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)

Summary of Supreme Court Action:

Pre-Action Letters are sent to all members of the Board of Directors, and all Unit Owners, stating where the Consent Order is illegal, and urging the BoD to come to the table to negotiate, saving the time and cost of a court action.  The letters are ignored, and receive no response.

Left with no alternative to protect the Declaration of Condominium, Owners Rights and Governance of Silver Point, on November 25, 2013, four unit owners file a lawsuit to have the Consent Order stricken from the record. 

The Plaintiffs advise all owners of the suit, and send a letter to the BoD requesting them to voluntarily not enforce the Consent Order until the matter can be heard, in order to save the very significant costs of an injunction.  This request too is ignored with no response, and the Plaintiffs have to proceed to file an injunction.  After 4 days of costly hearings, the BoD ultimately agrees to the very terms originally requested by the Plaintiffs.  In light of such irresponsible use of owners' money, the Plaintiffs amend their action to request that the BoD members responsible for these actions are made to pay the associated costs, rather than the owners. 

The BoD and Metaxides then incur a great deal more costs by filing counterclaims against the Plaintiffs, which are denied, and costs awarded to the Plaintiffs.  This sparks an outrage among some BoD members who were not informed of the counterclaims, and three more BoD members resign in protest over the conduct of the other four original members.

Ultimately, the trial takes place over 4 days, and on March 16, 2012, Justice Longley J. issues a ruling in favor of the Defendants, costs to be paid by the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs Appeal, and the Court of Appeals issues a unanimous verdict of the 3-judge panel against Silver Point and Metaxides, overturning the Longley ruling, and Orders all costs of litigation to be paid by Silver Point and Metaxides.

Robert Adams to Brian Cromwell: Consent Order Illegal - May 11, 2010
Silver Point's attorney, Robert Adams, informs Brian Cromwell that the Consent Order does not comply with the law, and states that he had no knowledge of any Consent Order.  This advice is not shared with the unit owners.

Brian Cromwell to Robert Adams: Disputes the Legal Advice - May 12, 2010
Mr. Cromwell disputes Robert Adams' advice and states he did not need to inform Mr. Adams that he was being disengaged as Silver Point counsel in the Metaxides action.

Robert Adams to Brian Cromwell: Amended Consent Order Illegal - May 13, 2010
Mr. Adams informs Brian Cromwell that the Amended Consent Order also does not comply with the law.  This advice is again not shared with the unit owners.

Pre-Action Letter Sent to All Owners - June 14, 2010
Letter details the pending legal action against Silver Point, Callender's Legal Opinion as to the invalidity of the Consent Order, and plans to contact the Board of Directors and Mr. Metaxides to seek a settlement and save the significant legal costs of litigation.

Pre-Action Letters Sent to all Interested Parties - July 19, 2010
Letters are sent to all of the following parties, notifying them of the claim against them, detailing how the Consent Order is illegal, and requesting negotiation to avoid further legal costs.  All Silver Point owners are copied on the letters.  No response is received to any of the letters or offers for negotiation and settlement, so the matter proceeds to litigation despite the advice of Silver Point's attorney, Robert Adams that the Consent Order is Illegal (see above).

Letters Sent To:

Originating Summons Filed - November 25, 2010
A lawsuit is filed by four owners - Johann Swart, Larry Biswanger, Bill Taylor and Scott Moncrieff - seeking to have the Consent Order declared illegal, invalid, and/or unenforceable and set aside (removed from the record).

Affidavit of Johann Swart - November 25, 2010
Swart details the case against the Consent Order and presents the evidence for the case.  See also his Affidavit for Joinder for much more information.

Letter Sent to All Owners Informing of the Action - November 25, 2010
A Letter titled "Memo: Board's Actions Bring Lawsuit, Consent Order Challenged" is sent to all owners, informing of the lawsuit, the reasons behind it, and what each owner can do to prevent accumulation of legal costs.  It also exhibits the letters from Robert Adams to Brian Cromwell where Silver Point's attorney informs the BOD that the Consent Order is illegal.

Pre-Action Letter Sent to BOD to Avoid Injunction - November 25, 2010
Letter invites the Board of Directors to voluntarily agree not to enforce the Consent Order until the issue of its legality is ruled upon in hopes of avoiding injunction proceedings and saving the extensive costs of litigation.  There is again no response to the letter, so an injunction is filed.

Injunction Filed - December 19, 2010
An application for injunction is filed by the plaintiffs to stop the BOD from enforcing the Consent Order until the completion of trial.  Read about the Injuction Hearings.

(See Injunction Proceedings)

Affidavits Filed with the Action

Lists of Documents Filed - February 10, 2011

• Plaintiff's Document List

• Metaxides Document List

• SPCA Document List

• Plaintiff's Supplemental Document List (March 15, 2011)

Amendment to the Originating Summons (Leave Sought) - February 8, 2011
The Plaintiffs apply to amend the originating summons to include a request for the BOD to pay costs they caused, along with Metaxides, and to add the grounds by which they are seeking to have the Consent Order set aside.  (See Redlined Version)

Hearing Submissions for Leave to Amend

• Plaintiff's Submissions

• Metaxides Submissions

• Silver Point did not serve any written submissions.

Hearing for Leave to Amend Originating Summons - March 23, 2011

Transcript of the hearing.  Both defendants object to the proposed amendments and refuse to consent.  Hearing is held and plaintiffs granted leave to amend. 

