May 09-2015


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)


cc SK Legal Society /  Premier B. Wall / P.M. Justin Trudeau  / Lavery de Billy (QC)

Justice Minister  J. Wilson/Raybould

                                                                                                                               SENT BY FAX


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

tel:/fax: 613-521-1739  e-mail: thecallows@gmail.com

employescasecanada.ca  'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System'


REFERENCE: Supreme Court of Canada No. 36883 (QC) (April 15-2016)

                        Supreme Court of Canada No. 36993 (SK)  (May 05-2016)



1) Acknowledgment of SCofC letter dated May 05-2016 assigning SK docket no. is noted.

2) As there are similarities between the earlier SCofC Appeal of QC to the SK matter, a copy of this letter is included for each SCofC folder.

3) It should be noted that a current filing in P.E.I. against the Union in this matter is solely for their copy of disclosure of which applies to all three cases. As a Union client, I maintain that I have a right to such information.

4) That disclosure, without which no hearing can be properly adjudged, relates to hearings held by the Employer, the West Vancouver School Trustees, in June of 1985 in which they discussed at length the neophyte BILL 35 and the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow. Rather than leaving these notes as earlier requested by B.C. Supreme Court Justice, Mary Southin, on  file with the court, she returned them to the Employer and Union 'because she did not use them'; all of which smacks of cover-up.

5) All of these court hearings against the Employer since that time by this litigant has included a request for that disclosure which was adamantly ignored by both Employer and Courts.

6) In the event that the Employer volunteers to provide that disclosure, two actions disappear from the slate; those of QC & PEI. The SCofC Courts for both actions are called on to supply this disclosure as a preliminary action.

7) The matter of the Appeal in SK is of further significance as the lower courts failed to deal with the constitutional question regarding the ultra vires nature of BILL 35. (The operant phrase 'current demonstrated ability' is not defined in BILL 35 nor in law in general). As the Respondent Employer failed to provide a rebuttal to this constitutional challenge; then my assertion must stand and, as such, all action emanating from this BILL 35 is null and void according to statute law. Employment with all terms of the contract must be returned to this litigant under these circumstances (30 years back pay with interest).

8) Earlier, my warning to the Employer against using Lavery de Billy in contesting the QC matter to the SCofC without awaiting a proper definition from the oversight bodies of their conduct was ignored. Hence I have requested that the SCofC ban Lavery de Billy from any such SCofC hearing.

9) Should the Employer insist on using Harris & Co. (B.C. parent firm in SK), without a proper evaluation of their conduct in SK Courts by the SK Legal Society (an earlier examination by the B.C. Legal Society was 'still-born'), then a similar ban of Harris & Co. is called for in the SCofC Appeal.

10) In both SCofC Courts, I call for the voluntary recusal of SCofC Chief Justice, Hon. B. McLachlin  (25C since rescinded) as she served in 1997 with then Chief Justice A. Lamers (d) in rejecting this unresolved matter under the terms of 'the universality of unions' and was Chief Justice in 2004 when once again, this matter was rejected for a hearing under the terms of 'ultimate remedy'. McLachlin is also the President of the Canadian Judicial Council which has never acknowledged a number of complaints against judicial conduct which I have made.

11) The two SCofC rejections are particularly troubling in that no docket number was supplied in either instance hence nothing shows on the judicial record. Nor was any Respondent argument called for. In short, it would appear that I have to re-run these two earlier applications through the Justice System where docket numbers exist for a proper evaluation. (CORRECTION: File numbers are 1997-25891 ; 2004-30196 ; both refused a hearing)


Yours truly,



Roger Callow  self-represented Appellant (plaintiff)


AUGUST 21-2015 (TAB 2 in my REPLY 36993(SK)with copy to 36883(QC)


Former Quebec legal star stakes reputation on mysterious, ‘fraudulent’ insurance case

Graeme Hamilton | April 6, 2012 4:00 PM ET

·         COMMENT 3 years ago

As a Quebecker - I stand behind Mr. Choquette all the way!   The  Quebec 'request'  saying   "...Mr. Choquette’s “unjustified attack against several judges and lawyers” undermines public respect for the judicial system. " is a clear demonstration with just how  out of touch with the reality of Quebeckers "opinions"  of its  judicial system today.   In my humble opinion - Quebeckers haven't had 'respect'  for  the province's  'Mickey Mouse' ' judicial system'  - since Mr. Choquette left his post.   Bravo, Bravo Mr. Choquette for defending the truth with honor:  something that has been much too absent - for much too long in la belle province.

