Description: Description: Description: C:\Users\Roger\Desktop\FTP\nude3.jpg

  Description: Description: Description: C:\Users\Roger\Desktop\FTP\giveup.jpg

The Wizard of Id
Peasants: We hear you have liberty and justice here.
Sir Rodney: Well, sort of.
Peasants: 'Sort of', what does that mean?
Sir Rodney: Nobody has the liberty to oust the Justice Department no matter how bad it gets.

True Justice Robert K. Tanenbaum
'Well, basically, the system, not just this office, but every prosecutorial organization, is essentially corrupt. It's so easy to pass laws, politicians love to pass laws...we're so overloaded that we can't actually do what we're supposed to do. So we perform an imitation of justice...because moving the system along becomes the prime value, not making sure that the laws are carried out. Get it?...and the corruption you get from power is an order of magnitude more serious than the kind you get from what I was talking about, the necessity for pretense. Because it's personal...They don't teach this in law school, do they?'
'No...So gradually things will improve?'
'No', said Karp sourly. 'Things will get worse. But we'll fight it all the way down'

Tandia Bryce Courtenay
'You see, simplicity is the key to almost everything. If something can be simply stated and simply understood, it will generally translate into a working concept. Law has chosen to neglect this fundamental truth and as a result has allowed itself to become reactionary, complicated and, for the most part, unjust.

It is not the law which keeps a people safe, but the hearts and minds of some good men and women who are its custodians. Conventional justice, when it is not in the hearts and minds of men, has only the power to corrupt. The letter of law may be applied but its spirit is withheld.'

Question: I have read your account twice and I am not sure a third reading will make any difference. In as fewest (sic) words as possible, what is this all about?
Reply: Dear reader, to obey your request to keep it short, I suggest you choose a number between 1 & 7 for your selected answer.

1)Alice in Wonderland's answer - As you must be a B.C. teacher, how about a KISS? ...The West Vancouver School Board, in making rabbit stew, mistakenly believed that they had their rabbit hog-tied inside the stew pot and when they discovered otherwise, they sought out (to mix an analogy) all the King's asses (judges) and all the King's boys (union) to get that darned rabbit to jump into the stewpot again!
2)The Flying Dutchman's Response - As long as we keep Black Roger sailing on a sea of legal red tape, he will never put into the port of judgment.
3)The Old Boy's Club statement - Admittedly, we used the B52 bomber of the Canadian judicial system to kill a mosquito and missed. The solution? Why crash the bomber onto the mosquito...hell, we're only dealing here with government credibility which any damned fool knows does not exist and the taxpayers dollars of which existence that same damned fool is only too aware. Thank God, the press know their place on this one!
4)Third World Refugee living in Canada - Hey, just like at home!...ethnic cleansing of the labour force!
5)Hitler's observation - What? All this and no jackboots in the street? Amazing!

 I couldn't have done better myself.
6)Jean Chretien's circle - It's a story without no end and without no end, maybe we can deny it ever had a beginning in the first place, which would suit me fine in the second, third, and fourth places.
7) The position of the Judiciary - Each judge is handed a hammer and a nail to add to the nails already hammered into the coffin box lid. Should any judge be so inopportune to note that the corpse is not yet dead; he is told, 'No, but it will be once we complete our nailing task.'

Old Boy's Club

Arbitrator Louis Lindholm (deceased)
Supreme Court of B.C. Justice Mary Southin (1986 and 2001)
" (Appeal) Taggart,Hinkson,Anderson
" Justice J. Spencer
" (Appeal) Hollinrake Newberry,(1998 and 2001) Huddart
Supreme Court of Canada - Chief Justice Antonio Lamer,Cory (both retired) B. McLaughlin
Prime Minister Jean Chretien
B.C. Labour Board (virtually all of them) Brent Mullin/Mark Brown/John Hall/Paul Johnston/Barbara Junker/ Laura Parkinson etc.
Supreme Court of B.C. Justice J. Sigurdson
" (Appeal) Prowse (plus other 2 noted above)
Supreme Court of B.C. Justice Williamson 
Chief Justice L. Finch 
Supreme (Appeal) Court of B.C. Ryan/Donald/Oppal

Supreme Court of Canada . Bastarache/Lebel/Deschamps (June 10/04)- 'Canadian Justice System collapses').

B.C. Supreme Court Justice S.J. Shabbits (June/08) - 'Pension Phase' B.C. Supreme Court Justice Nathan Smith (Mar 23/09) (All legal options exhausted)

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anne W. MacKenzie / Court of Appeal Chief Justice Lance Finch /

Court of Appeal (phony surety)  Justice K.C. MacKenzie (2010)

Federal Court of Canada: Vancouver Prothonotary Roger Lafreniére (twice!)