Directions Order Issued - March 25, 2011
Sets out the rules of the trial and reserves costs for the two withdrawn Metaxides Summonses.  Grants leave for the Plantiffs to amend their summons and file additional evidence.

Order Granting Leave to Amend - May 11, 2011
After continued refusal by both defendants to agree to the draft Order, the judge finally approves it on May 11, 2011.

Letters Issued to Individual Board Members Giving Notice of Costs Claim - March 29, 2011

• Costs Claim Against Brian Cromwell

• Costs Claim Against Warren Labrie

• Costs Claim Against Peter Kaklamanakis

• Costs Claim Against Robert Rosselli

• Costs Claim Against Eddie Llambias

SPCA and Metaxides Apply for Leave to File Counterclaims - May 6, 2011
The leave was denied, with costs to be paid by SPCA and Metaxides to Swart, Biswanger, Moncrieff and Taylor.

(See Counterclaim Proceedings)

Trial Submissions

• Plaintiff's Submissions

• Metaxides Submissions

• SPCA Submissions

• Plaintiff's Reply Submissions to Metaxides and SPCA

Transcripts of Trial - November 7-10, 2011

• November 7, 2011 (Day 1) - Still Pending

• November 8, 2011 (Day 2)

• November 9, 2011 (Day 3)

• November 10, 2011 (Day 4)

Judgment
 

• Final Judgment - March 16, 2012
  Justice Longley issues the Judgment in the case, finding in favor of the Defendants.  Costs to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants.  Plaintiffs state intention to Appeal Judgment.
   

• Judgment Order - May 23, 2012
  Final Judgment Order is drawn up and perfected without notice, consent or appearance of Plaintiffs, setting off a string of letters and actions.
   

• Summons to Set Aside Perfection of Judgment - June 13, 2012
  Plaintiffs cite that Defendants did not disclose to the Judge that they objected to the terms of the perfected Order.
   

  • Affidavit of Jacqueline Bonana in support of Summons
     

• Letter: Callender's to Knowles Accusing of Unethical Practice - June 13, 2012
  Plaintiffs accuse Knowles and Charles of Sharp Practice and Unethical Behavior, and threaten to report them to the Bar Association (regarding perfection of Judgment)
   

• Letter: Charles to Callender's Denying Sharp Practice - June 18, 2012
  Charles cites a previously undisclosed letter to the Court advising of Plaintiffs' objections.
   

• Letter: Callender's to Charles Reiterating Accusations of Sharp Practice - June 22, 2012
  Callender's cites searching the file and finding no evidence of such disclosure, requests evidence and refuses to withdraw claim of unethical conduct.
   

• Letter: Callender's to Court Clerk Asking for Dates to Hear Summons - July 23, 2012
  After asking Knowles and Lockhard-Charles three times for convenient dates to hear Stay Application and Summons to Set Aside Perfection of Judgment, with no reply at all, Callender's asks the Court Clerk to set the dates.

Costs of the Action

• Letter: Charles to Callender's Requesting Payment of $180,345 in Costs - April 27, 2012
  SPCA requests Appellants to pay $180,345 for costs of the Supreme Court Action.
   
• Letter: Callender's to Charles Declining Payment of Costs - May 7, 2012
  Appellants cite monumental waste of time and money by SPCA regarding injunction, lack of any backup documentation and random nature of the amount, and refuse request.
   
• Letter: Knowles to Callender's Requesting Payment of $373,386.25 in Costs - May 29, 2012
  Metaxides requests Appellants to pay $373,386.25 in costs of the Supreme Court Action.
   
• Letter: Callender's to Knowles Declining Payment of Costs - June 13, 2012
  Appellants decline request for costs, citing outstanding Summons for Stay of Judgment
   
• Letter: Charles to Callender's Noting Taxation of Costs Hearing Date - July 12, 2012
  SPCA informs the Plaintiffs that a date for hearing of taxation of SPCA's bill of costs has been set before the Registrar, to be heard on July 24, 2012.  Included with this correspondence, SPCA provides the following documentation
  • Notice of Hearing Date of Taxation - April 26, 2012
  • Statement of Parties - April 26, 2012
  • SPCA's Bill of Costs (Detailed breakdown of costs to date claimed by SPCA)
     
• Letter: Callender's to Charles Requesting Dates be Vacated - July 13, 2012
  Callender's informs that dates are not convenient, and objects to the lack of common courtesy shown by Lockhart-Charles.  Reminds of outstanding matters before the court, and requests hearing dates be vacated immediately.
   
• Metaxides Notification of Taxation Date - June 14, 2012
  Informs Plaintiffs that they too will be heard on July 24, 2012 for taxation of costs.
   
• Letter: Callender's to Knowles Requesting Dates be Vacated - July 13, 2012
  Informs Knowles that the dates are in direct conflict with those selected by SPCA, objects to lack of common courtesy shown by Knowles, reminds of outstanding matters before the court and requests hearing dates be vacated immediately.
   
• Letter: Charles to Registrar Requesting New Dates in September - July 20, 2012
  SPCA requests vacation of July dates in favor of dates in September to hear taxation of costs.
   
• Plaintiffs Bill of Costs for the Trial and Injunction - August 19, 2013
  Callender's & Co. files their bill of costs in the amount of $1,050,435.43.  This will go to taxation, following which the final amount will be due and payable by SPCA & Metaxides.

MORE INFORMATION

See our Frequently Asked Questions for more information about how your rights and your finances may be affected by the outcome of the action.  Anything you don't see, you are always welcome to ask us.