As Premier Robert Bourassa’s justice minister, Mr. Choquette was confronted with the FLQ kidnappings of British Trade Commissioner James Cross and provincial Labour Minister Pierre Laporte, who was murdered. William Tetley, a cabinet colleague at the time, would later describe Mr. Choquette as “an unsung hero of the October Crisis,” saluting his firm and decisive action. Mr. Choquette is credited with modernizing the Quebec justice system through the introduction of legal aid, small claims court, the Youth Protection Act and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms

Jérôme Choquette, former Quebec legal star, stakes reputation on mysterious, ‘fraudulent’ insurance case

MONTREAL — It was just three years ago that Jérôme Choquette was hailed by his peers in the legal profession for his “exceptional contribution to the cause of justice.” The head of the Montreal Bar Association awarded the former Quebec justice minister the organization’s highest honour, the Médaille du Barreau. Mr. Choquette, he said, was “one of the greatest justice ministers Quebec has known.”

On Monday, Mr. Choquette was back before the bar in completely different circumstances. Still practising law at age 84, Mr. Choquette is now fighting an attempt to have him disbarred for failing to support the authority of the courts. “I am innocent,” he declared to the three-person discipline committee hearing his case, before the hearing was adjourned to give him time to find a lawyer for his defence.

The disciplinary case before the Quebec Bar Association was prompted by an action Mr. Choquette filed in Superior Court last June seeking to nullify the Fournier and Wagner rulings.

The two judges, Mr. Choquette alleged in his 105-page motion, had met at a Montreal steakhouse with lawyers representing one of the insurance firms and conspired to determine the Ahmads’ claims were fraudulent. He alleged that prominent lawyers at Stikeman Elliott, including former federal justice minister Marc Lalonde and former vice-president of the International Olympic Committee Richard Pound, took part in the plot. Evidence had been hidden and tampered with, he added. A rejection by the Canadian Judicial Council of his 2010 complaint against the two judges was evidence of an “objective cover-up,” he said.

On March 8, the Bar Association’s syndicate filed a formal complaint against Mr. Choquette, accompanied by a request for temporary disbarment. The request said Mr. Choquette’s “unjustified attack against several judges and lawyers” undermines public respect for the judicial system. It said his behaviour has compromised the protection of the public and that he “persists in continuing his crusade against the judges and lawyers involved in the files.”

National Post

CALLOW ARGUMENT - TAB 4 (2016)  SC36993 (SK) c. 1997




     The nub of part one of the Petitioner's complaint before the B.C. Labour Relations Board ("the Board") was that the Association failed to provide a fully considered response to his request that the Association review, deliberate upon, and assess the merits of his proposed alternative settlement strategy. The factual assertions underlying this part of his complaint are set out in paragraphs 16 through 21 of the Petitioner's outline. The assertions are particularly germane are as follows:

(a) The Association through Mr. Yorke (see letter of February 24, 1997) promised to "carefully consider (Mr. Callow's) views concerning settlement";

(b) The Association  had not previously (i.e. before the Petitioner's request of July 14, 1997) considered the alternative strategy;

(c) Mr. Laughton provided a "preliminary view" of the strategy only. His preliminary response was given without knowledge of any legal support for the strategy, and with a promise to "revisit" the issue on receipt of such authority;

(d) The Association (M. Laughton) never indicated one way or the other, after being advised of the legal foundation of the strategy, whether the strategy might have merit despite three written requests from the Petitioner's counsel.


