the Monitor reported that SID Management "is currently the property manager of the Portfolio", and that during a transition expected to take 60 days SID Management and the incoming manager "will be co-acting as property manager to facilitate a smooth transition".Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 25, 2024), para 6; Sixth Report of the Monitor (Jul 24, 2024), s.2.0 para 2, s.3.2 paras 1, 6 and 7 |
| Lenders took issue with borrowed money being moved among the companies. | 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 |
| The landlords fell $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 two weeks before the order
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
How the Monitor's investigation began
The Monitor's investigation began four months earlier, with the companies' consent. In February 2024 the court recorded that the Monitor's investigation powers were "requested by the Secured Lenders and supported by all other parties".
The companies' sworn evidence is that they consented "in a good-faith effort to address the concerns raised by the Objecting Lenders with the impression that their value accretive renovation efforts could proceed as intended under the Monitor's oversight". Under the same order every payment by the companies required "the prior written consent of the Monitor". By June 20, 2024, $748,502.86 had been provided for renovations.
What the record shows about the five months before the order
The Monitor's reports show that tenanted units rose from 424 to 456 of 631 in the first five months of the proceeding, and that gross monthly rent rose from about $500,000 in January 2024 to about $564,000 in June 2024.
The companies' sworn evidence of June 20, 2024 is that they "did not have access to funds to commence their intended renovations until February 26, 2024", that "only approximately $748,502.86 of the DIP Facility has been provided to the Applicants for renovations", that "The remainder of the renovations have been funded by the Applicants' rental revenue", and that "the Applicants have renovated approximately 90 units to date".
The same sworn evidence states that the lender representatives "have opposed and frustrated various of the Applicants' proposed steps and good faith efforts to find constructive solutions in these CCAA proceedings, often with little to no explanation provided for the basis of their position".
The Monitor's cash table shows $10.09 million of professional fees and $1.99 million of DIP lender interest and fees paid to July 2, 2026.
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 court referred to "the very serious nature of the allegations" and recorded that the stakeholders, including all of the secured and unsecured lenders, "have lost all confidence in management of the Applicants". Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 24, 2024), para 14; Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 25, 2024), para 5
- The motion to expand the Monitor's powers was brought by the secured lenders, and the companies consented to the order. Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Exhibit O, cover letter; Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 25, 2024), paras 2 to 4
- The article reports that the landlords dispute the Monitor's conclusions. SooToday, Jul 4, 2024
- The Monitor said the companies' response letter and motion record "do not change the principal conclusions reached in the Monitor's Fourth Report". Supplement to the Fifth Report (Jun 23, 2024), s.2.0 para 2