Toronto mortgage broker Sandy Sussman is facing allegations of fraud after raising more than $100 million from investors in Ontario cottage country mortgages, with a court-appointed receiver estimating that most of the money may be gone.
Sandy Sussman, a Toronto businessman and longtime mortgage broker, is at the center of an alleged $100 million mortgage fraud scheme tied to Ontario’s cottage country real estate market.
For years, Sussman attracted investors with promises of high returns on syndicated mortgages secured by properties in the Barrie and Muskoka regions, sometimes referred to as the “Hamptons of Canada.” Court filings allege that much of the money he raised was never lent out, and instead payments to earlier investors were financed by new contributions.
Ontario’s financial services regulator initiated a receivership proceeding earlier this year after Sussman stopped making principal and interest payments. A court-appointed receiver now estimates more than 60 percent of the investors’ money has vanished, leaving victims to divide what remains of the real estate assets tied to his business.
The allegations describe practices resembling a Ponzi scheme. Investors say Sussman leveraged community ties to win their trust, with many investing without proper documentation. Lawsuits filed against him accuse him of misappropriating loan payments, and a judge has already granted an asset freeze. In a deposition, Sussman admitted to signing documents under pressure in an effort to keep his business afloat.
The collapse has shaken Toronto’s real estate community, with investors ranging from senior lawyers to private equity executives and personal acquaintances. It also highlights broader risks in Canada’s housing market, where rising interest rates and declining home prices have exposed fraudulent or unsustainable investment schemes.
Sussman has denied wrongdoing in court filings and says he has no significant personal assets left. Investors now face potentially devastating losses as they await further proceedings in the receivership case.