     While the Board accepted (with hesitation) that the Association had an obligation to respond to the Petitioner's request "in a manner that accorded with its duty of fair representation", it did not accept the Petitioner's factual assertions underlying the complaint as it was required to do in making a S.13 determination. Rather the Board found "there is no evidence from which it could be inferred that Laughton did not review, or failed to be persuaded by, the Philip (SIC) authority either arbitrarily or for reasons attributable to bad faith..." There clearly was evidence (or factual assertions) as indicated in (a) (b) (c) & (d) above from which it could be inferred that no full consideration of the strategy in light of the legal authorities ever occurred, and that, if it did, the results were not communicated to the Petitioner. In either case arbitrariness or bad faith must be implied to Mr. Laughton. The only evidence that Mr. Laughton did review the strategy was his initial response (Laughton letter of October 2,1997) given with an admitted lack of knowledge of the legal basis for the strategy. It is patently unreasonable to interpret that response as satisfying the Association's duty to respond (a duty which the Board found to exist) without arbitrariness or bad faith.


     Having thus denied the Petitioner's factual underpinnings and having determined, without jurisdiction, that the Association did provide a meaningful response, the Board went on to conclude that the "response" was reasonable.


     In doing so, because there was no Association response to the legal foundational elaboration of the strategy as set out in Conlin's (Plaintiff's legal counsel) letter of October 2, 1997, the Board had to review Mr. Laughton's "preliminary view" following his cursory introduction to the strategy (see Laughton letter of September 22, 1997). Here also the Board, misinterpreted or failed to accept the factual assertions of the Petitioner. The Board interpreted the Petitioner's factual position as being that the success of the alternate strategy rested on either a judicial/arbitral finding of liability, or an admission of liability. The Board's reasoning appears to be that since the Association had a right not to pursue arbitration (which the Board concluded was the only means of determining liability) and since the School Board was not likely to admit liability, the Association's refusal to pursue the alternative strategy was reasonable.


     The Labour Board based its finding that the Association had a right not to pursue arbitration on its own determination of the issues in the Petitioner's first complaint. The Board's decision on the first complaint is under judicial review but no date for a hearing has yet been set. The Board's conclusion  that its decision had been confirmed by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal is therefore erroneous, both in relation to the procedural (timeliness) issue, and in relation to the merits of whether the Association had a right not to pursue arbitration.


    If the Board, when referring to Court confirmation of the Association's right not to pursue arbitration, was alluding to the decisions of the B.C. Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in proceedings initiated by the Petitioner not involving the Board, it was mistaken as to any such confirmation. All such decisions by either the Supreme Court of B.C. or the Court of Appeal involved other issues and were decided on the basis that the Petitioner, as a member of a collective bargaining unit, had no status to pursue his claims. Far from determining that the Association had a right not to pursue arbitration or that arbitration was precluded, Mr. Justice Spencer (1995) suggested a method of getting arbitration on the rails. Further, because the circumstances giving rise to the Petitioner's lay-off grievance predated the Association's certification and the mandatory applicability of the Labour Relations Code to the Petitioner's complaint, it is open to the Petitioner to have the unsolved issue of the merits of his first complaint determined in Court, quite apart from the judicial review of the Board's untimeliness decision on that complaint.


     The Board's error in finding that the Association's action in refusing to pursue the alternative strategy was reasonable goes beyond the Board's mistaken premise that the Association had a right not to pursue arbitration in aid of reinstatement. It compounded its error by extending its approval of the Association's decision not to pursue arbitration in aid of reinstatement to the Association's decision not to pursue arbitration in aid of compensation. It did so even though in finding that the second complaint was timely, it carefully distinguished the actions of the Association in pursuing reinstatement on the one hand, and financial settlement on the other (see paragraph 31 of  decision). It correctly found that the two remedies were independent of each other. Similarly the means of achieving those remedies ought also to have been viewed independently.


