B.C. GOVERNMENT (June 2017)


Form 31 (Rules 7-8 (17), 8-3 (1), 8-4 (1), 17-1 (2) and 25-9 (2) )

[Style of Proceeding]


[Rule 22-3 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules applies to all forms.]

Filed by:  Roger Callow   self-represented Plaintiff


x ]  The evidence in support of the application is  a legal question raised at different times by the Union (1985), the Employer (2014), and now myself (2017) as the many courts have failed to address this central issue in this unresolved labour issue dating back to 1985. No compensation has been paid which includes pension rights. Disclosure, a second major request raised by this Applicant relates to key evidence held by both the Employer and Union which no court to date was willing to order. That disclosure is vital to anticipated fraud charges. As such, this plaintiff maintains that he is still an employee of the Employer, albeit an unpaid one. At the very least, the court could be expected to return salary plus accrued interest until such time as this long drawn out case is settled.

Date: 26/06/2017










1) The legal question raised here regarding jurisdiction was raised in the arbitration (quashed by the court in 1986 by Justice Mary Southin A860607 January 21,1987) by the Union as the sole presentation regarding the lay-off for economic reasons of senior West Vancouver Secondary teacher, Roger Callow, on June 30, 1985 under the neophyte BILL 35 (School Amendment Act) effective July 01-1985. The arbitrator ignored this central legal question.

2) The Employer raised essentially the  same question as the Union in Ontario Superior Court (13-59060 McKinnon j) April 23-2014 Decision but was ignored in that Decision.

3) The Plaintiff raises this central question on June 26-2017 as a means of breaking the log-jam leading to settlement of this long drawn out affair largely due to judicial concupiscence over this torturous 32 year affair. No compensation (includes pension) has been paid. Technically, the plaintiff is still an employee of the School Board #45 albeit an unpaid one.

4) While present at the eleven day arbitration, it is the firm belief of this plaintiff that the court was correct in ruling that no causal factor was shown regarding the lay-off of this plaintiff. Details of that alleged perfidy lie in the minute notes of the June 1985 Board meetings in which BILL 35 and the dismissal of senior teacher Roger Callow were discussed at length. No school trustee took the stand to attest to lay-off numbers which showed an actual increase rather than the decrease quoted by the arbitrator. He was ruled patently unreasonable. Madam Justice Mary Southin of B.C. Supreme Court called for the meeting notes of the Board in June of 1985 but later returned them 'because she did not use them'. Regrettably, the lawyer hired by this plaintiff to replace the Union lawyer of the arbitration, returned my copy of those notes to the Union which was paying his salary rather than to me, otherwise I would have laid an action for fraud many decades ago.

5) As background details of the above action are included in Nova Scotia  458698 (April 2017) which has been referred to the oversight bodies (no response), the entire 34 page action is included here as EXHIBIT A (8-4 (1) c). The addition here is a request for disclosure considering the goal of laying a future charge of fraud plus being placed back on salary until a solution is found. The interesting feature regarding the Employer's presentation in Nova Scotia is that they did not address the constitutional question raised nor make any reference to their earlier argument that only BILL 35 conditions were to apply to this case. They asked for the issue to be dropped for unstated reasons. The controversial court action in that regard has been forwarded to the oversight powers.

6) Considering the failure of the previous B.C. Attorney General and Premier to address this legal matter, a copy of this Application is included to the new B.C. Premier, John Horgan.

(signed) Roger Callow   June 26, 2017


cc B.C. Premier Rt. Hon. John Horgan

Evidence supporting application

The applicant offers the following affidavits in support of the application: The Applicant's brief  will consist of BILL 35 plus associated materials showing how the Employer abetted by the courts of law 'game' the system in order to escape their contractual obligations under the law.


1) After reviewing the list of applicable rules under the laws of British Columbia, anyone would be confused as to what is being requested from  the British Columbia Supreme Court in this matter.

2) In the above respect, it would be easier to enunciate what this case does not require in this 32 year unresolved  labour case with its genesis in British Columbia:

a) It does not require a finding as to the legitimacy of the lay-off of senior West Vancouver, British Columbia teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985 under the auspices of the imposed BILL 35 (School Amendment Act). This target was the sole teacher laid-off (for economic reasons) performed before the Act was withdrawn in the 1990's and before this case was resolved (banana republic justice). No compensation has been paid which includes pension rights. In effect, the applicant is technically still an employee of the School District albeit an unpaid one as no compensation - including pension rights - has been paid.

b) It does not require an assessment of the activity of the Employer, the Union or the courts of law in resolving this issue to date. As noted above, the Supreme Court of Canada failed to hear this matter on four occasions - 1997, 2004, 2016 (QC) & 2016 (SK). Hence matters of inclusive fraud were  forwarded to the executive powers of the Prime Minister where they await a response. It should be noted that no oversight body has seen fit to address myriad charges of fraud in this case including the RCMP.

