JANUARY - 2016


ANSWER: Well, it sure isn't 'Glory Boy'. If he is not going to dismiss her, he should resign himself.

January 03-2016

TO: Board of School Trustees (S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001


FROM: Roger Callow, Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

fax: 613-521-1739


REFERENCE: SK CACV2783 & QC 500-09-025753-153




1) As you are no doubt aware, both your legal Counsel in B.C. for SK and in Quebec have been cited to the respective oversight committees for their egregious actions.


2) It may be in the best interests of the WVSB to appoint new legal Counsel for both Appeal cases. For this reason, I am mailing the official copy of the court reply, duplicated for both courts, to you directly for the purpose.


3) As the Appellant, I will oppose the presence of both legal firms in their respective courts. The QC firm of Lavery, de Billy has slated a hearing for 'Dismissal' on January 18-2016.


4) I strongly recommend that you put an end to this 30-year filibuster of refusing the necessary disclosure of the 'secret missing memo notes'. Those notes detail the meetings of the WVST in June of 1985 in which copious discussions were made regarding BILL 35 and the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow, which were returned by B.C. Supreme Court's Justice Southin in 1986 after quashing the arbitration 'because she did not use them'.


5) Court cover-up of these documents for the past 30 years has led to a charge of systematic judicial abuse. The addition of the word 'systematic' implies that only the Supreme Court of Canada is competent to handle that aspect of this issue.


Yours truly,


Roger Callow  Plaintiff CACV2783/ 500-09-025753-153   


January  05-2016


TO: SK Registrar Melanie Baldwin

by fax: 306-787-5815


FROM: Roger Callow  (Ottawa Ontario) Plaintiff  CACV2783

fax: 613-521-1739



1) Acknowledgment of your letter of December 23-2015 received on January 05-2016 is made regarding the Hearing Notice with the setting of a date of February 09-2016. Regrettably in the past, letters sent over holiday breaks from the authorities have been harbingers of negative features .


2) Whom set this appeal scheduled for Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 10:00 A.M. and for how long is the hearing slated? The complete Court of Appeal Schedule on the internet, to which you refer, is woefully deficient in eliciting these facts. Indeed, only January 2016 hearings appear on the internet.


3) Always such Hearing Notices include the names of the parties that this concerns. Conspicuous by its absence is any mention of the parties to this action other than this letter directed to this Plaintiff. Certainly I was not consulted as to my availability on that date and until the background features raised above are included, I request that this hearing be postponed to sometime in mid-March by authorized interests.


4) One reason for the delay is that I have no way of knowing as to whether the above hearing date relates to the main Appeal for which I filed an 8 hour indexing of the Respondent's Book of Authorities as per perfection requirements or to an implied 'Order to Dismiss' by the Respondent, Harris & Co. dated December 17-2015 shortly after he was cited for irregularities by the B.C. Legal Society on recommendation from the SK Legal Society for earlier transgressions in SK. I responded to that second factum on January 03-2016. It would be folly to set a hearing date without that determination, or alternatively, unless the Employer chooses another legal firm as I advised them; this time preferably one from SK. Your letter is woefully inept in addressing these problems.


5) Further, no mention is made by you of a letter I sent in December to the 3 Appeal Court judges in which I asked for a preliminary hearing of one hour by teleconferencing to establish  a) Disclosure of the 'missing memo notes' for which no judicial hearing has any credibility until they are produced. That ignored appeal in 10 courts and before 40 judges to date stretching over 30 years implies a conspiracy of massive proportions as the court has been accused by me of systematic judicial abuse. While the provinces plus oversight bodies (including government) may deal with judicial abuse as it relates to its own jurisdictions, only the Supreme Court of Canada can handle the accusation of systematic injustices stretching over a number of courts. Briefly put, according to the quashed arbitration, the Board of School Trustees in West Vancouver never authorized my lay-off as a senior teacher in June of 1985 under BILL 35 nor, for that matter any other teacher. More briefly, the conspirators acted fraudulently and the courts have continually covered up this vital fact for 30 years. b) Should the Employer wish to retain the services of Harris & Co. to represent their SK interests, I wish to contest their continued representation for reasons noted above and await the B.C. Legal Society's findings for this purpose.


Yours truly,



Roger Callow Plaintiff  January 05-2016.


cc B.C. Legal Society / RCMP

West Vancouver School Trustees

SK Premier Wall

Office of the P.M. and a future 21st century P.M. yet to be elected.

SCofC Hon. M. Moldaver


January 10-2016

TO: The Law Society of B.C.