     The conclusion therefore reached by the Board that the Association acted reasonably in deciding not to pursue the alternative strategy was based on a faulty premise, namely, that the Association had a right not to pursue arbitration and, by extension, that the Association was under no obligation to have liability determined under any circumstances. To say that it is reasonable to be unwilling to determine liability or an unreasonable position on compensation for Mr. Callow, no matter which strategy is pursued, is either futile or entirely dependent on the benevolence of the School Board. The Board's conclusion is therefore patently unreasonable. Parenthetically, the School Board has failed to demonstrate any such benevolence. In fact in negotiations with the Association it initially denied Mr. Callow's right to any interest on any compensation that might be agreed to, and later offered a partial payment only of court order interest. That offer was subsequently withdrawn. Both the School Board and the Association seem more intent on immediate collection of legal costs awarded against Mr. Callow as a result of his effort to achieve fair compensation than they are in providing fair compensation to him.



1) If you can get through the legalspeak, compensation depends on the legitimacy of the lay-off of Mr. Callow in June of 1985. To date there is no decision (arbitration quashed) leaving him in limbo for 30 years; a preposterous position for any litigant. No compensation  has been paid.

2) Any such enquiry held by the Labour Board or courts would have forced disclosure and the fact that Justice Southin covered-up a conspiracy of massive proportions in 1986.

3) It would also permit an Employer to argue that under BILL 35 conditions, the courts and Union under the collective bargaining rules had no jurisdiction in this matter and why they claim they owe no compensation in this matter as the Arbitrator's Report is the final word; not that of the court.

3) The SCofC in 1997 compounded that cover-up by refusing to hear this matter under the 'universality of unions'  thus compromising the entire Union movement.

4) The SCofC in 2004 refused to hear this matter under 'ultimate remedy' hence 'no legal answer became a legal answer' That reduced Canada to Third World status.

5) In 2016, in the SCofC appeal of QC failure to produce 'disclosure' on June 09-2016 decimates the entire justice system as all written law becomes redundant. That's anarchy.

6) Whom runs Canada? SCofC Chief Justice B. McLachlin or Prime Minister Justin Trudeau?


    The West Vancouver school board should reinstate dismissed teacher Roger Callow in light of a B.C. Supreme Court decision earlier this week, B.C. Teachers Federation president Elsie McMurphy said Thursday...McMurphy said the teachers' federation is pleased with the decision, as it should discourage school boards from using the legislation in a way it was not intended to be used. She said it was encouraging that Justice Southin stressed teachers' rights to due process if they are to be terminated...She said she doesn't like the idea of sending it back to the arbitrator, because it would be difficult for him to admit he's wrong. He (Callow) should be simply reinstated by the board....


1) The failure of the Union to place the School District 'into dispute' was a signal to the authorities that the Union did not want any investigation of my charges of fraud against an administrator (until 1988, administrators were part of the Union). My return would have forced that issue.

2) There were a number of attempts by other School Boards to use BILL 35 which the Union talked out of leaving the case in West Vancouver to proceed under highly dubious circumstances.

3) The matter did not go back to arbitration due to the intractability of both the Union and Employer in this squeeze play leaving me in limbo in this unresolved labour case. The B.C. courts (Spencer j. Decision 1995) decided that I had no status under these conditions to gain compensation (deferred salary plus pension rights- for 30 years as it turns out). The 'Cullen Creed' expelled me from B.C. in July of 2013 forcing me into other court systems which have fallen on their sword in order to derail this case. All of Canada is poorer for these judicial machinations.

4) The Union had no intention of proceeding to court to appeal the arbitration. It was my change of lawyers which prompted a 'delayed' support; much like the CBC's Jian Ghomeshi case.


...' West Vancouver taxpayers will happily pay whatever cost is necessary to ensure the teachers standing in front of their children have current demonstrated ability,' chairman Mike Smith said after the board voted this week to take the matter to the B.C. Court of Appeal....

