DETAILED TIMELINE OF MAJOR EVENTS
See Links Above for More Information

GOVERNING DOCUMENTS

ORIGINAL METAXIDES LAWSUIT (2006)

CONSENT ORDER (2009)

COLLINS LAWSUIT (2009)

APPLICATION FOR JOINDER (2010)

LAWSUIT AGAINST CONSENT ORDER (2010)

INJUNCTIVE ORDER (2010)

COUNTERCLAIMS (2011)

APPEAL OF JUDGMENT (2012-2013)

SECURITY OF COSTS OF APPEAL (2012)

APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL (2013)

Q: WHAT IS THE CURRENT LITIGATION ABOUT?
A:  The Consent Order signed by the BOD and Mr. Metaxides in June, 2009, and later amended in March, 2010 is being challenged.  We are seeking to have the Consent Order declared illegal and removed from the record.  We are also seeking to have the $25,000 illegally given to Metaxides in the Consent Order returned to the owners.

Q: WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE LITIGATION?
A:  All litigation against Silver Point has ended.  On May 2, 2013, the Court of Appeals, by unanimous decision of the 3-judge panel, ruled against Silver Point and Metaxides and in favor of the Appellants, and Ordering SPCA and Metaxides to pay all the Appellants' legal fees.  Fees will be due and payable upon the completion of taxation, scheduled for May, 2014.

The BoD has now decided to initiate new litigation by filing an Appeal with the Privy Council.  This matter is expected to take 1-2 years, and costs continue to accumulate.  Unless the owners direct the BoD to end the litigation and withdraw the Appeal, the matter will proceed to Privy Council, where if awarded to the Respondents (the original Plaintiffs), all costs will be paid by SPCA and the matter will be finalized.  If SPCA wins, the matter will go back to the Court of Appeal, to argue point #2 out of 34, and litigation will continue for years to come.

Q: WHY IS THE CONSENT ORDER BEING CHALLENGED?
A:  The Consent Order creates new rules for the community that are contrary to established law, contrary to the Declaration, Act, and Byelaws, and creates them in a way that removes governance of Silver Point and puts it in the hands of a minority of unit owners and the courts.  This is contrary to the Declaration and creates a situation where any unit owner can just conspire with the Board and walk away with a sweetheart deal of whatever he wants, rather than confirming with the requirements of the Declaration.  The rules and regulations passed by resolution can now be permanently altered or added to by simple agreement between a few unit owners instead of by the majority.  Worse yet, their whims are superior even to a 100% vote of the unit owners. 

In addition, the BOD did not have the authority to settle the Metaxides action, and breached their fiduciary duty to the condominium by not consulting with either owners, the committee assigned to negotiate a settlement, or Silver Point counsel prior to the signing, or by gaining owner approval to spend over $20,000, as is required by longstanding resolution in the community.

Q: BUT I THOUGHT THIS WAS ABOUT WINDOW COLOR?
A: This has been propogated by the BOD and Metaxides in order to garner support where none would be had if the truth were known, but the action is, and always has been, about the law, governance of the condominium and owners rights.  Windows are just one symptom of the greater disease.

Q: BUT I HEARD YOU JUST DIDN'T WANT TO COMPLY WITH THE DECLARATION.
A: To the contrary, we are seeking to force the Board of Directors to comply with the Declaration. The Board has violated the rights of every unit owner, current and future, and we are seeking to set things right.  A Consent Order has nothing to do with enforcing the Declaration.  It is merely an agreement between two parties and cannot be used to affect the rights of a third party.  This is simply a red herring that has been used for political purposes.

Q: I HAVE BRONZE WINDOWS, HOW DOES THIS AFFECT ME?
A: Your property rights have been permanently altered by the Consent Order in many more ways than just windows.  The management and legal authority you had to control your own investment has been removed.  Resolutions passed at general meetings are now pointless, even by a unanimous vote.  The Consent Order can only be altered by an action of the Supreme Court.  If we do not remove the Consent Order from the record, and endless stream of litigation for years to come would surely result which is bad for everyone.

Q: I HAVE WHITE WINDOWS, WHAT DO I NEED TO DO?
A: Nothing.  There is no authority for the BOD to force any owner to change back to bronze windows after acquiescing, encouraging and installing white windows for so many years.  Contact us for more information.