3) So what is this application requesting as a means of furthering development of this case? A definition of this case as it relates to imposed  legislation and the oversight powers of the courts thereto. In this particular case, is BILL 35 a 'stand-alone' piece of legislation, as the Employer would argue, or is it 'in addition to' the collective bargaining rules without replacing any part of those rules? (N.B. the Employer dropped this claim recently in 2017 in N.S. 458698) Recognizing the applicability of the collective bargaining rules implies court oversight although in 1995, Justice Spencer of the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that only the Union could represent my interests implying those court oversight powers. The Union was not present at that hearing.

4) Whether the court has those powers as they relate to lay-off is debatable which is not being questioned here. What is being questioned here relates solely to compensation which this applicant submits is owed to him whether it is under the provisions of BILL 35, the collective bargaining agreement, or any other court mechanism related to compensation for lost employment.

5) The Employer refuses to recognize court oversight. The Union joined the Employer in obfuscating any settlement that I might reach. The British Columbia courts expelled this litigant in 2013 for 'reasons best known to a judge' forcing me into other venues across Canada marked, as noted above, with a high degree of irregularity from both the Employer and the Courts.

6) Most regrettably, the previous British Columbia Office of the Attorney General did not see fit to intervene at any time in order to break this log-jam.

7) This Application and the Question raised  was one the Union raised in arbitration in 1986 but was ignored by the arbitrator (later ruled patently unreasonable for not showing a causal factor for lay-off in the arbitration which the court quashed leaving this targeted individual in, as it turns out, a 32 year state of limbo).

8) This Question was raised by the Employer (Ottawa Superior Court 13-59060  McKinnon j. April 23, 20140 and 'puzzlingly' September 15-2014 where the second decision did not reference the first but was a factor in derailing a subsequent hearing scheduled by me (source of fraud allegations by me). Again, McKinnon j. made no reference to the jurisdictional problem.

9) Consequently, neither the Employer nor Union have any argument against this court deciding the question as to court oversight on this issue. Further, the alleged fraudulencies of the Employer in 500 word 'Book of Authorities' go unchecked by various authorities in this case which, in any event, does not add or detract from the question at point here. In brief, the Employer is accused of 'gaming the system' in order to get out of their obligations of paying compensation . The goal here is to eliminate the jurisdictional dichotomy which, to date, the justice system has failed to do.

10) The legal principle involved above is central to not only employees, but to employers as well. For example Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall are subject to similar imposed legislation such as the carbon tax to which they object. A three page article entitled ADVICE TO LAID-OFF CANADIAN TEACHERS  MAY 31 included here illustrates the wide-spread importance of this issue to employees.

11) Normally, such as the following warning should never be given in a court of  law but I do here from painful experience: Beware of a 'grey eminence' exerting pressure on a Chief Justice in order to get a desired result from an appointed judge. Regrettably, provinces across Canada are routinely losing their credibility as a consequence of court identification with the conspirators in this case.

(signed) ROGER CALLOW - APPLICANT   JUNE 26, 2017




BY former West Vancouver B.C. Senior Teacher, Roger Callow, illicitly laid off in June of 1985 under the auspices of the imposed BILL 35 in an unresolved  legal case where no compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. employescasecanada.ca  N.B. The problem of 'imposed' legislation also applies to employers  e.g. SK Premier Wall and the carbon tax


1) Without excusing the Employer, the prime culprit in this 32 year debacle is the Justice System before over 50 judges across Canada including 4 inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. Technically, I am still an employee of the WV School District albeit an unpaid one due to the unresolved nature of this case.

2) This Newsletter is a warning to any teacher in Canada as to what they, as an individual, should expect to encounter should they seek to challenge a lay-off under contract conditions in 2017 (as opposed to imposed legislation which could be passed for next year).

3) Currently in the Employee's Case, a constitutional question is being raised as to the relationship between imposed legislation and court oversight. As matters currently stand, the Employer does not recognize court oversight; the court argues it is a matter for the Union under collective bargaining procedures but the Employer does not recognize those procedures

This plaintiff does not care which alternative is chosen as compensation is due under any of the three; BILL 35, Court rules of contract, or the collective bargaining rules. Doing nothing was never an option for the courts hence they systematically sacrificed their judicial credibility in this case. Without credibility, you cannot have a justice system = anarchy.

4) For the current year, it is too late for imposed legislation in which you may be given your lay-off notice on the last day of school as per this writer's experience. Hence MAY 31 is the target date for Employers to give notice to laid-off teachers.

5) If you are laid-off, there is nothing I can do (except express my sympathy...been there, done that) so do NOT contact me. DO contact an employment lawyer (small firm)at your own expense ($10,000?)  on June 01 to seek to rescind the lay-off before June 30.

