The SID CCAA Record

What Was Reported, and What the Record Shows

Between February 2024 and January 2025 the SID Developments insolvency was covered by The Globe and Mail, CBC News, CTV News, SooToday and others, often under headlines about Robert (Robby) Clark. Most of that coverage reported the contents of one document, the Monitor's Fourth Report of June 11, 2024. This page sets the principal reported claims beside what the court record shows.

Court

The Fourth Report was the Monitor's report, not a decision of the court. It was unaudited, it was never tested by cross-examination, and no approval of it was sought. No court has found that Mr. Clark or the companies misappropriated funds.

Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.3.0 para 3; Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 24, 2024), para 13; Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 25, 2024), paras 2 and 8
What was reportedWhat the record shows
The landlords "misappropriated" investor funds.CBC News, June 2024; CTV News, June 2024; SooToday, June 2024The word comes from the Monitor's Fourth Report, which says it "appears" funds were "diverted, misused or misappropriated". The same report states that the Monitor "has not audited, or otherwise attempted to verify" the financial information. No court made that finding. The court held that the companies were entitled to cross-examine on the report, the matter was resolved on consent the next day, and no approval of the report was sought. Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.2.4 para 6, s.3.0 para 3; Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 24, 2024), para 13; Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 25, 2024), paras 2 and 8
The landlords "flaunted lavish lifestyle as business began to crumble".CBC News, February 2024The footage is from 2021 and March 2022. The filing was in January 2024. The article dates its own material: a promotional video posted "in March 2022" and "a 2021 video". It cites no post from 2023 or 2024. In March 2022 the companies had a signed agreement, dated February 24, 2022, 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' response to the Monitor is that the travel and entertainment of that period were incurred when they anticipated closing that sale, had significant equity and were current on substantially all interest. The Monitor's own report dates the travel and entertainment it itemized to December 2021 and January 2022. The companies sought court protection on January 23, 2024, about 22 months after the video was posted. Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.4.5 para 1 and s.5.3.5 para 2; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Exhibit O, items A.3 and A.12
The companies owe investors more than $144 million.CBC News, June 2024; CTV News, June 2024The $144 million was the figure at filing: about $90.1 million of mortgages and $54.2 million of promissory notes. The Monitor's later reports describe the $54.2 million as "the amount initially provided by Ms. Drage", the broker, and state that a reconciliation "has not been completed". The companies' own reconciliation puts the promissory note debt at about $22.06 million. The broker admitted to fraud in December 2025. A director told the Monitor's counsel in May 2024 that "the SID team had asked regularly for reporting for documents for reconciliation" from the broker's firm, and that "a number of those promissory notes never hit my bank account or any bank account of an applicant".

The debt was reported without the assets. The companies owned more than 400 properties. The Monitor's own pre-filing report put their estimated appraised value at about $173 million, based on appraisals of about 30 per cent of the homes. Before filing the companies had received refinancing term sheets of about $70 million and about $89 million. Rent was about $500,000 a month at filing, and the Monitor told the court that finishing the vacant units was expected to add about $5 million a year in operating cash flow. The portfolio was never tested on the open market: 82 per cent of it passed to the mortgage lenders in exchange for their mortgage claims. Third Report of the Monitor (Apr 2024), s.2.0; Eleventh Report of the Monitor (Feb 20, 2025), s.2; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Clark affidavit para 21(h); OSC Settlement Agreement, Claire Drage et al. (Dec 16, 2025), para 52; Brief of Documents of the Monitor to the Fourth Report, Vol. 4 (Jul 5, 2024), including the interview transcript of a third director (May 6, 2024), transcript qq. 549 and 553; Pre-Filing Report of the Proposed Monitor (Jan 2024), s.2.0 paras 3 to 4; Affidavit of Robert Clark sworn Mar 27, 2024, para 14; First Report of the Monitor (Jan 29, 2024), s.5.2; Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.4.3 para 3; Thirteenth Report of the Monitor (Jul 21, 2025), s.3.1
More than $1 million went on private jets, luxury travel and nightclubs.CBC News, June 2024; CTV News, June 2024; The Globe and Mail, July 2024The Monitor's figure is "in excess of $1 million" out of $69.7 million of disbursements it reviewed over five years. That review left out the roughly $81.5 million of mortgage proceeds paid directly to real estate lawyers. Counting both, more than $151 million moved through the companies, and the figure is about two thirds of 1 per cent of it. In the same period the companies also completed the Core Sale, a sale of 223 properties priced at $75.85 million. The "private jets" item is put in perspective by the report itself: it describes a payment of $42,174.66 as "a private jet rental". That is a chartered flight, not an aircraft.