Federal Court Justices R. Mosley & Madame Gauthier (2010-11)

Ontario Supreme Court (Ottawa) Robert Maranger (2011)

Federal Court of Canada: Madame Justice Gleason (2013)

Ontario Divisional Court (3 judges): Madame Justice de Sousa (2013)

Ontario Appeal Court thwarted a number of times under Chief Justice G. Strathy

Ontario Superior Court Justice C. McKinnon & R. Scott (both originally Federal Court appointments) 2013-2015 'frivolous & vexatious' debacle

Quebec (Gatineau) Therrien j. and a second judge, Nicolet j. 2015

Quebec Appeal Court (Montreal) 2016 J. Chamberland JA/ E. Parent JA/ G. Marcotte JA

Saskatchewan Superior Court Megaw j. 2015

            "              Appeal Court 2016  Jackson/Caldwell/Ryan Froslie  (Ottenbreit-phony surety)


Stuart Clyne QC - Legal Counsel for School Board with a high success rate in expelling senior teachers from B.C. School Boards on grounds of incompetence. ( I was 'laid off') ...I think I now see why he is so successful.
Allan Black - Handball partner of Clyne and the Union appointee hired to present my side. His point blank refusal to me to put school board officials on the stand to testify as to lay-off figures was no doubt construed by Arbitrator Lindholm (now deceased) as signalling that no challenge would be made to his decision.
Harry Rankin QC (deceased)& Junior Partner, Bruce Laughton - Black's replacement after the arbitration by me who reneged on his promise to put Board members on the stand in any future trial as well as to drop representation of both sides if dismissed by one of the parties which I later unsuccessfully attempted to do with the aid of the B.C. Legal Society.
'They can get anyone if they really want to' Harry Rankin
'With Harry defending your case, I believe him.' Black Roger
Bruce Laughton - Continues to represent West Vancouver Teachers unilaterally despite my protest to the B.C. Legal Society. His bungling has hamstrung my case at the expense of exposing the Union to cover all settlement costs ($5 million).
David Yorke - B.C. Teachers Federation lawyer who has masterminded the union role with Black, Rankin & Laughton.
Ron MacQueen - brother of Southam columnist, Ken MacQueen, and West Vancouver Teachers President in 1978 during dismissal of a senior colleague for incompetence (described to me by another colleague as a teacher of above average intelligence and 'okay' as a teacher by an adult student). Clyne acted for the School Board. Jim Carter was the principal concerned and Ed Carlin was the superintendent. MacQueen again served in the latter 80's as WVTA President and, very surprisingly, on the executive in the 90's while in retirement.
Jim Carter - Deputy Minister of Education under Brian Smith in VanderZalm Cabinet (VanderZalm is current Reform Party leader in B.C.)who was influential in passing the infamous Bill 35 later refined into Bill 20 in 1988 thereby having teachers virtually working under a pseudo contract of no value as any teacher can now be dismissed for any unsubstantiated reason...and all because they sold out on the Employee's Case!
John Reynolds - Current Reform Party MP for West Vancouver who unsuccessfully sued the Vancouver Sun for accusations of ties to organized crime. He was a VanderZalm MLA for West Vancouver in 1985 and was reputed to have worked closely with School Board Chairperson, Margo Furk, in having Bill 35 passed.
John Williams - Teacher under Jim Carter who replaced him as Principal. I filed documents with Carter alleging fraud on the part of Williams thereby prompting the subsequent Bill 35 scenario.
Ed Carlin - Superintendent who departed from the education field the year after my dismissal. He was the only one to give evidence under oath as to lay-off figures which were shown to be fraudulent, even in the arbitration although no such reference appears, of course, in arbitrator Lindholm's report. In so many words, Carlin never had any official School Board sanction for his lay-off letter quoting them to that effect. That is the central point on which the Canadian judicial system has been impaled.
Kit Krieger - Former WVTA President responsible for hamstringing my case and  re-elected as President of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. (Subsequent leaders of no assistance either.)



BY: Roger Callow aka ‘Revolting Roger’ www.employeescasecanada.com

QUOTE: (Article appears as headlines in Globe & Mail plus National Post/Ottawa Citizen A3 Mar. 9/07)\

"Middle-class Canadians are increasingly frozen out by the cost and complexity of Canada’s

judicial processes...Their options are grim: use up the family assets in litigation; become their

own lawyers or give up. The result may be injustice." ‘Chief Justice McLachlin

MESSAGE: As you know, I have written to you before as it relates to your hypocrisy in the above case. In the Employee’s Case (Canada), I did not give up after close to 20 years of litigation in a career ending decision; the judges (over 30 including yourself on two occasions) merely picked up the judicial ball (law of ‘inherent jurisdiction’) and walked off leaving this case unresolved in 2004. That’s how the Canadian Justice system imploded taking, as it did, Parliamentary government with it. The result ‘may’ be injustice? It ‘was’ injustice as any number of judges claimed that I had a right to a court adjudication in this matter. Saying is obviously not doing in your books. By rights, if justice were to have been served, you should have been dismissed in 2004.

You continue, however, to give your pathetic speeches (the same one for 5 years lamented one newspaper article) to the usual ‘Junior League’ audience dutifully reported by a press beholden to the ‘assignment desk’ for their career options hence no criticism is permitted to be publicized such as my placards seen around Parliament Hill for the past few years. Indeed, former Citizen columnist Dave Brown declared the above case as a ‘non-issue’ in the office of my legal Counsel in 2002, but later went on to write that ‘the justice system is broken and past repair’ in retirement. ‘As to the Judiciary’, he asked? They are Canada’s strongest union. A union in which PLACARD: LEGAL BILLABLE TIME NONSENSE BUSTS CANADA. And as for justice? PLACARD: SILLY ASS JUDGES KILL HABEAS CORPUS. And the most popular saying? STAY OUT OF A CANADIAN COURTROOM UNLESS YOU FIRST BUY THE JUDGE. Or how about the Citizen's columnist, David Warren: 'TYRANNY OF FRUITCAKE UPPER COURT JUDGES' The Employee’s Case, heard by an honest judge, would have taken no more than 3 days greatly reducing those legal billable time hours which you would apparently lament. Every junior lawyer knows - as you do- that if he cannot run the billable time game, he is out of a large legal firm; a truism judges pay tribute to in judicial delays. No media account in Canada will expose this racquet.

