Decision in brief: Go-To Developments Holdings Inc., Enforcement Proceeding, Sanctions and Costs, March 6, 2026

In an earlier decision, the Tribunal decided that Oscar Furtado and the companies he controlled, Furtado Holdings, Go-To Developments Holdings, and Go-To Spadina Adelaide Square, defrauded investors in his real estate development business. The Tribunal also decided that Furtado misled OSC staff when they questioned him during their investigation.

This decision explains what sanctions and costs the Tribunal ordered against the respondents.

The Tribunal decided that the respondents cannot participate in the capital markets for 10 years. The fraud was serious, but it was not among the most serious cases the Tribunal has seen, and it did not involve improper trading. Because of this, the Tribunal also decided that Furtado should be allowed to access his registered savings accounts.

Furtado and his companies must jointly disgorge (give up to the Commission) the money they raised from investors: $22,200,000. The investors’ money was used in ways they were never told about, which exposed their investments to risks they did not agree to. This amount does not include the money that had already been returned to investors.

Because of concerns about how Furtado ran his companies, a receiver (a court‑appointed manager) is now responsible for protecting the companies’ money and property. The disgorgement amount does not reflect any money that might be returned to investors by the receiver in the future, because it’s uncertain.

Furtado must also pay an administrative penalty of $1 million: $750,000 for the frauds and $250,000 for misleading the OSC. The penalty is appropriate because Furtado intended, planned and expected to benefit from the fraud and has not taken responsibility for his actions.

Furtado Holdings, Go-To Developments, and Go-To Spadina must also pay administrative penalties of $200,000 each because of their roles in the frauds. These amounts are significantly lower than Furtado’s because the companies acted under his direction.

Finally, the Tribunal decided that Furtado and his companies must jointly pay $638,613.85 in costs to the Commission. The Tribunal reduced the amount the OSC asked for by 50%. While the investigation was complex, the OSC was not completely successful in proving its allegations. Very large cost awards should be reserved for cases that involve many more hearing days than this one.