The timing: four months before a $75.85 million sale. The report dates the jet rental and the luxury rentals to a three week window between December 29, 2021 and January 18, 2022. The Core Sale closed in or around May 2022 and left $11.6 million for the sellers after the lenders were repaid. The companies' evidence is that the expenses were incurred when they anticipated closing that sale, had significant equity and were current on substantially all interest. Their response is also that the private jet payment was miscoded in one company's ledger, and that management generally took no salary.

The Monitor and its counsel billed more in two months than the $1 million figure covers over five years. Their accounts for April and May 2024 alone total $1.58 million before tax. The Monitor's law firm by itself charged $1.12 million of that, or $1.27 million with tax, in those two months. Over the four months from April through July 2024, the period of the investigation and the change of control, the two firms billed $2.72 million before tax. The most expensive month was June 2024, the month of the Fourth Report and the change of control: the Monitor's counsel billed 841.8 hours and $650,523.50 in fees, $737,398.86 with tax, and the Monitor billed $204,575.13 with tax. Those are two firms. Counting every firm paid from the Monitor's account, $3.5 million of professional fees had been paid by June 14, 2024, less than five months into the proceeding, and a further $1.35 million was paid in the 38 days that followed, to July 22, 2024. Only the Monitor and its counsel file their accounts; no report states what each of the other firms was paid. The Monitor's own table shows that the companies paid $756,000 in professional fees over the five years it reviewed. By July 2026 at least $12.1 million had been paid to professionals and DIP lenders from the Monitor's account, more than twelve times the figure, with a further $4.9 million of disbursements not itemized. Over the same proceeding $748,503 reached renovations, against a renovation plan of about $4.1 million that the Monitor had told the court would add about $5 million a year in operating cash flow. Sixth Report of the Monitor (Jul 24, 2024), s.7.0 para 1 and fee affidavit of counsel, para 2; Seventh Report of the Monitor (Aug 23, 2024), professional fees section, para 2, and the June 2024 invoices in the fee affidavits; Fifth Report of the Monitor (Jun 17, 2024), s.6.0; Sixth Report of the Monitor (Jul 24, 2024), s.4.0; Fifteenth Report of the Monitor (Jul 21, 2026), s.9.0; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Clark affidavit para 33; First Report of the Monitor (Jan 29, 2024), s.5.2

The Core Sale alone left more than ten times that amount. After the lenders were repaid, the vendors' counsel's trust ledger shows $11.6 million for the sellers. The Monitor's own report says those proceeds were not depleted until about November 2022, and the broker told the Monitor's counsel that funds were kept in the businesses to support a refinancing. The Fourth Report's own appendix shows the companies owing money to five of the related entities, not the reverse, and one director put $350,000 of personal funds into the business. Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.2.1 para 3 and note 4, s.2.5 para 1, s.4.5 para 1, s.5.3.2 para 9, s.5.3.5 para 2 and Appendix 2; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Exhibit O, items A.1, A.3, A.7 and A.12; 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. 176 to 183; Sixth Report of the Monitor (Jul 24, 2024), s.7.0
Millions were paid to the directors and their companies: figures of about $20 million and $21 million were reported, including close to $1 million to Mr. Clark.CBC News, June 2024; The Globe and Mail, July 2024The Monitor's own analysis nets the related party figure to $13.4 million, and its net figure for Mr. Clark is about $795,000 over five years. The companies' evidence is that about $4.4 million of the roughly $6 million paid to the four principals reimbursed business expenses charged to personal cards, a practice that continued under the Monitor's oversight without objection, and that a further $1.1 million or so was authorized dividends and card expenses for one company. The Monitor's report accepts that purchases at Home Depot and from contractors "may be legitimate business expenses".