845 Cambie Street

Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4Z9

t. 604-669-2533 /  f.604-669-5232   4 pages plus 8 pages of my Federal Court T-2360-14 rebuttal sent to the Law Society only                                                  SENT BY FAX ONLY


FROM: Roger Callow  (N.B. new address)  Plaintiff  SK CACV2783 (on appeal)

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

f. 613-521-1739  (no change)


Re. G. J Litherland, Your file no. IN20150882  complaint





1) Forgive my delay in responding to your request of December 14-2015 received on December 22-2015 in which time Mr. Litherland filed a second factum in SK with a 'Notice to Dismiss' even while his first factum is under investigation by the B.C. Law Society on a recommendation from the SK Law Society. Mr. Litherland has signed the second factum as to an affidavit as he appears to have lost the long-time services of paralegal, Christine Millar, in that regard. It should also be noted that Mr. Litherland is subject to censure in Federal Court T-2360-14 for allegedly fraudulent activities now refiled in Quebec (which is also awaiting an Appeal).

2) Under these dubious circumstances, I wrote the Employer to assign new legal Counsel to the SK court, one preferably from SK which would be bound by SK Law Society rules as this is where the transgression has taken place and not B.C. where Harris & Co. is domiciled.

3) Regrettably, in late November, Mr. Litherland successfully appealed to the SK Appeal Court to have a 'surety' charged against this writer which has been paid. Even more regrettable is the fact that SK Appeal Court Justice Ottenbreit had to deny the rules on surety which he did by declaring this matter as a 'special case'. As Ottenbreit j. did not raise the point letting Mr. Litherland prattle on about his financial needs as to flight, hotel and meals, I did so pointing out that the logical answer was for the Employer to appoint local Counsel as they did in Ontario and Quebec. Ottenbreit j. was not presented nor did he ask for evidence of outstanding bills (of which there are none other than for the SK lower court decision which is under appeal). Further, Litherland was incorrect in stating that I have been banned from Ontario Courts as they were willing to take what later became T-2360-14 in Federal Court.

4) How Mr. Litherland obtained the 'notes' of Ontario Justice Scott (14-61592) as he did not file a Decision in October 2014 thus foiling my Appeal is beyond me. Hicks, Morley et al dropped representation of this case after complaints to the Ontario Legal Society which has failed to respond. Scott j. ignored my detailed response to McKinnon's April 23-2014 Judgment regarding his 'frivolous and vexatious' material and would only cite the bastardized version from Sept. 15-2014.




5) 1. copies of the April 23,2014 judgment and the second Order dated September 15,2014

RESPONSE (R) I have included background information filed with T-2360-14 (Federal Court) to Scott j's perfidy with the September 15,2014 Order here as the  similarities between the two Orders is not the central point so don't try to whitewash this matter on that account. The key is that there were two Orders, the second making no reference to the existence of the first and for which I had no knowledge until the Hicks, Morley et al representative arrived unannounced (he did not file a Notice of Appearance) two weeks after the Sept. 15-2014 Order in the court of Justice Scott and slapped it into the eagerly outstretched hands of Scott j. amidst my strong objections. Scott j. proceeded only with that Order ignoring my detailed response to the April 23-2014 Judgment of Ontario Superior Court's McKinnon j. Both judges were referred to the Canadian Council of Judges as they were both originally appointed to the bench by the Federal Court. There has never been any response from the CJC under the aegis of its President, Hon. B. McLachlin (SCofC)

As the April 23-2014 judgment was the focus of the case in Quebec while the September 15-2014 was the sole focus by the Respondent in the SK Megaw j. court, it would appear that an attempt to legitimize the dual McKinnon j. action was being done in separate courts with no interaction between the courts. In brief, Litherland is allegedly guilty of fraud as he had full knowledge of both court proceedings.


2. specific details regarding what the court appearances were about, and what happened at each court appearance. R. In addition to the detailed account of above in 1.; the general theme for the past 30 years has been this Plaintiff trying to get a judicial finding for his 'illicit' teacher lay-off from which compensation (includes pension rights) may flow. The assertion here is that the B.C. Government in 1985 was hi-jacked (imposed BILL 35) and the judiciary co-opted (gerrymandered government arbitrator later ruled patently unreasonable when the arbitration favouring the School Board was quashed) sanctioned a 'sweetheart deal' between the Employer and elements within the local Union. The 'missing memo notes' which I have spent 30 years trying to obtain under the rules of 'Disclosure' refer to meetings held by the Board in June of 1985 reflecting, it is submitted here, that fact. Justice Southin returned these notes in 1986 'because she did not use them'.

     The assertion here is that Southin j.'s quashing order protected School Board personnel whom had perjured themselves at the arbitration as well as the Harris & Co. representative, Stuart Clyne Q.C. whom probably wrote the Board sanctioned lay-off notice as a postscript.

     Southin then did those things which would permit the Board to gain through the back door what they could not gain through the front door of the arbitration. The ensuing 30 years in 10 separate court systems and 40 judges, it is submitted here, is proof positive of a judicial conspiracy in which a 'grey eminence' with backdoor access to the Office of the Chief Justice across the Country, is able - through the careful appointment of judges - maintain the biggest fraud ever perpetuated in Canadian jurisprudence. The situation is not unlike Bill Cosby, the entertainer, whom through a multiplicity of claims in the media, has been condemned by the public and some institutions. Substitute Canadian Justice System for 'Bill Cosby', and the multiplicity of my accusations similarly 'grow feet'.