But Smith said the board is going ahead with an appeal, which he estimated could cost at least $10,000. (they lost RC) "because we believe the judge erred. (my italics) According to BILL 35, the decision of the arbitrator is binding. There is no right of appeal. (There is if fraud is shown. That is the importance of disclosure of the School Board meeting notes of June 1985.)

     In her ruling, the judge said: "There was evidence upon which the arbitrator could reasonably have concluded the board used the act to rid itself of a troublesome pedant. Mr. Callow ...has been a thorn in the side of the West Vancouver school board." (euphemism for 'whistleblower')



5) 'current demonstrated ability' is undefined in BILL 35 and in law in general but may not be used to refer to teacher competence as BILL 35 was in addition to and did not cancel out any of the provisions of the collective bargaining process. The current SCofC #36993 seeks to challenge the ultra vires nature of this BILL 35 making the lay-off into a nullity.

6) This basic challenge between 'imposed' government legislation and the jurisdiction of the courts (the SCofC challenge #36993 SK ) is at the heart of the smooth operation of our democracy. Failure first by the B.C. Labour Board in 1996 and then the SCofC in 1997 to hold an open enquiry established the nature of the cover-up which extends to the present day in 2016. That failure has led to the decimation of the Justice System in 10 separate court systems and over 40 judges. On June 9,2016, the SCofC is to act on the Quebec excesses (#36883) in this case. Failure once again - there have been two SCofC failures to date (1997 & 2004) - would be 'strike 3' for the Justice System forcing the Prime Minister to take executive action.






BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employescasecanada.ca (30 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. teacher lay-off in 1985) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. Currently there are two SCofC hearings slated (QC & SK) with a pending hearing in P.E.I. as the Justice System gets ubered (external threat from an unexpected source) through the interlocking legal proceedings from different courts across Canada. Pulitzer Prize seeking writer is sought in this one-of-a-kind story of the century. This edition is focused on my request for preliminary disclosure (refused) as it relates to SCofC 36883 QC with the Decision to be delivered on June 9-2016.


A) 'What needst we fear it, when none can call us to account?' Lady MacBeth

B) ...He could announce that he had cleared a major case, and there would be no trial to possibly prove him wrong.... The Burning Room  Michael Connelly

C) 'The government, the newspapers - nobody's really watching out for Joe Public anymore' IBID

N.B. The following letter is directed to  Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, whom has witnessed the collapse of the Quebec Judiciary in this case and now, on June 9-2016, is about to witness the collapse of the entire Canadian Judiciary. He has not even seen fit to send in the RCMP in this matter of extensive judicial fraud.


Response of this writer to a telephone call received from the SCofC on June 3-2016 after filing a reply to the Respondent's factum for #36993 (SK) with a copy to #36883 (QC).


1) Included in my plaintiff Reply was the 'juicy story' (SEE web SCofC 36993 SK) of former QC Justice Minister Choquette (a hero of the 1970 October Crisis) whom today at age 84 faces disbarment for his so-called 'unjustified attack against several judges (Fournier and Wagner) and lawyers' which undermines public respect for the judicial system. One letter writer's comment: In my humble opinion - Quebecers haven't had 'respect' for the province's 'Mickey Mouse' judicial system - since Mr. Choquette left his post. Bravo, Bravo Mr.Choquette for defending the truth with honor: something that has been too absent - for much too long in la belle province.'  That message is not to be seen by the 3 SCofC judges  Wagner / Coté /  Cromwell (due for retirement in August) - none of whom inspire confidence in this writer . According to the telephone call, the books were closed on May 16-2016; the first time that I had heard of such action.

2) The call from the SCofC was apparently prompted by my delivery of my most recent REPLY (SK with a copy to QC) on the morning of June 03-2016 (otherwise I would never have known that a trial date of June 09-16 had been set for 36883 QC) stating that the QC copy of my REPLY would not be filed with the 3 judges.

3) The significance of that pre-emptive SCofC hearing bid is to derail my request for disclosure as a preliminary - for no court case for the past 30 years in this B.C. labour matter makes any sense in terms of my accurate development of the case nor of the court's examination of my claims. In brief, it is a history of judicial cover-up which has seen the collapse of the QC Justice System, and if I miss my guess on June 09-2016, the entire Canadian judiciary.

