JUMP TO HOME PAGE

 

JUDICIAL FRAUD  (Sept. 15-2019)

Form 32 (Rule 8-1 (4) )

[Style of Proceeding]

NOTICE OF APPLICATION

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

THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

CHILLIWACK Centre

BETWEEN:

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739 

                                                                                                            e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com                                                               APPLICANT

                                                                                                                                                                                       

- and -

1)Board of School Trustees

(School District #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)                          

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

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  RESPONDENT  #1

and

2) West Vancouver Teachers Association (Local  School District Number 45)

ATTN: Renee Willock - President

4915 Marine Drive

West Vancouver, B.C. V7W 2P5

tel: 604-926-1617  fax: 604-926-1119                                                                                                                                               RESPONDENT #2                                  

TAKE NOTICE that an application will be made by the applicant to the presiding judge ONLY at the courthouse at

Supreme court of B.C.

46085 Yale Road

Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 2L8

Scheduling  t. 604-795-8349   f.604-795-8345

 

on ........[15/OCTOBER/2019] at 10:00 A.M.for the order(s) set out in Part 1 below. (OR NEARBY DATE AND TIME SELECTED BY COURT)

To be completed by the court only:

 

 

 

 

 

Order made

 

 

[ ]

 

in the terms requested in paragraphs ...................... of Part 1 of this notice of application

[ ]

 

with the following variations and additional terms:

 

 

...............................................................................................................

 

 

...............................................................................................................

 

 

...............................................................................................................

 

 

 

Date: .......[dd/mmm/yyyy]........

 

 

 

 

....................................................
Signature of [ X ] Judge [  ] Master

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part 1:  ORDER(S) SOUGHT

1) This order requested functions solely on disclosure from both Respondents with alleged civil fraud charges of secondary importance to be decided as to conduct by the court

Part 2:  FACTUAL BASIS

1) No compensation has been paid to senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, laid off under the conditions of the imposed BILL 35 in June of 1985. Without the necessary disclosure from both Respondents, this legal matter remains in limbo. The 22 page EXHIBIT A provides pertinent material as this case has been seen in many jurisdictions both inside B.C. and in other provinces.

2) The B.C. Legal firm of Harris & Co. representing the Employer, the West Vancouver School Trustees, is included here for reasons of conspiracy with un-named court officials. Details can be found in EXHIBIT A; particularly New Brunswick as to matters of conspiracy and fraud. These details are taken from the web site: employeescasecanada.ca 2019

Part 3:  LEGAL BASIS

1) Compensation, which now includes pension rights for 12 years, is due under Bill 35 legislation, the collective bargaining rules (if applicable) or any other mechanism in law regarding employment compensation.

Part 4:  MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON

1) Copious excerpts are included in EXHIBIT A including the STATEMENT OF FACTS  on p.p. 1 and 2 of EXHIBIT A  of  March 01-2019

The applicant(s) estimate(s) that the application will take less than one hour as disclosure production may be completed under 5 minutes. Everything else is contingent on a pre-release of disclosure which both Respondents steadfastly refuse to produce in the past 34 years. SEE EXHIBIT A for further details

[Check the correct box.]

 [x] This matter is not within the jurisdiction of a master.

TO THE PERSONS RECEIVING THIS NOTICE OF APPLICATION: If you wish to respond to this notice of application, you must, within 5 business days after service of this notice of application or, if this application is brought under Rule 9-7, within 8 business days after service of this notice of application,

(a) file an application response in Form 33,

(b) file the original of every affidavit, and of every other document, that

(i) you intend to refer to at the hearing of this application, and

(ii) has not already been filed in the proceeding, and

(c) serve on the applicant 2 copies of the following, and on every other party of record one copy of the following:

(i) a copy of the filed application response;

(ii) a copy of each of the filed affidavits and other documents that you intend to refer to at the hearing of this application and that has not already been served on that person;

(iii) if this application is brought under Rule 9-7, any notice that you are required to give under Rule 9-7 (9).

Generally speaking, Respondent #2 for the Employer has not been showing up at actions recently e.g. Hinckson cj 2018 while Respondent #1 for the Union never puts in an appearance. (R. Callow)

Date: ................[dd/mmm/yyyy].................

.................................................................................