     The collective reaction of the courts is one of 'if we do not hang together, we will hang separately'.

     For the School Board, they would dearly like an end to this issue for no thinking B.C. teacher will ever again trust to arbitration and the courts nor will any ethical B.C. administrator write a negative Professional Report on a teacher. They would willingly pay the 6-1/2 million dollar cost of settlement as the B.C. government, as the source of BILL 35, is liable to cover the arrangements or else the government could otherwise be sued if they did not. But the Board need a court Order to effect such payment which the Court is unwilling to give, correctly believing the Board would then blame them for 30 years of procrastination.


3. copies of any other documents or evidence you have to support your complaint against Mr. Litherland. R. An entire factum was filed in Federal Court and later QC Court detailing the fraud above including Mr. Litherland's role. I see no point to including those accusations at this time.




6) Only the SK Legal Society of all the oversight committees deserve any mention of taking their responsibilities seriously.


7) I am calling for a preliminary hearing in both SK and QC Appeal Courts in order to acquire the 'secret missing memo notes' for which all court enquiries to date amount to cover-up as these memo notes hold the genesis of anything - legal or otherwise - to be discussed.


8) In both preliminaries, I request that both Harris & Co. in SK and Lavery, de Billy in QC be barred from court until their actions are investigated. The Employer in SK may obviate this aspect of the case if they appoint new legal Counsel; preferably one from SK bound by SK rules

The QC matter is far more egregious and requires the oversight committees to explain why two judges appear in the Gatineau proceedings and how Lavery, de Billy was able to acquire a docket number for his dismissal charge when the original charge by this plaintiff has not yet been accepted by the QC Court?


9) Of course Mr. Litherland's nefarious actions are intertwined with judicial decisions over which the likes of the B.C. Law Society could claim as 'exceeding their mandate'. And should the CJC ever respond, all fault of course would lie with the Legal Societies. It's a  Catch-22 situation. Prime Minister Trudeau had a window in which to fire Chief Justice B. McLachlin but muffed it. Leaving litigants in a perpetual state of limbo is now case law based on this case. That's anarchy.


10) The Employer could end this 30 year Disclosure quest by providing this Plaintiff immediately with those 'missing memo notes'. The Union also has a copy. All the RCMP is waiting for is the necessary Order to seize those documents.


Yours truly  


Roger Callow  Plaintiff SK & QC Appeal Court cases


cc West Vancouver School Trustees

QC Bar Society / QC Judicial Council (CJC)  / QC Premier P. Couillard / RCMP

SK Premier B. Wall

SCofC Hon. R. Brown

Office of the P.M. and a future 21st century P.M.  



URGENT - time dated material

January 11-2016


Hon. Jacques Chamberland  Quebec Court of Appeal

100, Notre-Dame st East  Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 4B6

Tel: 514-393-2022 and dial 0  courdappel@justice.gouv.qc.ca

Fax : 514-864-7270                       3 pages         SENT BY FAX


FROM:  Roger Callow  Plaintiff 

   Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

f. 613-521-1739  


Subject: Roger Callow v. Board of School Trustees

                Motion to dismiss the appeal

                No. 500-09-025753-153



1) Acknowledgment of your e-mail dated January 11, 2016 is made.

2) Due to the importance of this letter of yours which strains the credulity of the Justice System, not only in Quebec but in the entire judiciary of Canada, a copy of this letter is being sent to Premier P. Couillard and Prime Minister J. Trudeau.

3) In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada reinforced my position of being in limbo in an unresolved labour matter with its genesis in B.C. dating from 1985. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid due to the fact that there is no judicial finding relating to my 'illicit' teacher lay-off under the imposed BILL 35; the only teacher so laid off under this allegedly ultra vires piece of legislation. That's when Canada sank to Third World status as the very essence of any Justice System is its finality. That's why this matter is a 'standing case'.

4) Much litigation ensued in B.C. In July of 2013,Deputy Justice A. Cullen of the B.C. Appeal Court (Cullen Creed), on his own recognizance, without taking argument nor applying applicable laws, expelled me from the B.C. Justice System (no 'may proceed only with the permission of a judge' was included) forcing me into other Justice Systems as it was clear his action was designed to inhibit another trip to the Supreme Court of Canada, the only court competent to examine my claim of systematic judicial abuse.