4) Disclosure is at the heart of habeas corpus (produce the 'body' or body of evidence) on which precedent law is based which, in turn defines the 'judicial record'; the bible of the Justice System based on judicial findings. As matters now stand, that Judicial Record lies in tatters in Canada due to the exposure of the judicial machinations  in the Employee's Case(Canada).

5) The case in QC was focused solely on disclosure. Lavery de Billy LPP for the Employer, realizing that they made a hash of the case before Gatineau justice Therrien, requested and received a second hearing before a Justice Goulet whom wrote a decision without reference to the original hearing. That's called 'running a court within a court' and is a high level of judicial fraud. My appeal was rejected by the Registry for being incomplete; a common enough occurrence inviting a remedy. But once again, Lavery de Billy jumped the gun and had a docket number assigned by the Appeal court and followed up with an 'order to dismiss' which the Appeal Court supported knowing full well that I had no Appeal on file. There was no reference to the fact that there were two judges at the lower court. In short, this was 'cover-up' at its worst. The oversight bodies never responded  to this gross dereliction of judicial principles. Consider this kafkaesque logic: The SCofC hearing on June 09 is to examine a lower court hearing (Therrien j.) which does not exist and an Appeal hearing which does not exist (my factum was rejected by the Registry.) It can't get any better than that for the conspirators in a story I have labeled  'Lavery De Billy tail wags Quebec judicial dog'...Canada up to bat next? 

6) Now it is the turn of the SCofC on June 09-2016 for #36883 which is admittedly between the proverbial 'rock and a hard place'. Should they call for disclosure on June 09, that would open a whole new can of worms in this legal matter exposing, as it does, the perfidy of judicial cover-up in 30 years before over 10 separate court systems and 40 judges...and that would never do.... Further, It would reveal the dissolute relationship between government and the courts (B.C.'s imposed  BILL 35 and the abuse of the collective bargaining process which is the bedrock of the Union movement). Currently no Union client in Canada may feel secure in light of this unresolved labour matter.

7) To bury this issue with the time-honoured SCofC action of refusing to proceed without giving any explanation, would not in this case work for it places the 'cowardly' Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, right in the cross-hairs for failing to exert executive privilege on behalf of 35 million Canadians. In that scenario, Trudeau has no choice but to invoke the 'peace, order and good government' clause of the Constitution. His father, as Prime Minister, acted in 1970 in the October Crisis...will the son act today in a much bigger issue? How can Justin, in all good conscience, moralize about how other countries should conduct their human rights when he would shuck his own responsibilities at home?

8) Of course, it goes without saying, that a continued boycott by the media is required in order to pull off this colossal stunt...a piece of cake for the conspirators....


Yours truly,


The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System (Roger Callow)


P.S. SCofC Registry...if you are adamant against providing my REPLY to the 3 judges in 36883 for June09-2016, request that Chief Justice B. McLachlin over-ride your action as a 'special case'.

June 21-2016

TO: Federal Justice Minister Hon. J. Wilson-Raybould plus encl. with copies to:

(no encl. to below)

A) SK Appeal Court Registry ATTN: Melanie Baldwin Registrar re 'Lori' tel. call June 13-2016

B) SK Premier Brad Wall

C) SCofC Registry ATTN: Suzanne Sarrazin

D) SK Law Society

E) West Vancouver School Trustees for Harris & Co. (B.C.) acting in SK



Roger Callow self-represented Plaintiff in the SCofC Appeal of SK (36993) yet to be heard

1285 Cahill Dr. East #2001

Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

t./fax: 613-521-1739  e-mail:thecallows@gmail.com



1) I received a strange telephone call from 'Lori' on Monday June 13 stating that as a consequence of a conversation with the SCofC Registry (presumably S. Sarrazin whom is in charge of this account); authority of some type or other was received from someone to dispense with the Surety funds that I had earlier paid to ensure an Appeal Court hearing.