‘Our court system is the envy of other nations,’ you claim? Not to the American judge trying a terrorist in Los Angeles who was not getting much co-operation from Canada: ‘This is NOT the Canadian Justice System,’ he opined, ‘this is an American courtroom’. Nor do the Americans trust to Canadian law regarding the legal outcome of the Arar Case; quite rightfully so in my estimation, for it was a foregone conclusion that Arar was not to be found guilty on tortured evidence. Spying was legalized for reporters in Canada when a judge threw out the case against the Citizen reporter (after close to a million dollars defense money over a few year period) because she disagreed with the wording in the Security Act. The judges in the Employee’s Case had every right to throw out the ‘Bill 35' legislation (since repealed before my case was resolved, the sole case under this banana republic law) as ‘current demonstrated ability’ is undefined in the statute or in law in general. The judge in the Citizen case overstepped her bounds as it was up to the court to decide on interpretation. And while we are on the topic of judge-made law, the events of 1985 with this writer were replicated 20 years later with the B.C. Teachers union at large when the Union was caught in the same government-judicial squeeze as I was. Freezing the assets of the Union (‘One thing to break the law; another to be broken by the law’ President Sims) was a preposterous judicial step. Why stop there? Why not freeze the funds of such as ESSO until they pay the total cost of the Valdez oil spill?

Even corporations are being dinged. Nortel paid $200 million out of a $800 million settlement to 66 lawyers. The government settled with the U.S. over the forestry to stem an expected $15 million in legal costs.

Space limits the many, many other abuses in the Canadian judiciary. I have made recommendations to the government which would go a long way to bring Canada’s ‘strongest union’ into line. Prime Minister Harper could win a majority in the next election along with the ‘hearts and minds’ of the Canadian public should he act on them. A first step would be a resolution to the ‘pension phase’ (see website - B.C. Pension Board won’t acknowledge either my legal claim or that of the Ontario Pension Board) which has landed in the Prime Minister’s lap due to the failure of the Canadian judicial system plus that of B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell.



- by R.W. Callow www.magma.ca/~callow

One might truthfully ask how a simple matter of an employee lay-off in 1985 has led, like the loss of a nail in the proverbial boot, to the destruction of the Canadian judicial system making, one and at the same time as a consequence, judge-made law supreme at the tacit recognition that Parliament is redundant?

It is a story of judicial cupidity in which over 30 of Canada's 'finest' judges have not only sanctioned the sweetheart deal between Employer and Union (the 'universality of Unions question' which the Supreme Court of Canada earlier refused to hear) but also have permitted judges to be a power unto themselves and function apart from the laws of the land ( the June 10, 2004 decision to bar former West Vancouver, B.C. teacher, Roger Callow, from receiving any compensation from an apparently illicit lay-off and yet the Employer, the Union and any number of judges are on record to state that compensation according to the laws is due. Simply put, a Canadian contract isn't worth the paper on which it is printed.

Never before in the annals of Canadian jurisprudence has an individual been barred from court in a legal matter which was ordered back to arbitration; in this case by Justice Southin in 1986 after quashing the original arbitration favouring the School Board condemning, as she did, the government-appointed arbitrator as being 'patently unreasonable'. As she did not have the necessary judicial power to order employment to be returned to this teacher; she could only recommend a return of employment.

As the judicial system failed to do the very thing they were appointed to do, the matter has now become the concern of B.C. Premier Campbell who, as at this time of writing, has not responded to my repeated request to use his powers to enforce Southin's recommendation in light of the failure of the School District to return to court as so ordered and in the light of the action of the B.C. government in repealing a piece of legislation (Bill 35) which would have been the envy of Nazi Germany. As matters now stand, as the targeted individual, I am in no position to use the courts to pursue the government on this level...nifty, eh? (Now you know why the 'frivolous and vexatious' laws were used.)

The original deal on this case of systematic injustice was made before three B.C. appeal court judges in 1987 who called respective legal Counsel to the bench with these comments: 'Now that Mr. Callow is living in another province, perhaps an outside settlement can be made' These judges knew full well that any hearing would reveal the perfidy of the West Vancouver School Board. For example, why did Trustee Dawn Sikula reject the private resolution sanctioning my lay-off considering teachers were actually being added to staff? Two other Board Trustees abstained leaving Trustee Margot Furk plus one other to pass a resolution which was not formally declared in School Board meeting minutes. How would former Superintendent Ed Carlin (dismissed one year later although his second wife still teaches in the District) account for his apparent perjury on enrolment numbers? The quid pro quo deal from the bench, I submit, was that as long as the Employer and Union did not initiate any court hearings, they would be protected by the judiciary. They didn't and they were in defiance of any number of applicable laws.