5) At root of this accusation is the refusal of the courts over a 30 year period to act on my request for Disclosure; namely, those secret memo notes of meetings held by the Board in June of 1985 to discuss my senior teacher lay-off (no Board member took the stand in the arbitration which was quashed and the arbitrator ruled patently unreasonable). From that arbitration, I learned that there was no request from the Board to lay off senior teacher Roger Callow nor any other teacher in June of 1985. In brief, I was the target of a fraud, maintained subsequently by the Justice System over 10 separate courts and 40 judges as they all seemed intent in blocking another appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

6) Without those memo notes which the Employer through their various legal representatives refuse to divulge and, more importantly, the courts refuse to order them to produce, every court on this issue is compromised by cover-up. There must be disclosure before due diligence may be conducted; particularly when fraud is alleged as is the case here.

7) A careful reading of the legislation in each or the other forums illustrates the application of inherent jurisdiction, natural justice, transference which never happens under judges appointed to this case which does entail a responsibility of other courts to fill the void created in B.C. by the unusual and illicit actions of the Cullen Creed.

8) Failure of the courts above has lowered Canada, it is submitted here, to fourth world status.

9) If it is possible to stoop any lower to a fifth world debacle, that is about to happen in QC on January 18-2015 in which Chamberland j. from the Court of Appeal in Montreal insists on proceeding on that date before important investigations have been conducted as outlined below. The key here is that Premier Couillard and Prime Minister Trudeau have prior knowledge as to the scope of a scam unequaled in the annals of Canadian Jurisprudence which is about to be committed.

10) As Plaintiff, I would have no qualms with the January 18-2016 hearing date:

a) if the necessary disclosure of the 'memo notes' above is ordered by the court;

b) the detailed letter to Mtre Catherine Dufour dated January 08-2016 on the irregularities in this case would seem to pass your account by with this statement...On the very same date, Mtre Catherine Dufour wrote to you, confirming that the hearing would take place, as requested, by teleconference, at 11:30. Whom made this request? Was it Lavery, de Billy or the court claiming to act on my request? Further, the letter dated December 14-2015 was received December 22-2015, immediately before Xmas...so much for your 'one month' designation.

c) The duplicity of your letter on this basis plus other considerations as noted below needs also to be investigated, not by the Chief Justice, but by the government figures included in this account. The fact of the matter is that I filed a Factum which was rejected as it did not conform to proper filing procedures. Traditionally, such rejected forms are returned to the plaintiff before a docket number is assigned (still not returned as of the above date). So how did Lavery, de Billy LLP obtain a docket number as the Respondent? How can he file for dismissal of something which does not exist on file? That accusation implies collusion on the highest level between the court and Lavery, de Billy. As such and as the plaintiff, I am expected to deny a negative which is an impossibility. Further Lavery, de Billy is playing the duality card by filing a second factum (a stunt pulled by this employer in other court systems) which ignores the all-important question as to why two judges were assigned to this case with one of them writing a judgment without making reference to the existence of the other. That's fraud on a grandiose scale and a fraud which goes uninvestigated since my letter to Elizabeth Corte-President of the Quebec Judicial Council on August 01-2015. There was no response. How can the court proceed without a definition as to the propriety of the duality of judges? Lavery, de Billy's account would appear to be a suppression of this issue which the tenor of your letter would support.

d) Lavery, de Billy's alleged perfidy as outlined above was the subject of a letter sent to the Quebec Bar Association on December 27,2015 and it would be unwise for the court to proceed until that finding is made along with the Quebec Judicial Council evaluation.

e) Also, on December 27, 2015, I mailed a letter to Justice Therrien asking for his Order as that of Goulet j.s.c. made no reference to his involvement. Without a proper investigation into these matters which Lavery, de Billy would avoid counting on an embarrassed court to do his bidding in covering up this massive travesty. In brief, the entire course of justice in Canada will be suborned should this Appeal Hearing choose to dismiss without the 'due process' outlined above. 'Duly processed' would be more like it.

11) The original purpose of my action laid in Quebec solely requesting the 'missing memo notes' was to reveal the existence of an 'eminence gris' whom has back door access to the Office of the Chief Justices of the land. For example, Frank McArdle, husband of Supreme Court of Canada's Chief Justice, Beverly McLachlin who looms large in this case, and President of the Supreme Court Justices of Canada     Association would be in a prime position to fulfill that role. Of course I have no such knowledge but Premier Couillard and Prime Minister Trudeau have access to that information.

12) For my part, it is time to send in the RCMP to obtain the 'disclosure' demanded above by this plaintiff. Either Couillard or Trudeau has that power.

13) As you seem so determined to proceed on January 18-2016, I will see you in court by teleconferencing to see whether or not Canada deserves its 'fifth world rating'. I can only wonder as to the calibre of your two accompanying judges if they accepted your account.

14) You could save everyone considerable embarrassment if you just give this action 'a pass' on the grounds that only the Supreme Court of Canada is competent to examine all claims brought forth by this plaintiff. T-2360-14 filed in Federal Court and re-filed in QC but not commented on by Goulet j. alleges fraud by the original conspirators and the ensuing court processes.


Yours truly,


Roger Callow  Plaintiff


cc QC Premier P. Couillard / RCMP

P.M.  J. Trudeau


URGENT - time dated material (for QC Appeal C.A.M.)