Dividends paid out of sale proceeds are not investor money. The dividends were declared after the Core Sale, from what was left once the lenders had been repaid. The broker told the Monitor's counsel that where a company had repaid its lenders there was "no requirement for me to question what they did with the rest of their money". Management took no salary and charged no asset management fee, which on the companies' evidence would have cost significantly more than what was paid. The Fourth Report's own appendix shows the companies owing money to five of the related entities. Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.2.5 paras 1 and 2, s.5.2 para 6 and Appendix 2; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Exhibit O, items A.1, A.3, A.4 and A.5; 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 q. 188
About $3.6 million was spent on renovations and utilities against $24.6 million on interest.The Globe and Mail, July 2024The companies' sworn evidence is that about $13.6 million was spent on renovations, including the homes sold in the Core Sale, and a summary of that figure was delivered to the Monitor. The $24.7 million of debt service in the Monitor's analysis is money paid to the lenders.

About $3.8 million of the Core Sale price was held back by the buyer and, on the Monitor's own report, never paid. The sale price of $75,850,443 was "subject to a 5% withholding for a period of 12 months". Five per cent of that price is about $3.8 million. The Monitor reported in June 2024 that the holdback "was never paid and may be subject to a future claim". A director had told the Monitor's counsel on May 6, 2024 that it "was supposed to be released" the previous May "and it wasn't", and that it was "more than enough to complete the renovations outstanding on the properties". The Monitor took control of the companies in June 2024. In May 2025 it filed a notice of action against the buyer to preserve the claim, reported that it "does not have the resources or stakeholder support to pursue it", and agreed to assign the claim to the replacement DIP lender. The court approved the assignment on July 28, 2025 on an unopposed motion, recording that the Monitor "lacks the resources or stakeholder input to support pursuing it". Under the agreement, recoveries go first to that lender's costs and to "up to $1 million" of promissory note debt owed to it by the broker's firm, The Lion's Share Group, and only then to the companies' unsecured creditors. Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.4.5 paras 1 and 2; Brief of Documents of the Monitor to the Fourth Report, Vol. 4 (Jul 5, 2024), including the interview transcript of a third director (May 6, 2024), transcript q. 72; Thirteenth Report of the Monitor (Jul 21, 2025), s.4 paras 1 to 7; Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jul 28, 2025), paras 5 to 8

What $748,503 of renovation money produced. In January 2024 the Monitor told the court that the DIP loan would fund the renovation of 98 properties comprising 206 vacant units, and that this was expected to add about $5 million a year in operating cash flow. On the Monitor's own figures that is about $24,000 a year for each unit finished, against a renovation budget of about $4.1 million, or about $20,000 a unit. Of that budget, $748,502.86 was provided. The companies' sworn evidence is that they nonetheless renovated approximately 90 units by June 20, 2024, funding the balance from rent, and could have completed all remaining units by the end of August 2024. The Monitor's own reports show tenanted units rising from 424 at filing to 456 by July 2024. In June 2024 the Monitor recorded that it "does not intend approving any additional renovation costs". First Report of the Monitor (Jan 29, 2024), s.5.2 and s.5.3; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Clark affidavit paras 33 and 34 and notes 2 and 3; Pre-Filing Report of the Proposed Monitor (Jan 2024), s.2.0 para 3; Sixth Report of the Monitor (Jul 24, 2024), s.2.0 para 2; Fifth Report of the Monitor (Jun 17, 2024), Appendix D, note 4; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Clark affidavit para 72(a)(ii); Exhibit O, item A.1 and Schedule A; Fourth Report of the Monitor, redacted (Jun 11, 2024), s.2.5 para 1
The Core Sale produced up to $22 million for the group, and $11 million was said by the directors to have paid down notes.The Globe and Mail, July 2024The $22.68 million is the line on the vendors' counsel's trust ledger labelled "Disbursements Before Promissory Notes". The broker told the Monitor's counsel under oath on May 8, 2024 that Core Sale funds paid to her firm were "immediately disbursed" to the lenders. After those repayments the ledger shows $11.6 million for all of the sellers, of which $2.7 million was due to the companies in the proceeding. 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; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Exhibit O, item A.12
The directors had not provided receipts for the spending or the transfers between companies.The Globe and Mail, July 2024The companies' evidence is that personal credit card statements were delivered on March 15, 2024, invoices for $827,233 of renovation company payments on May 28, 2024, and a "significant representative sample of receipts" on June 19, 2024. In its supplement of June 23, 2024 the Monitor acknowledged receiving additional materials. Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Exhibit O, items A.1, A.4 and A.5; Supplement to the Fifth Report (Jun 23, 2024), s.2.0 para 2
Investors were not told how their money was being used.CBC News, June 2024; CTV News, June 2024The companies did not raise the money or deal with the investors. The broker's firms prepared the notes and the investor materials and communicated with the lenders. The Monitor interviewed no lender. The Ontario Securities Commission settlement records that the broker's statements to investors were "false and misleading" and that the borrowers "had little to no communication with the Investors". No borrower was a respondent.