The challenge to incoming President/Prime Minister Stephen Harper who apparently abhors 'judge-made law' is to immediately suspend Supreme Court of Canada judges, Bastarache, LeBel & Deschamps until this case is resolved. Should he fail in that mission, he becomes President and Parliament becomes redundant with the Judges reigning supreme. At the very least, Harper must not appoint Reform Party's John Reynolds who was the alleged go-between of the Provincial Government of the Day and the West Vancouver School District with the passing of the infamous Bill 35.



TO: Interested Parties FROM: Roger Callow www.magma.ca (Employee's Case (Canada)

So Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun columnist (reprint Ottawa Citizen A12 Mar. 29/04) would ape my web site style with his article on the Supreme Court of Canada: ' I WON'T MISS LOUISE AND FRANK' making reference, as he does, to Professor Martin's book - The Most Dangerous Branch - How the Supreme Court of Canada has Undermined Our Law and Democracy. Mulgrew would stop short of comparing it to Nazi Germany as Martin does which has this writer wondering whether Mulgrew is familiar with 'Bill 35', the B.C. Act under which I was illicitly laid off 19 years ago and which has been repealed in the face of this unresolved labour case including already one visit to our illustrious Supreme Court of Canada. A second (unprecedented) appeal is currently in the works. He even ends with this snide observation as to the replacement of judges Louise Arbour and Frank Iacobucci: '...Or does the prime minister have a couple of cronies who need a job?' (What else would Prime Minister Paul Martin be whispering in the ear of Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin at the funeral of Mitchell Sharp - how to handle the Employee's Case? What are funerals for to such people as these?)

Like the Ottawa Citizen (my placard outside their window reads: Anti-employee Ottawa Citizen reports only those stories which have been 'bitched, broken and buried'), the Vancouver Sun would also forgo the phrase 'We report breaking news -and if you choose to be redundant- as it happens'. Where are the stories such as the Employee's Case (Canada) which have led to the sad state of affairs outlined by Mulgrew? They are conspicuous by their absence in the media. For example, the West Vancouver School Board is now late in responding to my request according to the B.C. Privacy Commissioner (a second attempt as the first one was bitched by that august body) to obtain the missing link (the School Board meeting notes in 1985 which would show that former teacher, Roger Callow, was indeed laid off. Justice Southin in quashing the arbitration in 1985 couldn't find them and she demanded the missing link. Where is my copy of that evidence which even the Union must be holding? Now there is a 'live story' for the Vancouver Sun although I couldn't even get a photograph with my placard after the kangaroo court hearing in Vancouver on Jan. 9/04. On my visit to Pacific Press, I was told, "Sorry, Sir, we only assign reporters by pre-arranged appointments." I have called for the removal of judges Bennett, Ryan and Opal for a gross miscarriage of justice. Mulgrew does not have to leave Vancouver should he wish to write an article on judicial abuse; just read 'Quick Law' which I have re-named 'Fast Buck Law' and interview the attorney for the losing side to see my 'Nazi-like' point (NHL Alexei Yashin a good story in point from Ottawa). Press publicity, sad to say as one would think we have ethical leaders at the helm in Canada, is all important if the comments of one whistle blower mentioned in the Citizen series on the topic are of any significance. In that article (A5 Mar. 29/04) whistleblower Pierre Blais on the dangers of silicone gel breast implants received the necessary public exposure to limit the damage done by the Old Boy's Club. Not so most whistleblowers, the Employee's Case (Canada) being the granddaddy of all legal cases.

Should history repeat itself and I find myself barred from the judicial system (frivolous and vexatious laws currently being appealed by me in the Supreme Court of Canada), all Canadian law will be at an end. Judge-made law will be the rule (Professor Martin's point) making meaningless Canadian Parliament. Why, for example, pass laws such as whistleblower laws when it is shown that those laws are routinely ignored or deliberately misinterpreted? In the Employee's Case, the situation is more profound for the court not only ignores the laws of habeas corpus and disclosure but they run roughshod over the law of inherent jurisdiction (In absence of the law to deal with an unresolved matter, the court must act.) And failure on this level is to deny the raison d'etre of any legal system. The Canadian justice system will implode.( JUNE/04 - CALLOW BARRED FROM JUSTICE SYSTEM)

Behind every economic collapse is a moral collapse. As an investor I would be most dubious in dealing with any Canadian company knowing that, if there was a parting of the ways, the matter could land in a Canadian court of law. In the words of one miffed Los Angeles Judge being stonewalled for evidence from Canada in a terrorist case; 'This is not the Canadian Justice System, this is an American court room.'



Editorial - Ottawa Citizen - May 1,2001

"...Recent years, however, have seen judges become de facto policy-makers through decisions that may go beyond a strictly legal interpretation of a particular case - everything from...to employment equity. The judiciary has become politicized."

Judging judges ... is there any other kind? What difference does it make if , for example,90% of judges are honest if the person assigning the cases forever assigns the other 10% to your case? There are those who could have told NHL Alexei Yashin that the best thing he could have done before Ottawa Justice Cunningham would have been to stick his head between his knees, reach up and kiss his sweet patootie goodbye. Hence the following list of judges assigned to the Employee's Case (Canada) included here along with other major players should be of concern .



