This copy provided to  senior Harris & Co. partner Colin Gibson on Aug. 19-2018 by e-mail: info @ harrisco.com  (3 pages)

UPDATED on Aug. 24-2018 ( 4 pages total)


To the presiding B.C. Supreme Court Justice appointed to hear S 188996 in a one hour preliminary by teleconferencing for the plaintiff, former West Vancouver High School Teacher, Roger Callow, laid off for economic reasons (June, 1985) under the terms of the imposed BILL 35 in the matter of a civil fraud action against the Employer, the Board of School Trustees (S.D. #45 West Vancouver) and the B.C. Teachers Union.


Reference: employeescasecanada.ca


1) If there ever was a nightmare judicial assignment, it must be this one, as the sitting judge is asked indirectly to judge the failure of over 50 judges in 8 out of 10 provinces in Canada to call for the all-important disclosure.

2) The immediate question to answer is whether or not the court has oversight powers over imposed legislation. The Employer  (the West Vancouver School Trustees - WVST) argues in the negative while my claim for compensation states that compensation is due, whether it is under the conditions of BILL 35, the collective bargaining process (introduced in 1995 by Justice Spencer) or some other terms of contract law.

3) To date, no compensation has been paid due to the cupidity of over 50 judges. This plaintiff (personal pronoun 'I') unsuccessfully launched a constitutional question on this point in an ex parte application in Nova Scotia (469918 Nov. 2017) whereas the Employer (Hicks, Morley et al in Ontario) unsuccessfully launched 13-59060 on a similar theme (2 separate Decisions on the same case in 2014 which  has led to civil fraud charges currently in order to provoke a criminal charge of fraud in Ontario. (This account will also appear in the Ontario version CV18000 769 0000 of a civil fraud action against the Employer and two judges (McKinnon j. Scott R.) whom compromised the entire Justice System through the creation of two separate Decisions on the same issue without referencing each other.

4) A third civil fraud charge is imminent against the Employer and B.C.'s Harris & Co. should the Employer enlist their representation or any other firm which includes the McKinnon j. 'malfeasance'. Hence a copy of this account is also being provided to Harris & Co. as well as the Employer.


5) The Employer, understandably, refuses to pay compensation without a court Order. Hence the full opprobrium must be placed at the door of the Canadian Justice System for failing to resolve this unresolved legal matter .

6) The Courts, for their part, view this as a private matter which it would not be if the many oversight bodies had acknowledged the claims of malfeasance which I made. That situation is reflective of a conspiracy involving several Chief Justices overseen by the Chief Justices Association. Frank McArdle, husband of former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin (recently retired), is the President of that organization.

7) In B.C., the fraud charge is against the WVST and the Teachers Union (BCTF and WVTA) in an apparent 'sweetheart deal'. In the past the Union has given tacit approval to this conspiracy by letting the Employer handle this case, probably to escape having to provide their copy of the disclosure which I have a right to receive as the affected union client. Failure of the judge to act on this request - or order the RCMP to seize this disclosure - is tantamount to accusing the presiding justice of perverting the law in a significant manner: What must be avoided at all costs, asserts Justice Estey in St. Anne Nackawic is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law. That is exactly what has happened in this unresolved legal matter. Now that the topic is fraud which pre-empts all other laws, there cannot be any more evasions; at least without decimating all Canadian justice.

8) In the event that a fraud is indeed shown to exist, in law everything flowing from that illicit action is null and void.



09) Disclosure, is the theme in which the June meeting notes (of the WVST and BCTF)  of which notes Justice Southin called for in 1986 when she quashed the arbitration for failing to show a causal connection and then returned 'because she did not use them'. In brief, she can be accused of a cover-up, among other things, to protect School Board counsel, Stuart Clyne Q.C. from charges of fraud. She recommended that employment be returned to me. In law, a recommendation carries weight. When the WVST declined and were rejected on Appeal, she ordered the matter back to arbitration without placing me back on salary; a stunt, legal Counsel Harry Rankin (d.) claimed 'she can't get away with'. Well she did, even when as an Appeal Court judge she sat on a dismissed Appeal in 2003 (a second judge also had sat on an earlier hearing in this case.) Bottom line? I was left in limbo. Even when I turned 65 (now 77), the Employer did not respond to my resignation request thus negatively affecting my pension rights.