 

 

Signature of [x] applicant [  ] lawyer for applicant

(signed) Roger Callow  September 15-2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

CHILLIWACK CENTER

4605 Yale Road, Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 2L8

t.604-795-8349  f.604-795-8345

Between

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739 

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com                                                                                                                                     Applicant

- and -

1)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                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Respondent #1

and

 

2) West Vancouver Teachers Association (Local  School District Number 45)

British Columbia Teachers Federation (parent union)

ATTN: Renee Willock - President

4915 Marine Drive

West Vancouver, B.C. V7W 2P5

tel: 604-926-1617  fax: 604-926-1119                                                    Respondent #2

 

NOTICE OF APPLICATION

ORIGINATING PROCESS

 

The enclosed material including EXHIBIT A is sworn to as to its accuracy as an affidavit of the Applicant, Roger Callow, dated this 15th day of September, 2019

 

 

___________________

(signed) Roger Callow

 

EXHIBIT A - province by province

 

WEST VANCOUVER TEACHERS ASSOCIATION - FRAUD

March 01-2019                                                                                          Victoria Registry                                In the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Between

                                                Roger Callow (self-represented)                        Plaintiff

and

                                         West Vancouver Teachers Association               Defendant

                                                            Claim of the Plaintiff

Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS

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. That situation applies 34 years later.

3) The current action against the West Vancouver Teachers Association is for the Union Copy of disclosure which, it is asserted here, would reveal a fraud of criminal proportions involving this Association. As a Union client, I believe that I have always had a right to that disclosure prohibited by the Union 'for reasons best known to themselves'

4)  Recently , the Union has avoided filing a Reply to court challenges. In such an eventuality, the presiding justice has three options: a) order the Union to produce said documents b) order the RCMP to seize said documents  c) order the Union to pay the full $20 million cost of settlement for what this plaintiff claims was a Union induced 'sweetheart deal' with the employer to deprive this senior teacher of his livelihood. 

Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT

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) British Columbia 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 them. This case is still awaiting judgment. A one-hour teleconferencing call should suffice even if no Appearance is being filed by the Defendant. Further documentation may be supplied to the court by this plaintiff on request.

3) No reference may be made to any extant cases without an appearance of the Defendant in court as the presiding justice must not be seen to be 'running a court within a court'. The general rule of law is that a plaintiff's case under these circumstances must be accepted as fact. Should the court rule the lay-off to be illicit (as per Justice Mary Southin's 1986 Decision); then everything flowing from that action is null and void....

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. Eby

PART 3: LEGAL BASIS   

1) Central to this case is disclosure without which no court - and there have been many - may proceed with any authentication. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Southin whom quashed the arbitration in 1986 favouring the Employer, ruling in that process, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable for failing to produce a causal factor. She returned meeting notes of the WV School Board for June of 1985 which she had earlier called for because 'she did not use them'. The Union purloined my copy. Both Parties refuse to divulge this key testimony and, more importantly, the courts refuse to request that production or order the RCMP to seize those documents. The RCMP have ignored my request on that level for many years.

ACTION REQUESTED

3) As earlier courts did not see fit to call for key disclosure which it is asserted here, would almost surely indicate fraud on the part of the Employer and Union therefore making everything which flows from it null and void (since 1985), I call again for this disclosure by either a court order to the Employer and Union(for my copy) or to order the RCMP to seize such documents.

4) In the event that the court sees fit to provide me with disclosure mentioned above, I will drop this suit. On the other hand, if it doesn't, the court should expect me to pursue this case for $20 million to the fullest extent of the law.

Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM:

ARGUMENT

1) The exclusionary role of the Cullen Creed which expelled the Plaintiff from British Columbia for 'reasons best known to himself' made it impossible to make a constitutional challenge in British Columbia to this aberrant Order although a constitutional question was launched (and thwarted) in Nova Scotia in 2017.

2) Courts hearing this case reduced the claims in an unconscionable manner; namely that I was merely being frivolous and vexatious in matters already decided. That generalization was never supported by facts. I still remain without compensation which is mine under any number of legal provisions. I am, in effect, still an employee of the West Vancouver School Board awaiting deferred salary for 34 years which includes 12 years of pension as the Board did not recognize my retirement at age 65.

            VICTORIA REGISTRY MARCH 09-2019     File 19-0903

 

The case proper

8) This is a most unusual case fraught with judicial interference making the SNC Lavalin matter look like a kindergarten caper.

9) This is the first time a civil fraud case for $20 million has been registered solely against the Union in which disclosure is paramount. Over 50 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada on four unsuccessful occasions have failed to provide disclosure from the Employer. Indeed, the case in Quebec focused solely on this topic. The courts do not reject my request on this level; they omit any reference to that request.

10) This is the first time that the Union is the sole target of producing the selfsame disclosure (minute notes of the West Vancouver School Board in June of 1985 regarding my 'illicit' lay-off from my senior teaching post which Justice Southin returned in 1986 'because she did not use them'. Regrettably, the Union purloined my copy from the lawyer I hired to replace the Union lawyer and refuse to divulge that information in this apparent 'sweetheart deal'.

11) As you may read in the letter to the Defendant dated March 08-2019; should they volunteer to provide me with that information, I will probably drop this case for a subsequent criminal case would make everything flowing from the lay-off to be 'null and void'. In the event they don't provide same, the default claim is for $20 million dollars....