TO: Alex Neve - Secretary General
Amnesty International (Canada)
401-214 Montreal Road
Ottawa, Ontario K1L 1A4 FAX: (613) 746-2411

FROM: Roger Callow
759 Pleasant Park Road
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 1Y5
PHONE/FAX: (613) 521-1739

To whom it may concern;

"The loss of another person's freedom" is perhaps the most difficult of concepts to grasp and for this reason, Amnesty International performs a service of inestimable value to humankind.

No doubt in this quest, Amnesty has found over the years that it has become inundated with requests forcing them - similar to all institutions - to form a mandate; a process which has a darker side to it in that abuses falling outside its mandate are ignored. What, it may be asked under these circumstances, is one to do when the legal case concerned, as opposed to the individual, is placed 'behind bars'? See the enclosures from my legal Counsel illustrating that theme. Regrettably, my appeals to the Canadian media and politicians, the ones who should be concerned, are ignored. The B.C. and Federal governments, for example, have studiously ignored my legal Counsel's question addressed to them by me; namely, what options are available for someone in my position who has exhausted the laws of Canada in a bid to seek a resolution in a legal matter? As matters now stand in the Employee's Case (Canada) www.capitalnet.com /~callow, I have been deprived of my professional designation as a school teacher due to an illicit lay-off without a proper enquiry or without compensation. 

The above sequence of events is largely due, I submit, to the chicanery of close to 30 judges and 'judge-made' law, a growing problem not only confined to this case. Just recently, for example, litigants in British Columbia were told by the presiding judge to settle out of court in a highly controversial matter relating to the sterilization of children. The fact that the matter was indeed settled outside of court has, as one deleterious side effect, left judges and the general public confused as to how to proceed in future cases of this type. As a generalization, legal Counsel in Canada seem to be permitted to engage in legal billable time exercises only to have serious questions truncated by presiding judges who have little fear of having their actions rejected on appeal by the 'correction principle', that is, that their actions are not deemed to have been incorrect. 

Similarly, the failure of the judicial system in the 17 year Employee's Case to act has led to my accusation that injustice in Canada is systematic; a damnable charge to which even the Governor General of Canada has failed to respond. How, for example, are B.C. School Boards to respond this year now that budget restrictions have forced teacher lay-offs? Are targeted teachers to be retained on salary (their only leverage against improper delay) while their case is under appeal? May the Union, which has been declared their sole representative (as established by precedent law in this case) abandon their claims which also has been established in this case? Indeed, as in this case, the Union is in a conflict of interest as the success of one teacher's appeal requires the lay-off of a second teacher and so-on. What Union has the resources and therefore interest in funding $50,000 a crack for each dismissal? Under these circumstances, is the individual teacher to be faced with a 'sweetheart deal' which, due to precedent law in the Employee's Case, cannot be contested without the Union's permission? That's ludicrous! And it doesn't stop there. Defective laws in the current B.C. legislation such as 'current demonstrated ability' are undefined in law or elsewhere (although for structural reasons, the term may not be applied to lay-off for reasons of teacher competency or 'for cause') Remitting a matter to the same arbitrator as ordained by B.C. labour law also has its pitfalls as commented on by Justice Mary Southin when she quashed the original arbitration in 1986. In this instance, the arbitrator later passed away leaving in law a situation known as 'frustration' and one with which the courts have failed to address. While Canada's collective judges have only themselves to blame for the current morass of legal difficulties; they have left Canadian employees at large exposed to an extent where they can claim to wear a symbolic 'yellow star'. Individual Canadian employees deserve better treatment. 

In the absence of Canadian institutions to act on this central Canadian issue, what assistance can Amnesty International offer to a cause which now has the welfare of Canada's employees at stake?

In appreciation, yours truly

January 7, 2002

TO: Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin

       Supreme Court of Canada

FROM: Roger Callow

             Ottawa, Ontario K1G 1Y5

To whom it may concern;

Once again, I see yet another cliche speech plus this time a photogenic portrait of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin as originally published in The Lawyers Weekly and reported on by the Ottawa Citizen (Jan. 7/2002). The newspaper article concludes with her statement '- but we are also very conscious of the need to maintain liberty and to ensure that Canada remains a democratic and liberal and free country where freedoms are impinged as little as possible.' Canada has been none of those things if the 17 year-old saga of the Employee's Case (Canada) is any example of which I submit is indeed the case....

... To bastardize Winston Churchill - 'some Canada! some democracy! some justice system! As Chief Justice, you should be ashamed of your leadership. As for  Canadian media reporting... it should be made of sterner stuff.         

cc.  Ottawa Citizen

No support received from the following list of Teacher Union executives across the country
(The WVTA executive failed to even acknowledge the request as a legal courtesy.)
'People don't believe in evil anymore,' Innes reflected. 'It's obsolete.'
'Oh no', the president said with conviction. 'Evil is alive and well in our time. The problem is that too many people have made their peace with it.' Fortunes of War Stephen Coonts

A request for support for my petition to the West Vancouver Teachers Association on the following grounds has been made to the following Associations. The support requested reads: 'What action are you prepared to take on behalf of all Canadian employees in general and one Canadian teacher in particular?'