10) Hence I am still an employee of the Board awaiting 'deferred salary'. That consists of 33 years of back pay with interest appropriately compounded which is the first request from this court; namely, to institute this back salary while the matter continues to be resolved in the courts. That latter course would be done by the judiciary in league with the Employer and Union as I have been all but frozen out of the judicial process.



11) In letters to the WVST, I have warned against the use of the B.C. legal firm of Harris & Company, as the coordinator of this case even for events in Ontario (Hicks, Morley et al dropped out. I am still awaiting a renewed oversight complaint filed under the new Ford government) as well as Quebec where, once again, oversight complaints against Lavery de Billy will be re-filed after the next QC election. Harris & Co. also have outstanding oversight complaints where they handled the case in Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. The ON McKinnon j. papers are common to all actions since 2014.

12) In the event that the WVST choose to use the services of Harris & Co. in this fraud stage, the latter should expect a third multi-million dollar lawsuit for fraud against both parties. For that matter, any other legal Company using the McKinnon j. papers should expect similar treatment.

13) In both cases, the fraud charges cannot proceed without the requested disclosure.

14) Of course the Employer and Union can save the court much embarrassment by including those documents in their Replies.

15) Under the access rules, I was able to acquire some materials from the WVST in 2004 although the all important disclosure was missing. What was included was the fact - missing from the arbitration Report- that only two out of the five School Trustees; Chairperson Margo Furk and her successor, Mike Smith, approved of the lay-off most likely at the request of two former local Union Presidents. Conspicuous by its absence from the arbitration was the testimony of Assistant Superintendent Bill May, responsible for staffing, stating that he did not see the need to lay-off any teacher in June of 1985. Indeed, staff were being added with a number of positions I could have held. Two days before the Superintendent's lay-off letter in June of 1985 quoting BILL 35 which did not become operative until July 01-1985, I was slated for a full teaching course in September of 1985.

16) The truth of the matter as exposed in arbitration? I was laid off (fired) for whistle blowing.



17) As time is limited to deal with the two main features - salary continuance, and disclosure - I have written the above as my oral argument merely reserving time to answer questions from the bench and a brief rejoinder time to respond to the WVST presentation which, in any event, I have heard many, many times.

18) Should further documentation be required by the court, may I suggest a 'party by party' written basis to facilitate matters.

19) I should know in a 'Singapore 5 minutes' whether or not, I have a deal.


cc WVST / BCTF / Colin Gibson-Managing Partner Harris & Co.  / B.C. A.G. David Edy / ON Premier D. Ford / SK Premier S. Moe / NDP Burnaby South candidate Jagmeet Singh  / U.S. Embassy(Canada) /Philippines  Embassy (Canada)


ADDENDUM: Political Ramifications

20) As both Premiers in B.C. and ON have indicated support for the conspiracy, the question needs be asked; whom is really on trial? In B.C., that would be A.G. Edy and the entire NDP Party provincially and federally. In Ontario, that would be the Ford government and the entire Canadian Judicial System.

21) No doubt, the U.S. is most reluctant to accept a 'shithole country' as an U.S. state, but perhaps in this instance they might make an exception (SEE web: AUGUST-2018 Fourteenth Colony) considering that Canada is the northern flank of their defense. If ever there was an occasion for the U.S. President to tweet in the middle of the night in order to break the Canadian media boycott on this national story, that is now.

22) In the event that President Trump continues to remain silent on an issue which negatively affects foreign investors in Canada, perhaps President Duterte of the Philippines whom has been a target of P.M. Justin Trudeau's recent attack on human rights ,which he publicly rejected, would like to fill the void left by Trump.


Roger Callow  plaintiff in two (third action pending) civil fraud cases









Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

/fax: 613-521-1739

                                                                                                PLAINTIFF (self represented)




The Board of Trustees (#45 West Vancouver)        DEFENDANT #1

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


The B.C. Teachers Federation / WVTA                      DEFENDANT #2 & #3

100-550 West 6th Avenue, 


AFFIDAVIT attesting to validity of documents herein enclosed


I, (full name of deponent) of  Roger Callow in the Province of Ontario (Ottawa)


1. That the material in this factum signed by the Plaintiff dated August 04-2018 is an accurate account of the material facts including Exhibit A.



