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]
REQUISITION FOR CONSENT ORDER OR FOR ORDER
WITHOUT NOTICE
[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 |
|
|
||
|
|
|||
DRAFT OF ORDER REQUIRED
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
TEACHER
LAY-OFF LEGALITIES - A PRIMER FOR MAY 31,2017
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.
A
HARBINGER OF THE FUTURE FOR SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
(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