David Eaton - Canadian Teachers Association
Charles Hyman - Alberta "
Derwyn Crozier-Smith - Sask "
Art Reimer - Manitoba "
Susan Langley - Ontario "
Alan Lombard - Quebec "
Robert Fitzpatrick - N.B. "
Jim MacKay - Nova Scotia "
Myles Ellis - P.E.I. "
Wayne Noseworthy - NFLD "
David Roebuck - NWT "
Dennis Rankin - Yukon "
Gene Lewis - Ont. Elem. "
Malcolm Buchanan - Ont. Sec. "
Robert Gagne - N. B. "
Earl Manners - Ont. Sec. "

The resolution:
'That the WVTA instruct their legal Counsel to drop all opposition to the attempt of former WV teacher Roger Callow to seek a court resolution to his illicit lay-off in June of 1985.'

Based on the following premises:
1) The Association's failure to redress the School Board's successful efforts to finesse the dismissal provisions of the School Act;
2) The Association's abandoning its efforts to redress the problem and leaving one of its members hung out to dry.

-Incoming BCTF President, David Chudnovfky has muffed his chances to win back the BCTF for the teachers. Ethical B.C. teachers should vote to remove their local Associations from BCTF membership should staff lawyer, David Yorke, remain on staff. It's a pity that so many local Presidents have bought into the BCTF disinformation scheme on this case.


Ottawa Citizen   A14   April 2, 1998

     If Supreme Court of Canada Justice Frank Iacobucci is so concerned about "hired guns" undermining our justice system, he has no further to look for the source of that problem than into the next mirror. ("Judge scolds greedy lawyers," March 30/98). To bastardize Shakespeare: "Our problems lie not in our lawyers, my dear Iacobucci, but in ourselves as judges for not curtailing legal billable time exercises or encouraging badly needed reforms in our laws of evidence." ....

     If the truth be known, the future of our country is in far more jeopardy than the public would like to believe from a crumbling justice system than it is from the separation of any one province.

Roger Callow, Ottawa            

                   TO: Judicial Council of Canada - Ottawa(July/2003)

FROM:Roger Callow
759 Pleasant Park Road
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 1Y5
PHONE/FAX (613) 521-1739

TOPIC: Employee's Case (Canada) www.capitalnet.com/~callow

Included in this account is the factum for case SCBC No.S022987 (Vancouver Registry) appealing the earlier B.C. Supreme Court decision of Justice J. Williamson. Along with earlier information submitted to the Judicial Council, I submit there are sufficient grounds to remove Williamson from the bench for a gross dereliction of duty.

The question before Justice Williamson related to an Employer/Union request that, as the targeted party, I be barred from proceeding with a charge of conspiracy against the two entities in an unresolved case lasting 18 years in which my employment as a professional teacher was improperly terminated. The request made was based under the law of vexatious proceedings. In other words, while my attempts to gain status to conclude the outstanding proceedings of my dismissal were constantly rejected by the judicial system up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada which refused to hear the matter; the very act of making any such attempt was deemed sufficient grounds by Williamson to bar me from any further legal proceedings where I did have the necessary status to proceed. That decision was made in light of his refusal to call for the necessary disclosure of evidence which, I submit, would be necessitated for any fair decision as ascertained in the enclosed factum. In that quest, the question is not so much a desire by the employer to manipulate the courts as it is the cupidity of the court which is now at question.

Specifically, the School Board never presented any evidence demonstrating a need to lay off a teacher in June of 1985 as concluded by Justice Mary Southin when she quashed the arbitration in support of the School Board and ordered the matter back to arbitration. Oral evidence at the original arbitration by the Assistant Superintendent further reinforced the fact that the School Board did not call for the lay off of any teacher in June of 1985. Indeed, their own figures showed an increase rather than a decrease in staffing thereby putting the lie to the dismissal letter of Superintendent Ed Carlin quoting such authority and who was released from his duties in the following year. As Justice Southin failed to retain me as the targeted employee on salary as is customary in such matters, the 18 year squeeze play for a renewed arbitration was initiated in a scenario labelled by defense lawyer, Harry Rankin, as one 'she can't get away with'. She did and all Canada is theloser on that account as all employees holding union or professional membership are negatively impacted to the extent that they now function under a judiciary which has justified the sweetheart deal for the point in law is that Labour Arbitrators have long held that in order to be valid, proposed layoffs must be the result of an Employer's good faith that there is a lack of available work. As stated repeatedly as an opener in court hearings on this issue by me; 'While I may have a battle with the Employer and the Union, I have a full scale battle with the judges selected to hear this case.'

Be that as it may there is nothing as the targeted employee that I can do under the law for, as my attorney, correctly states; 'You have exhausted all remedy under the law.' In other words, no answer was to be my answer which flies in the face of the laws of inherent jurisdiction in which there must be ultimate remedy under the law. Apparently the failure for the School Board to return to arbitration as so ordered or alternatively sign an agreement with the Union, along with the other evidential information noted above was insufficient for the justice system to do the expected thing; namely, order me back to work with all conditions of the contract to apply including salary plus interest from November 4, 1985 when I was arbitrarily cut off salarybefore the arbitration was hardly under way. As such, the School Board meeting notes relating to the topic are all important and were ordered by Justice Southin to be turned over to her in 1985. As such, the Union would possess a copy of such information of which I believed such as Justice Williamson should provide me, particularly as a consequence of the School Board refusal to provide such information to me under the freedom to access laws or for the purpose of discovery in the upcoming conspiracy trial where my status to proceed was not drawn into question.