The companies did not write the investor materials. On April 26, 2024 the Monitor's counsel showed a director one of the broker's investor documents. The answer: "I have never personally seen this document". On how the broker's firm raised the money and what documents it gave lenders: "we had nothing to do with that". Asked whether the companies had ever given the broker's firm a balance sheet or financial statement, the director answered: "No, it was never requested." A third director told the Monitor's counsel on May 6, 2024: "I didn't have any direct communication with the lenders. Everything went through Windrose." On the broker's investor documents, the same director said: "That's not our business. That was their business." Monitor's Brief of Documents to the Fourth Report, Vol. 2 (Jul 5, 2024), including the interview transcript of a second director (Apr 26, 2024), transcript qq. 174 and 193; Brief of Documents of the Monitor to the Fourth Report, Vol. 4 (Jul 5, 2024), including the interview transcript of a third director (May 6, 2024), transcript qq. 55 and 326; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Exhibit O, item A.8; OSC Settlement Agreement, Claire Drage et al. (Dec 16, 2025), paras 17, 39 and 52
Loans were renewed on a house that had burned down and on a property already sold.Reported in coverage of the Fourth Report, June and July 2024The 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 landlords were ordered to give up control, or handed it over, after the allegations.SooToday, June 2024; Weekly Real Estate News, July 2024The order of June 25, 2024 was made on consent. The day before, the court had held that the companies were entitled to test the Monitor's report by cross-examination. One trade publication's headline used the words "investor fraud". No court or regulator has made a finding of fraud against Mr. Clark or the companies. The fraud admitted in this matter was the broker's.

The investigation began with the companies' consent, given on an understanding. 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", and that they "were subsequently advised that the Secured Lenders would not support the retention of estate funded, independent counsel" for the individuals under investigation. 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. Endorsement of Justice Kimmel (Feb 15, 2024), para 10; Motion Record of the Applicants (Jun 20, 2024), including the affidavit of Robert Clark, Clark affidavit paras 18(d)(i), 24(a) and 33

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". The replacement's fee schedule, attached to the Monitor's report, was 6 per cent of rent collected, plus $150 a month for every vacant home, one month's rent to a realtor and a further $500 for each unit leased, $50 for each property inspection, up to 6 per cent of the value of capital projects, and advertising, courier and travel costs. The same report counts 175 of the 631 rental units as unoccupied. Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 24, 2024), para 13; Endorsement of Justice Osborne (Jun 25, 2024), paras 2 to 8; OSC Settlement Agreement, Claire Drage et al. (Dec 16, 2025), para 52; Sixth Report of the Monitor (Jul 24, 2024), s.2.0 para 2, s.3.2 paras 1, 6 and 7 and Appendix C, Schedule C

Article by article

What the coverage could not include

Regulator

Most of the coverage dates from 2024. On December 16, 2025 the broker who raised the investor money admitted to fraud in a settlement with the Ontario Securities Commission, and in January 2026 the tribunal stated that she "committed a large-scale fraud".

OSC Settlement Agreement, Claire Drage et al. (Dec 16, 2025), para 52; Capital Markets Tribunal reasons, 2026 ONCMT 1 (Jan 16, 2026), para 8
Filed record

The transcript of the broker's May 8, 2024 interview with the Monitor's counsel, in which she describes the Core Sale funds going to the lenders, was filed by the Monitor in a document brief dated July 5, 2024, after the first reports had run.

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
Monitor's report

By July 2026 at least $12.1 million had been paid to professionals and DIP lenders from the Monitor's account, and the Monitor projected about $800,000 for creditors beyond the proceeds of their own mortgaged properties.

Fifteenth Report of the Monitor (Jul 21, 2026), s.5.0 and s.9.0
In fairness to the reporting