January 15-2016


Hon. Jacques Chamberland  Quebec Court of Appeal

100, Notre-Dame st East  Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 4B6

Tel: 514-393-2022 and dial 0  courdappel@justice.gouv.qc.ca

Fax : 514-864-7270                       3 pages         SENT BY FAX

cc Lavery, de Billy LLP for the Employer


with a copy to SK Court of Appeal CACV2783   SENT BY FAX


FROM:  Roger Callow  Plaintiff 

Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

f. 613-521-1739  


Subject: Roger Callow v. Board of School Trustees

                Motion to dismiss the appeal      No. 500-09-025753-153   H.D. January 18-2016


1) Please cancel my telephone conferencing for the January 18-2016 hearing.

2) Considering that I have an eye operation scheduled since last summer on January 15 with Ottawa Ophthalmologist Dr. Zabel,  I would never have consented to a January 18-2016 hearing date. Developing concerns on this level this week force the above cancelation.


3) As what I have to say in C.A.M. with this letter applies in part to the Appeal Court in SK, a copy of this letter is being sent to SK

4) A copy also is being sent to Premiers Couillard, Wall and Prime Minister Trudeau plus the RCMP; all of whom are over-due in acting on this case.


5) Both QC courts and SK courts were unsuccessfully warned by me not to refer to any events in Ontario which are tied up in oversight bodies which do not respond.

6) The key reference in both cases to Ontario relates to highly specious 'frivolous and vexatious' Orders from Superior Court C. McKinnon j. where this writer was the Respondent : one dated April 23-2014 and a second one dated September 15-2014 which makes no reference to the first. The B.C. Legal Society, on the advice of the SK legal Society, is investigating this dichotomy.

7) In QC, 95% of the Lavery, de Billy case was based on this specious order according to a second Gatineau justice, Goulet j. whom wrote the lower court Order without reference to the sitting judge, Therrien j. in another kafkaesque duality. It is Goulet's Order which is being contested on January 18-2016 as I have not received an answer to my request for Therrien's Order. Lavery, de Billy's second factum to be heard January 18-2016 on an Order to dismiss makes no reference to this duality in what I label as the Lavery, de Billy 'tail' wagging the Montreal Appeal Court 'dog'.

8) While the focus in Montreal Appeal Court is the April 23-2014 McKinnon j. Order; the focus of B.C. Harris & Co. in SK was to quote the September 15-2014 Order in yet another second factum which obviates a 500 page indexing  and rebuttal of the first factum under the terms of 'perfection', to also request an Order to Dismiss. Litherland esq. of Harris & Co. realized that he was under investigation by the B.C. Legal Society when he filed this second factum.

9) Lavery de Billy has also been referred to the QC Legal Society for legal irregularities. At this point, it is unlikely that a Report will be in before the January 18 H.D. Nor will there be a Report dating from my complaint of August 01-2015 to the President, Elizabeth Corte of the Quebec Judicial Council relating to the dichotomy of the actions of the two lower court judges.

10) In SK Appeal Court, one of my concerns, as I told them, would be answered if the Employer appointed a new legal firm; preferably one from SK. It should be noted here that Harris & Co. is part of the accusations of fraud made in Federal Court's T-2360-14 re-filed in QC courts with Goulet j. although he made no specific reference to that material.


11) ...This must be stopped. Now.' bawled the Ottawa Citizen page 1 story on April 28-2014 aped by the Montreal La Presse. What exactly it was that was to be stopped is not clear despite all the bombastic rhetoric of McKinnon j. in his April 23-2014 Order. My 'right to reply' was ignored by the anti-employee Citizen.

12) What McKinnon j. would ignore along with 10 separate court systems and 40 judges comes under the heading of Disclosure which this plaintiff has been searching for in the past 30 years without success including recent events in both QC and SK. Indeed, the original request in QC was solely for that disclosure. It is maintained here that without that necessary disclosure, no court hearing this issue has any credibility giving vent to my accusations of systematic judicial abuse. Only the Supreme Court of Canada or Parliament is capable of dealing with that accusation.


13) At root of this accusation is the refusal of the courts over a 30 year period to act on my request for Disclosure; namely, those secret memo notes of meetings held by the Board in June of 1985 to discuss my senior teacher lay-off (no Board member took the stand in the arbitration which was quashed and the arbitrator ruled patently unreasonable). From that arbitration, I learned that there was no request from the Board to lay off senior teacher Roger Callow nor any other teacher in June of 1985. In brief, I was the target of a fraud, maintained subsequently by the Justice System over 10 separate courts and 40 judges as they all seemed intent in blocking another appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.


15) In QC on January 18-2016, my presence would merely be redundant as all arguments have been made in letters to the court. The last one on January 11-2016 responding to the e-mail of Appeal Court Justice  J. Chamberland j.a. can be viewed on my web site: employescasecanada.ca  JANUARY-2016

16) In the event that this court does not call on the above Disclosure request, I call for the authorities to expel Justices, J.Chamberland, E. Parent, and G. Marcotte from the bench.