One can imagine the consternation of the Employer and Union when faced with the above request for complete disclosure which helps to explain why an apparent agreement was made in July of 2003 which included the B.C. Labour Board to no longer fax copies to me of material confirmed by 'snail mail' as was the pattern for the preceding 17 years. That ploy enabled them to manipulate a hearing before a Master Barber on Sept. 30/02 without my knowledge making claim, as they did, to a questionable interpretation of the rules to deny me any such notification. That Master Barber apparently did not ask the question as to whether or not I was aware of the proceedings I find preposterous. That the Vancouver Court system, the body for investigating on this level, refused to conduct such an examination of his actions, I find downright criminal and the operation of the entire Vancouver court system has been drawn into question on that account. Why the 'triad of evil' felt they had to proceed on this level appears to have been made redundant, as ultimately Justice Williamson was willing to give the Employer and Union everything they asked for without serious judgment. (I'm wondering in that respect whetherWilliamson was a former student of mine to whom I gave a failure mark.) The point in law before him was that while the appeal court of Hollinrake et al (read between the lines of his last paragraph in which he recognized that the court did not refer to the laws of inherent jurisdiction for unstated reasons) may have had the excuse that the court need not act while a financial offer was on the table with the Union representing all interests of their individual members hence implying that my claim for closure could be ignored, was now no longer valid in that no employer offer was on the table and the Union had admittedly abandoned the case refusing, as they did, my right to continue legalities at my own cost. (Interestingly enough, all courts including that of the despicable Barber proceedings have seen fit to dun me with all costs to date in an apparent back doorbid to chase me out of the justice system.) The garbled accounts by both Union and Employer counsel as they related to Williamson's question on inherent jurisdiction probably accounts as to why no reference is made to that point in his account merely concluding for reasons best known to himself that indeed, my actions to acquire status were to be considered vexatious leading to his self fulfilling prophecy that as 'there was little likelihood of success' in any further legal proceedings on my part, I was effectively barred from the courts on this issue. In so many words, without the School Board meeting notes, my case goes nowhere and Justice Williamson for one has no interest in seeing that I am rightfully provided with my copy of these filed court documents.

No judge with a reputation to protect, I submit, would ever write such an abstruse decision as this one unless he was guaranteed support on any such appeal held for the purpose. It may very well be that the finding of three more judges without a reputation to protect (perhaps explaining the sorry lot of close to 30 judges assigned to this case - see web site for list) may explain why on May 26, 2003, School Board counsel wrote in contesting an apparent minor technical delivery problem that 'We reserve our right to ask that your appeal be struck for lack of compliance'. I earlier wrote Justice Larry Finch, a name I was supplied with by the Justice Council as one person who might be appealed to on this level of judge appointment. The appointment ofWilliamsonseems to be my answer.

That the sweetheart deal has been sanctioned by the courts is a matter in which the Judicial Council must take its share of the blame. To refer to this concern as a 'personal situation' by the ministry of Justice Minister Martin Cauchon as it did merely confirms the anti-employee attitudes of this government. The point is that the three parties to this case agree that compensation is due and the justice system is failing as much itself as the three parties concerned by failing to do the very job it is appointed to do to that end. That the gullible B.C. media of the day were willing to buy into School Board propaganda as to 'why a competent teacher should be laid off while a less than competent one retained ' without checking into the basic facts is a given. More recently, that such as columnist and senior editor of the Ottawa Citizen, Dave Brown, was prepared to call this matter a non-issue in the office of my legal counsel in a meeting held for the purpose reveals the hypocritical nature of an anti-employee Canadian media which would seek to condemn the morality of foreign nations with its usual 20-20 hindsight while, one and at the same time, ignore the ticking timebomb of the Employee's Case(Canada) which one day will no doubt be reflected on as being the turning point as to where Canada lost its democracy. As for Prime Minister Chretien, this document can serve as the first document to be placed in his so-called history museum and remain his one true legacy and that, if necessary, of each succeeding Canadian Prime Minister. The historical caption would read: 'West Vancouver School Trustee tail wags Canadian judicial dog".

...and what did you learn in school today?

Yours truly,

Roger Callow
cc interested parties                         




FROM : Roger Callow www.magma.ca/~callow ‘Employee’s Case(Canada)’ FAX:(613)521-1739


‘Chief Justice bemoans soaring legal fees’

(Ottawa Citizen Aug. 13/06 A11)

MESSAGE: My placards seen outside Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada over the past few years must be taking their toll: PLACARD 1) STAY OUT OF A CANADIAN COURTROOM UNLESS YOU FIRST BUY THE JUDGE; 2) LEGAL BILLABLE TIME NONSENSE BUSTS CANADA; 3) SILLY ASS JUDGES KILL HABEAS CORPUS 4) BE ETHICAL - SHUN JUDGES

As a personal response; "The problem, my dear lady justice, lies not with our lawyers and their billable time fees; rather it is with ourselves as judges who tolerate this ‘raison d’etre’ of the Canadian judicial system".