6) In 1985, the Teachers Union talked four School Districts out of using BILL 35 with only the one application left in West Vancouver. Your lawyer should not tolerate delay, be onto the phone to him or her every second day in June. (Amalgamated Districts have unique problems)

7) In general, judges or arbitrators do not like to see their Decisions appealed hence they are expected to side with the 'big guy' who has the most power to Appeal (even if you are represented by a Union). As an individual, expect a grim uphill battle for at least two years. Remember, a court does not necessarily get your job back; rather, the question is one of appropriate compensation.

8) Not only senior teachers with their higher salaries are vulnerable but so are all laid-off teachers to never being recalled. School Boards will hire teachers fresh out of University in order to avoid future recriminations.

9) Not a very uplifting message to be sure, but perhaps this letter can better prepare the laid-off teacher for what you are facing anywhere in Canada.



(for that matter, all Canadian individuals)


BY: Roger Callow, the 'Outlawed Canadian' employescasecanada.ca  MAY 01-17


1) The current battle by the above plaintiff in a 32 year unresolved legal battle to achieve compensation (includes pension rights) regarding a senior illicit teacher lay-off in West Vancouver, B.C. before over 50 judges plus the Supreme Court of Canada on four unsuccessful attempts to be heard, has now risen to the level of a constitutional question relating to the powers of court oversight over imposed legislation affecting both employers and employees. It is the central most important judicial question in not only Canadian Jurisprudence but in the operation of any democratic country.

2) The unique feature of this case being ubered (see web) gives this litigant an unusual excuse to be heard in courts across Canada; a feature not available to anyone else. That story is not pretty as the Canadian Judiciary has imploded due to judicial chicanery. No one may now trust to a Canadian court of law.


The dilemma for teachers

3) For example, Premier Ratchel Notley is rebuffing demands to lay-off nurses and teachers in a province hard-hit with business closures. But how to do it? Trying to respect collective bargaining rights with seniority provisions in an educationally divided province between Public and Catholic School Boards with separate Hutterite interests (mainly rural) along with special qualifications e.g. French Immersion or Technology qualifications make this task a Herculean one without equal. Other provinces have similar divisions.

4) Herein lies the importance of imposed legislation. For example, some provinces centralized salaries in order to avoid contentious and expensive settlement repetitions. The above dilemma exists in a country where the student population has remained static for the past 20 years with an operational increase of 80% - mostly in salaries - is unsustainable.

5) By centralizing employment and, in that process, eliminating seniority provisions (a senior teacher gets twice the salary of a beginning teacher) with individual principals (where the school is not completely closed) are provided with a budget to decide who goes and who stays in their school, is one solution. Some sensitive principals can expect to have a heart attack under these conditions.

6) Perhaps only the feeble-minded Fraser Institute would be happy under these draconian conditions of 'clearing the deadwood out' reducing survivors to jellyfish proportions.

7) You already have a model for this outcome - the media. Many senior columnists  and reporters (including those with Association rights) have been given their 'walking papers' by Postmedia's  CEO Paul Godfrey without a sound as their new 'think tank' connections depend on media exposure. Heaven help that columnist whom decides to break the boycott on the Employee's Case. Bottom Line? An intelligent person will not take up journalism as a career in Canada.

The Employee's Case

8) While the above story is the battle for School Districts and Unions, the Employee's Case Canada hits at a different level; namely, the powers of individuals in any court in the land which, currently, are non-existent due to the precedent set by the Employee's Case. (see web)

9) A case in point. Recently, a senior Edmonton teacher was dismissed for insisting '0 means 0' for a student who failed his course. With an imposed piece of legislation such as B.C.'s BILL 35 (1985); that teacher would not even have the right to appeal his case to a court of law. The West Vancouver School District, for example, refuses to recognize court oversight in quashing the original arbitration in 1985 favouring the Board ruling the gerrymandered government arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. In 2014 in Ontario (13-59060 Ottawa Superior Court) the Employer argued that they owed no compensation because, while BILL 35 accommodated such expenses, the arbitrator made no mention of compensation in his Report. While the B.C. courts ruled this matter to be solely a Union matter in order to duck out of this sweetheart deal, the Employer refused to recognize any Union overview. That is the source of my statement regarding the West Vancouver School Board's final solution: namely, If you do not accept what we offer in terms of settlement, you will get nothing at all.

10) Recent teacher demonstrations - the Nova Scotia  teachers public opposition to Premier McNeil - is therefore mere child's play when it comes to dealing with the constitutional question which I am trying to get back before the NS courts (Sept. 23-2017 hearing date?(n.b. court obfuscation=oversight referral). Don't become 'mush' similar to the media types is my message which will surely happen if individuals in all walks of Canadian life do not get behind my action. I can't be more blunt than that.

The 'Outlawed Canadian' in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance


(signed) Roger Callow _____________________  plaintiff   June 26-2017