17) A similar indictment will apply to the SK Court of Appeal as two other SK judges failed to call for this necessary disclosure to date.


18) It would appear frivolous to appeal a matter to the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis of disclosure and yet that topic pervades much of the inequality of the Canadian Justice System without any remedy from either the courts nor government. Perhaps it will take this 'standing case' of the employeescasecanada.com to draw long overdue attention to this chronic judicial question.

19) Considering the application of the word systematic to the term judicial abuse, a feature which no bureaucracy can survive, brings into focus the very efficacy of our Justice System. In that regard, consider this quote: '...In the 1970's, the Supreme Court of the United States suspended the death penalty. But it only lasted a few years before starting back up again. In 2015, in a remarkable dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, "I believe it highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment (which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment)"

While that's not necessarily going to go anywhere (writes the author) (conservative Justice Antonin Scalia mused in 2009 that executing an innocent isn't unconstitutional, so long as the trial was fair (my underlining), it was a remarkable statement from the highest court in the country.

20) The unresolved Employee's Case where no compensation has flowed has been anything but fair under any conceivable circumstances, as handled by the various courts and tribunals.

21) The key here is whether a court system is credible (the 'fairness' aspect) Indeed, the entire Justice System depends on its credibility which is under attack in this case.

22) Copies of these letters are sent to Supreme Court Justices holding the post since 2004 and, therefore, are eligible to sit on this case. Not so Chief Justice McLachlin for whom I earlier wrote a 25C (conflict of interest order) since repealed. Her voluntary withdrawal is called for.


Yours truly


Roger Callow  plaintiff


January 16-2016   THIS LETTER TO BE FOUND ON employescasecanada.ca EMPLOYER FRAUD (to be posted later)


TO: SK Registrar Melanie Baldwin

by fax: 306-787-5815 

FROM: Roger Callow  (Ottawa Ontario) Plaintiff  CACV2783  H.D. February 09-2016

fax: 613-521-1739                                    SENT BY FAX (3 pges.)



Hon. Jacques Chamberland  Quebec Court of Appeal

Fax : 514-864-7270                                                                                SENT BY FAX (3 pges.)

FROM:  Roger Callow  Plaintiff 

f. 613-521-1739  


Subject: Roger Callow v. Board of School Trustees

                Motion to dismiss the appeal

                No. 500-09-025753-153  H.D. January 18-2016


1) As there are common grounds in both issues, this letter is directed to both provinces.


SK - Melanie Baldwin Registrar

2) If ,as you note, you received my letter dated January 05-2016 by fax; why did you respond by snail mail with a letter dated January 07-2016 received by me on January 16-2016? Quebec responds by both fax and e-mail as I recommend that you do.

3) 'Hearing notifications were sent to you and to counsel for the respondent'. M.B.

My Response How would I know that the Respondent received the identical letter as there is no inclusion to the Respondent in your account to me?

4) In answer to your question, I do wish telephone conferencing at which time I would like the court to clearly state that they are ordering Disclosure as outlined in documents for 30 years before 10 separate courts and 40 judges. The position here is identical to the one in QC should disclosure noted above is not provided; the case will be appealed with a call on my part for the expulsion of the attendant 3 Appeal Court Judges. That decision is to be made by the QC court on January 18-2016, more of which will be said under the topic of QC - Chamberland j. There is no point continuing with any trial until such Disclosure is provided in either court.

5) The following SK point is the significant one which is completely lacking in QC and explains why QC courts have become a 'trainwreck' which threaten to re-direct not only the  QC justice system, but that of the entire country: 'The hearing date is intended to deal with all issues relating to your appeal.'

a) The Employer in Ontario, SK and QC has pre-empted such proceedings with their own case. In both SK and QC, the employer has filed a second factum. In QC, a court date (Jan. 18-2016) is set where no Plaintiff factum has been accepted by the Appeal Court. Nor have they returned the factum for revision much like Ontario where the Appeal Court held onto two actions from this Plaintiff without returning the factums with an explanation. The oversight bodies do not respond to this major transgression which appears to be repeated in QC.

b) Of course, I disagree with the SK Megaw j. Decision; that is why I am appealing it which is the proper course to follow. Of course, the Employer represented in SK by the B.C. legal firm of Harris & Co. (explains why the B.C. legal society is adjudicating the Ontario McKinnon j. documents in SK which loom large in both cases). and in QC by Lavery, de Billy would prefer to dismiss this case. I don't argue with that but here is where the 2 provinces are set apart.

c) In SK (unless the court permit Harris & Co. to run their own 'court within a court' similar to QC,) both factums will be dealt with in the February 09-2016 hearing. That is the way it should be. That is not the way that matters are being handled in QC.