In the above Employee’s Case, her ladyship presided over two occasions in which a hearing was refused by our erstwhile Supreme Court of Canada in a nineteen year unresolved labor matter on the termination of this professional teacher. Evidence existed which would have supported senior B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Southin’s assertion that, as the targeted person, I had not indeed been laid off by the West Vancouver School District in 1985. The lower courts, while recognizing the court demand for a renewed arbitration (after Southin quashed the first arbitration ruling, as she did, that the arbitrator had been patently unreasonable) regrettably gave de facto recognition to an Employer/Union sweetheart deal claiming only those two parties could resolve the matter. They did nothing leaving this case in limbo for many years in spite of many trips by me to the B.C. Labor Board and courts to effect a conclusion.

The significance of the second trip to the Supreme Court of Canada under the laws of inherent jurisdiction was that the Employer/Union successfully circumvented the charge of conspiracy laid against them by me by having me barred from court under any circumstances (a perverse application of the frivolous& vexatious laws).

My point here is not to rehash what may be read in more detail on my web site. Rather, it is to note that when I appeared before Justice Ryan et al of the Appeal Court of the B.C. Supreme Court, I pointed out how the two main considerations for denying my status in any hearings regarding my lay-off had been revoked. Both those ‘excuses’ evaporated when any financial figure from the Employer was withdrawn and the Union dropped representation of the case in 2001 refusing to permit me to argue my own case before the court at my own expense. (I believed that I had always had the power to represent myself anyway but earlier the Supreme Court of Canada in their august opinion refused to deal with this central universality of Unions question which has left judges to do just as they please on labor sweetheart deals.) Ryan had structured the half hour hearing so that only my oral argument on this point, which she was not privy to until I introduced it in court, would be heard. Ryan et al returned to court after my presentation with a pre-written response which gave no recognition to my oral argument regarding the ‘desertion’ issue. My legal counsel obviously felt the fix was in and did everything in his power to dissuade me from spending another $25,000 to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada under the inherent jurisdiction provisions. How else, I responded, could I accuse the Canadian Justice System of being ‘crooked to the bone’ unless I went the full route? (For the politically correct, I quote Professor Martin from his book on the topic: ‘Canada’s top court is so highly politicized, that it has abandoned legal principles in making its decisions, preferring instead to decide matters on the basis of ‘values’ that reflect the judges personal preferences’. In the words of the Ottawa Citizen’s columnist, David Warren, ‘Tyranny of fruitcake Upper-Court Judges’.( Also a Placard.)

With regards to the billable time theme, perhaps I should be thankful that if Justice Ryan et al were intending to screw me, they kept the court time mercifully short.

Generally speaking from the many case studies I have read, I submit judges in league with legal Counsel are in the habit of judging the financial soundness of the litigants before setting the length of an inquiry. For example, one Ontario judge was upbraided by a University Professor for ruling favorably in a slander matter in which the litigant from Kenya had sued in Ontario because the magazine concerned was also distributed here. The Magazine successfully appealed; something the judge would expect them to do providing all that extra moola for legal counsel. In another instance, the ‘wealthy’ Citizen has spent more than half a million dollars and still has not found out after 2 years plus what was written in the search warrant (Arar Case) from the police which is a key to the case. Recently, the highly publicized Air India crash (1985) enquiry was permitted to extend over a year when the presiding judge was well aware after the first week that this ‘pig was not going to fly’. In yet another case, an OPP officer successfully sued the Citizen for slander (awarded a settlement by the jury) only to see a judge circumvent the jury decision by reducing the billable time fees in such a fashion that the officer owes money as opposed to receiving it! I could go on and on with these stories which are being paralleled by an increasing number of stories on the street, for they are conspicuous by their absence from the media.

Herein lies the culpability of the media whose silence in 1985 (Vancouver Sun ‘pack journalism’) which was a factor in the original arbitration in the Employee’s Case. I have written numerous letters to the effect that as long as such as the Ottawa Citizen (and by extension, the Canadian media) continue to look through the big end of the telescope of their legal writer, Dan Gardner (‘justica award’ recipient), abuses in the legal system will continue to fester. Currently, I have one British Investigative Reporter claiming that I sit on a major story vis a vis the ‘implosion of the Canadian justice system’ over a ‘rinky dink labor case’ (because of the centralization of the Canadian media, I have been seeking publicity elsewhere).

In one interesting aside, one of my legal Counsels would upbraid me regarding the tarring of judges for most of the judicial problems to which I responded: ‘What difference does it make if 90% of judges are honest if the one assigning judges to your case is assigning the other 10%? In another observation, there is no change in the judiciary under the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper who would see fit to have former West Vancouver MPP, John Reynolds, the infamous go-between in the ‘Employee’s Case’ in 1985 between the B.C. government and the School District and who also served a stint under Harper as an MP, to be the chief lobbyist for the Canadian judiciary.

Granted that court workers are no doubt being overworked with people handling their own case. I submit, however, that the problem goes deeper than the financial one; namely, that many do not feel comfortable with the Canadian justice system to the extent that they don’t want to ‘send good money after bad’. I did it to prove a principle; a principle to which the Canadian media has placed an embargo. And without a viable media - and I submit that is indeed the case in Canada - you can have no democracy.

Heal thyself first, Canadian judges, then and only then may we speak about the problems which bedevil the justice system.