2) I remonstrated with 'Lori' claiming that these funds should not have been released without an application from the Employer (if they indeed were) and I include my Newsletter dated JUNE 26-2016 already in circulation. SEE employescasecanada.ca  JUNE 2016

3) As a $2500 cheque was delivered by mail to me; I stated that I would hold this amount 'on account' and requested that the $6500 which apparently was paid to Harris & Co. - if monies were indeed sent to them without an application from the Employer be either returned to me or refiled in SK court. No doubt Baldwin is acting under orders from Chief Justice R.G. Richards.

4) In brief, justice appears to be conducted by Registry clerks apart from the judges in a province (SK) under weak oversight controls of the Brad Wall government.

5) Registrar Baldwin in her letter dated May 16-2016 (the day that the SCofC sent the SK 36993 to the 3 judges for examination) includes the Judgment of the Appeal Court dated March 22-2016 outlining the costs. While Megaw j. of the lower court's assessment of $2,000 against this plaintiff is fair; the $3,500 for the Appeal Court level is excessive considering the 'one-liner' that they merely agree with the lower court which explains the SCofC Appeal.

6) I object to any funds being paid out of this surety to the Employer until the matter of alleged fraud on the part of Harris & Co. (B.C. for SK) is properly examined by the SK Legal Society which continues to be MIA in this respect.



7) Earlier in B.C., I was forced to post an equally 'spurious' surety of $10,000 to ensure a case proceeded in court which never happened. In 2013, I was expelled by the 'Cullen Creed' meaning that I had compromised representation when both the Employer (Harris & Co.) and the Union (Laughton & Co.) went to the Appeal court to claim expenses. To give the two firms their due, they did notify me of the hearing (5 minutes) which I queried as to my status.

8) Sums were issued to the two firms leaving a residue which I was told could only be returned if I filed a court request. As I had no status in B.C., the funds were left in 'esgrow'.

9) In SK before Appeal Court's Justice Ottenbreit whom turned the laws upside down as to surety by declaring this matter a 'special case'; I once again felt blackmailed into paying an $8,000 surety. I appealed to the judge to access the B.C. fund under those circumstances to which I would acquiesce if that was his intention of ordering a surety. He declined.

10) My Newsletter of JUNE 26-2016 has made it clear that I intend to contest any monies paid to Harris & Co. (SK) and Lavery De Billy (QC) where no surety was paid as both firms have been accused of fraudulent activity. Both matters await a decision from the Legal Societies of SK and QC whom are 'dragging their feet'.

11) Further to my claim is that before any monies are paid for legal expenses, I insist on a record from the West Vancouver School Trustees as to monies paid out on this account since September, 2010 (the first of the prohibitive B.C. Orders, the 'McKenzie Creed').


12) The SCofC Appeals (36883)QC dismissed on June 09-2016 and (36993) SK still to be heard have, as their genesis, unresolved legal activity which has been referred to the new A.G. Yasir Naqvi as to Ontario judicial malfeasance, particularly as to the Employer's representative, Hicks, Morley et al whom were referred to the ON Legal Society. While Hicks, Morley dropped representation  of the Employer, there has been no response from the ON Legal Society.

11) As to financial pay-outs in ON where there were 4 highly questionable hearings as detailed in the JUNE 26-2016 Newsletter, Ottawa Superior Court Justice, Robert Maranger, labeled the $29,000 legal fee of Hicks, Morley to be excessive and greatly reduced the amount. An outside negotiation settled payment in a lower amount again. The point here is that if such negotiation is being denied this plaintiff in the case of SK due to - for want of any other expression and to be polite - a very sloppily run SK court system.


13) Beyond the request on payments made above, perhaps the Justice  Minister may see fit to investigate all SK legal practices in this matter.

Yours truly,


Roger Callow - self-represented plaintiff

encl. SK Letter from Registrar Baldwin / Judgment of the Court CACV 2783 March 22-2016