QC - Chamberland j.

6) In law, court cases may not be held in tandem. (Please note, in that regard, the basic questions asked are not identical to both provinces.) If a side issue develops, that issue must be resolved before the main event is dealt with. In brief, that second court must be subordinated to the primary factum; otherwise there would be legal bedlam which is what the QC Court is surely risking should they agree to Lavery de Billy's Motion to dismiss on January 18-2016

7) I have no qualms about the QC court dismissing this case as I have no interest in the future of the Canadian Justice System although I would like to think QC Premier Couillard and P.M. Trudeau would think differently and why a copy of this letter is included to them.

8) What Lavery de Billy would do is 'look through the big end of the telescope' in their factum to dispose of the thorny question of why two judges are passing down decisions in this case; only the second one having been filed to date. The QC oversight body concerned has had this question since August 01-2015 and has not responded. Without that response, the QC Court is in danger of imploding and in such fashion that the entire judicial structure of Canada will be pulled down with it. No mention is made of this dichotomy in Lavery's second factum.

9) For my part, my sole interest in QC was originally to acquire the Disclosure memos from Justice Therrien. Unfortunately, Justice Goulet re-opened the case - apparently in an illicit manner - so that now we have the proverbial 'dog's breakfast'. For example, I filed the entire Federal Court T-2360-14 action alleging fraud on the part of both the original conspirators as well as the ensuing court processes (primarily due to the cover-up of the Disclosure memo notes). That systematic  judicial abuse can only be handled by the Supreme Court of Canada or Parliament.

10) What Lavery de Billy would do is similar to the highly specious McKinnon j. frivolous and vexatious Order against me by 'walking back the cat' in such fashion as to destroy the original factum. That's fraud on the highest level and can only succeed with a compliant court.

11) Of interest here is the 'timely' response from Guy Bilodeau of the Barreau du Quebec dated January 11-2016 and received on Friday January 15-2016. It states in part:

'...The Court of Appeal is the only entity with the proper jurisdiction in order to determine the validity of your appeal and to dispose of the Motion to Dismiss.'

12) In brief what the SK Legal Society felt was a valid question regarding the two Mckinnon Orders dated April 23-2014 and September 15-2014 (no reference to the earlier Order) for examination which is currently being carried out by the B.C. Legal Society as the Employer uses one McKinnon Order in QC with the other in SK courts is of no concern in QC even though, by the QC courts admission, 95% of the Lavery, de Billy's original account was based on this specious Ontario Order (McKinnon j.) where I was the Respondent.

13) All in all, the QC hearing on January 18-2016 is a deeply flawed case, but to re-iterate, as long as the court provides me with the necessary Disclosure which is a precursor to any hearing, I will be satisfied. If denied on this level, I will appeal including elements of T-2360-14 as the caper witnessed here has been repeated in one form or another in all other venues.

14) In the early 1960's, the Big Three Automakers apologized to Ralph Nader (Unsafe at any Speed) for their persecution of him. Where is that apology to the 'Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System' which eclipses Nader's story?


Yours truly,



Roger Callow   Plaintiff


cc QC Premier Couillard / P.M. Trudeau by fax

RCMP - Montreal Fraud Division

SK Premier Wall  by fax


January 29 -2016


TO: Ministry of the Attorney General (Ontario)

       Civil Remedies for Illicit Activities Office (CRIA)

       77 Wellesley St. West, P.O. Box 555

       Toronto, ON M7A 1N3

       cc Rt. Hon. J. Trudeau Prime Minister



Roger Callow

Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

fax: 613-521-1739



1) Included in this account is a 10-page letter to QC Lavery de Billy dated June 03-15 revealing what a complete cock-up has been the Ministry of the Attorney General (2Ministers);the Superior Court of Justice (Ottawa) (2 judges) and the Canadian Judicial Council under President Hon. B. McLachlin as both these judges were originally Federal Court appointments; The ON Appeal Court (Chief Justice George Strathy) and any number of lower court functionaries.

2) The incompetence of the oversight bodies has led to drastic legal ramifications in this issue in courts outside of ON. For example, one case has been filed in the Supreme Court of Canada from QC with a second filing 'on deck' from SK.

3) The situation is so dire for the credibility of the Canadian Justice System, that a further letter of this date has been addressed to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

4) How this body can resolve these difficulties is beyond me as the problem are your bosses.


Yours truly,


Roger Callow

encl. SK Appeal Court CACV2783  (H.D. Feb. 09-2016)


January 29-2016


Rt. Hon.  J. Trudeau P.M.



80 Wellington St.

Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2


Roger Callow

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7


QUOTE: 74th palm; '...they have defiled by casting down the dwelling place of thy name to the ground.'


1) The January 2016 Supreme Court of Canada Appeal to the Employee's Case (Quebec Division) as enunciated in a 10 page June 03-2015 letter to QC Lavery de Billy for the Respondent West Vancouver School Trustees, must be the strangest challenge to the credibility of Canada's Justice System ever entertained.