I, Roger Callow of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, swear and affirm the following is true:

1. I turned 65 on August 24, 2006, which brought into play my pension rights;

2. My pension rights are determined on the basis of contributions to the plan, both mine and the employers;

3. The amount of these contributions is dependent on the date of termination of my employment;

4. Because I was a tenured teacher, my employment could only be determined by a proper legal process;

5. In my case the validity of the termination has never been determined. Technically although I was unable to work and was not paid, I remained a teacher under the employment of the Board;

6.I require that a proper termination date be determined, or a settlement be achieved providing me compensation which would include pensionable service benefits;

7. The recent pension inquiries caused me to examine how I could get compensation or a termination date determined. There is no other remedy I can pursue other than as requested in this petition.

8. Whatever approach is made, disclosure as outlined above is at the root of any successful remedy.


(signed) Roger Callow - deponent August 04-2018



[Using numbered paragraphs, set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the plaintiff's(s') claim.]

1) The propriety of the lay-off of senior high school teacher, Roger Callow, under the imposed conditions of BILL 35 (1985),has never been established in law despite many, many court hearings in British Columbia and elsewhere including the Supreme Court of Canada on four occasions.

                        2) Without a proper determination, the Employer refuses to pay any compensation.

If any party sues or is sued in a representative capacity, identify the party and describe the representative capacity.]


All legalities relating to the Union have transpired through the parent Union. Although the lawyer listed in this matter claims local affiliation, to the best of my knowledge, he has never met with any figures in the WVTA preferring to conduct all business with the legal department of the BCTF explaining why a copy of this action is being supplied only to the BCTF.



[Using numbered paragraphs, set out the relief sought and indicate against which defendant(s) that relief is sought. Relief may be sought in the alternative.]

1) The relief sought in this most unusual of cases before over 50 judges is unique and formed the basis of the case in 2012 (CA038538) which was not heard due to the interference of the 'MacKenzie Creed' whom, of her own volition, not quoting any laws nor taking argument and for reasons best known to herself, delisted the case. (The 'Cullen Creed' of 2013 did essentially the same thing forcing this plaintiff into venues outside of British Columbia).


2) Currently, a $20 million dollar civil fraud charge has been launched in Ontario against the Employer (CV 18000 769 0000 Ottawa) to obtain disclosure to reinforce my claim that the RCMP (Montreal Fraud Division)should file a criminal charge against this Employer


3) The essence of CA037538 is to request that this petitioner be returned to salary with all back pay plus interest appropriately compounded until the three forces; namely, the Employer, the Union, and the Courts deal with this unresolved legal matter.


4) EXHIBIT A is a necessary inclusion as it deals with all matters, both issues and applicable law, up to 2015. The Ontario Fraud Charge continues that story from that time period and is not a topic here unless the Defendants wish to include that aspect.


5) At root of all actions described here is a refusal of both the Employer and Union to provide disclosure in a denial which has been supported by every court hearing this matter.


6) cc B.C. Attorney General Hon. D. Edy




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    PAGE  NUMBER

A) Res ipsa loquitur  (SEE below)                                                                                                                                                                       01


B) Importance of 'access' to the laws                                                                                                                                                               02


C) Review of a Surety Payment CA038538  Jan. 16-2013                                                                                                             03 - 09


D) Questions at Law - Which courts does 'MacKenzie Creed' apply?                                                                                                    09 - 10


E) Remedy Sought  Return to employment with all conditions to apply                                                                                   10


F) Supreme Court of Canada (2004) 'Mackenzie Creed' reduces

     Canada to that of a 'failed state'

     a) 33) lack of key disclosure                                                                                                                                                                           11 - 17


G) PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE   'grievance process'                                                                                                                              18



     a) Role of inherent jurisdiction                                                                                                                                                                      19 - 20

     b) Weber v. Ontario Hydro (1995)             'ultimate remedy'                                                                                                              21


I) Jurisdiction of B.C. Courts  Mill v. London Life Insurance (2000)                                                                                                     22 - 23


J) CONCLUDING REMARKS Correctness of lay-off never established                                                                                                    23 - 26



“Res ipsa loquituris Latin. It means ‘the thing speaks for itself’… In malpractice lawsuits, prosecuting attorneys who successfully argue res… are guaranteed a significant payday. You see, our court of law is based upon the premise that we’re innocent until proven guilty. Res… turns that premise on its head. It says, because something happened and normally that something shouldn’t have happened, you, the accused, are guilty of causing it to happen. Therefore you are guilty of malpractice…That’s the given, just like the attorney can argue that the patient entered the operating room for a toe operation and left with one leg missing….”

 A Heartbeat Away Michael Palmer


SEE web: EVENTS UP TO 2015 / CA038538 SURETY.APPEAL  for complete 26 page account