Q: BUT DON'T ALL THE WINDOWS NEED TO BE BRONZE?
A: After more than 20 years of changes to the building, countless resolutions to authorize changes, through multiple ownership, all owners who have made changes of any kind have developed equitable rights to their changes.  The Board can't authorize and encourage changes and then go back years later and demand they be removed at the owners expense.  This is illegal, and any owner has a right to defend themselves against it.  Nor can they cherry pick windows out of all the changes that have been made.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Q: IS THE BOARD JUST SEEKING TO ENFORCE THE DECLARATION?
A: No. The Consent Order sought to have windows and doors declared as common property, which means the Board of Directors is responsible for maintenance and costs.  This also removed 15(2)(b) from the equation, as that deals only with owner's property and not the common property.  The enforcing 15(2)(b) argument has been manufactured to fit the facts after the judge ruled that windows and doors were not common property, and you cannot enforce the Declaration by Consent Order.

Q: WHO WILL HAVE TO PAY THE COSTS FOR ALL THIS LEGAL ACTION?
A:  Silver Point and Mr. Metaxides will have to pay the costs of the counterclaims, both for their attorneys and Callender's & Co (the plaintiff's attorney).  That has already been decided.  If the plaintiffs are successful, then either Silver Point and Mr. Metaxides will share the costs, or the judge may direct that the individual Board Members will be personally liable for the costs of the action.  If we are unsuccessful, then the plaintiffs will pay all costs.  Owners should prepare for a special assessment regardless of the outcome.

Q: WHAT HAPPENS IF THE CONSENT ORDER IS SET ASIDE?
A: It will be struck from the record and governance of Silver Point will be returned to the owners once again.  The BOD can then choose to recover the legal fees from Mr. Metaxides that were gifted to him by the Consent Order. Any owner who has suffered financial loss due to the Consent Order can demand reimbursement from Silver Point, or demand to have their property returned to its prior condition.  If owners suffer significant financial loss due to the BOD's actions, they (or the association) can sue the BOD members for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and recover damages.

Q: I THOUGHT THAT SILVER POINT WON?
A: While a judgment was issued by Justice Longley on March 16, 2012, in favor of SPCA and Metaxides, this judgment was then Appealed, and overturned by unanimous ruling of the 3-judge Court of Appeal.  It is now being appealed to the Privy Council in England, which is the highest court in the land (like the Supreme Court in the US).

Q: WHAT WAS THE EFFECT OF THE RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEAL?
A:  The judgment of Longley J. was overturned, and all legal fees to date were awarded to the Appellants.  The Consent Order has been set aside (removed from the record), owners rights and governance of the Condominium have been restored, and the original Metaxides action was declared a nullity from inception, meaning all litigation against Silver Point has ended.  Silver Point owners and Metaxides will need to pay not only the attorney fees for their own attorneys, but the legal fees of Callender's & Co. as well.  Metaxides must repay the $25,000 of owners' money that he was gifted in the Consent Order, and SPCA can (and should) pursue him for additional costs including the legal fees incurred in the original action and in this one, and the individual Directors for causing the owners unauthorized financial harm.

Q: I DIDN'T AUTHORIZE THIS ACTION, WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT?
A: According to the BoD, the majority of owners have supported the BoD in this action, either openly by voting for them to remain in power and giving them proxies at AGMs, or tacitly by not voting in AGMs, not objecting to their actions, and not calling an EGM to remove them from the BoD.  The BoD has stated their policy that if owners keep electing them, and don't throw them out, then the owners are deemed to have "approved" of their actions, and owners have continued to elect them and allow them to remain on the Board.

In a condominium, decisions of the BoD are binding on all unit owners, if they are legal.  We maintain these actions have not been legal, but to prove that and recover funds from the offending BoD members will require a separate action, brought by SPCA against the Directors and/or Metaxides.  Unless that happens, all owners must pay for the choices of the BoD, and for the "approval" (openly or tacitly) by the majority of owners.

Q: IF SPCA WINS IN PRIVY COUNCIL, THEN I WON'T HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING, RIGHT?
A: There is no Stay in place, so costs for the Supreme Court Trial, Injunction, Counterclaims and Appeal have already been filed with the Registrar.  At the completion of taxation, these costs will become due and payable, regardless of Privy Council.  If SPCA wins at Privy Council, they will not need to pay the costs of Privy Council, and (except for the Counterclaims) the costs will be repaid.  The remaining 33 points of Appeal will then be heard, and any one of those being upheld will result in still more costs, and owners having to repay the costs of the Appellants one more time, plus more.

MORE INFORMATION

Anything you don't see, you are always welcome to ask us.