2) That account is included to the ON Civil Remedies for Illicit Activities Office to the P.M. and SK Appeal Court CACV2783.

3) Under the circumstances noted in my Memorandum of Argument,(p.14-15)        I offer this unusual means of finalizing a legal matter which has undermined the course of justice in Canada: PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSAL  9) My proposal is that for a non-negotiable without prejudice offer, I will drop my action requesting the 'missing memo notes' in exchange for ten million dollars to be costed to the various parties concerned in this case according to the wishes of the court.

4) The point here is that as the plaintiff , I have no direct interest in the constitutional and otherwise legal questions voiced in this appeal as a revelation of the 'missing memo notes' would force a revision of my case in any event; probably on the basis of criminal fraud. That is not to say that the Prime Minister should be as sanguine.

5) Parliament has two basic functions: the legislative which politicians love as they pass defunct legislation with more legislation soon to be defunct; and the second being executive action where the P.M. is paramount  such as when Canada wages  war.

6) In that latter regard of executive action, the P.M. could revitalize the Canadian Justice System by dismissing justices and chief justices associated with the Employee's Case for exceeding their authority (includes 'doing nothing'). A separate list has been included to the P.M. for this purpose.

7) To be sure, such strong action would, it is submitted here, be joyfully received by legions of judges and lawyers fed up to the teeth with the 'grey eminence' with his/her bringing the practice of justice into disrepute with back door arrangements. Legal personnel whom whistle blow on this basis are pilloried by such as the Canadian Judicial Council.

8) In that regard, the Employee's Case Canada is the legacy of Prime Minister J. Trudeau no matter which course he chooses.

9) Hence the real issue in the Supreme Court of Canada in this case is Disclosure which plagues the Canadian Justice System accounting for myriad billable time exercises as cases get stretched out; in this case 30 years and still counting.

Yours truly,

Roger Callow

cc SK Legal Society (the first 'honest' oversight body in this case)

Montreal RCMP Fraud Division

January 29-2015


TO: Board of School Trustees (S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001        SENT BY FAX (2 pages)


FROM: Roger Callow  1285 Cahill Drive  Ottawa ON K1V 9A7

fax: 613-521-1739 



TOPIC: legal status of Harris & Co. in SK CACV2783  H.D. Feb. 09-2016




1) You are in receipt of material from me regarding the failure of the B.C. Legal Society to adjudge inconsistencies of the McKinnon Order(s) as presented by Harris & Co. in the lower SK court (Megaw j.) which is under appeal.


2) I have requested the SK Legal Society to step in to remedy the above controversy which took place in the SK courtroom of Megaw j..


3) Without a determination of the duality and duplicity of the Mckinnon Orders, the court would be most unwise to proceed on February 09-2016 with representation of your interests by Harris & Co.


4) Due to other irregularities with this legal outfit, I recommended earlier that you obtain the services of another legal Company; preferably one in SK bound by SK and not B.C. law.


5) Harris & Co. rattled on in the specious surety hearing before Ottenbreit j. about the necessity of flying to SK and requiring coverage of hotel plus meals plus other expenditures. As the judge did not raise the question, I did so querying why the Employer did not appoint local representation as they did in ON & QC?


6) Should I be dunned in the course of events for these 'travel arrangements'; you should expect an automatic appeal. A  B.C. legal firm - other than Harris & Co. - would be quite capable of handling this matter by telephone conferencing as I am doing and was done successfully at the lower court level.


7) Of course all these 'out of B.C. province' hearings dating from when I was expelled from B.C. courts in July of 2013 by the 'Cullen Creed' would become instantly redundant if you turn over the 'missing memo notes' of June 1985 School Board meetings wherein BILL 35 and my lay-off from my senior teaching position were discussed.


8) That Disclosure would in all likelihood lead to a criminal complaint of fraud against personnel long since departed from the scene in B.C. plus the allied legal extensions in this matter.


9) Why should the current West Vancouver taxpayer, it needs be asked, foot the cost of legal chicanery when Prime Minister J. Trudeau can use the executive powers of the Prime Minister's position to handle that aspect of this alleged fraud? His father passed the Charter of Rights in 1982 (the easy part) leaving the son to enforce compliance from the Justice System in 2016 which is why this standing case labeled the Employee's Case Canada is his legacy no matter which course of action he chooses to follow.


10) As matters now stand, the escalating cost of settlement is increasing to seven million dollars as of February 09-2016 if you choose to settle 'out of court'. Most of that money is 30 years of 'deferred salary' which belongs to this plaintiff apart from judicial findings. In brief, I should never have been released from salary until this matter was resolved. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid to date.


11) Should you choose other legal counsel for the February 09-2016 hearing, please inform me before Feb.08-2016.


Yours truly


Roger Callow   Plaintiff  CACV2783


SK Appeal Court by fax.


PMO by fax