13) In the absence of any rebuttal or Appearance, The presiding Justice must acquire those documents; either as a court Order or to order the RCMP to seize them. (A file is kept at the Montreal RCMP fraud division). The presiding Justice may even order me back to work with all provisions of the contract to apply until a resolution is found. Doing nothing, however, is not an option.

14) Hence the trial is to be very short; possibly under 5 minutes in which I respond to any question raised by the court. Either the presiding justice is going to grant my disclosure request or he is not. Written legal reasons are expected if the latter course is selected. To date I have never had written reasons denying me one of the most basic rights of a litigant; namely, disclosure.

 

cc A.G. David Edy / PMO

 

PREMIER NOTLEY - FRAUD 2019

 

STATEMENT OF CLAIM - AB Resubmission (January, 2017)

1) Anatomy of a government conspiracy. First invoke imposed legislation. Second appoint a highly partisan adjudicator or arbitrator and ignore any court oversight proceedings on the grounds that the imposed legislation is final and binding. The process  may be used against such employees as former senior West Vancouver, B.C. teacher, Roger Callow, laid off under the imposed  BILL 35 (School Amendment Act) in  June of 1985 or it can be used against provinces such as SK with the imposed carbon tax or against the nation in terms of privatizing such as Ontario Hydro or the Airports and Harbour facilities. In brief, it is dictatorship and what commenced in 1985 in B.C. in one lay-off case is now running rampant across the land due to the failure of Canada's courts to deal effectively with the Employee's Case.

2) Hence the constitutional question raised here regarding the relationship between the government and the courts is the single most important question in the operation of Canadian democracy today....

6) Hence this constitutional question follows: What is the status of court oversight in imposed legislation where that legislation does not state that it is displacing any part of statute law?

7) The Employer maintains that as the arbitration is final and binding, the courts which quashed this arbitration had no basis in law.

 

FEB.04-2019 to Premier Notley

4) The action is now one of civil fraud in which there is no time limitation. It also eliminates the court's role in diminishing this legal case to one of a 'personal matter' in which the plaintiff is merely being 'frivolous and vexatious on matters already decided' without specifying which matters and how they have been settled.

5) The Defendants will be notified once a file number has been assigned. It is to be noted that they did not put in an appearance in B.C. before Chief Justice Hinckson in 2018 under similar circumstances. In law, under these circumstances, the Plaintiff's case must be accepted 'as fact'; namely, that a conspiracy exists between the Defendants and unknown others to deprive this plaintiff of his rightful compensation in a labour matter dating back 34 years. The default payment is for $20 million which includes the Defendant's interest plus judges accused of malfeasance. It does not include individual law firms which might think of coming after me after any settlement for fees. On that note, I have never received an invoice for fees allotted to Defendant Counsel with the West Vancouver School Trustees not answering the question as to whether they paid them. The right wing tabloid, The North Shore News, refuses to investigate.

 

PREMIER FORD

 

CV 18000 76950  0000 (Ottawa Supreme Court) JULY-2018

SEPT. 19-2018  ...6) A side note to the above is that I am dunned for all legal costs which I have never paid considering that I have never received an invoice. The Trustees refuse to say if they paid these bills and the North Shore News Tabloid refuses to challenge them on this level....

 

OCT. 23-2018 ...2) Also in contrast to B.C. is the fact that the Ontario action lists two Ontario judges whose actions still go uncontested as to malfeasance and were a factor in other venues across Canada.  The Ontario action, also in contrast to the B.C. action, is for civil fraud although production of the disclosure by the highly politicized RCMP would most likely lead to a criminal charge of fraud. Under those conditions, in the event of a successful suit, everything flowing from the imposed BILL 35 (1985) as used by the Employer in an illicit senior teacher lay-off in 1985 would be 'null and void'....

 

MARCH 20-2019 - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: CV 18000 76950 0000

1) The above case is stagnating awaiting a hearing date due to what can only be labeled as the malfeasance of Premier Ford plus his incompetent A.G., Caroline Mulroney abetted by an un-named Registry filing clerk whom refused to provide this plaintiff with a hearing date. What if every court jurisdiction e.g. LavScam,  decided on illegally foiling the holding of a trial?

 

Yours truly, Roger Callow Plaintiff

cc PMO

GOVERNOR GENERAL (VICTORIA 19-0903) - APRIL 2019

B.C. Supreme Court Civil Rules

Rule 1-3 — Object of Rules

Object

(1)The object of these Supreme Court Civil Rules is to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits. Response (R) All Registries which I have encountered operate under a high level of stress-due mainly to pressure from above?

Proportionality

(2)Securing the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of a proceeding on its merits includes, so far as is practicable, conducting the proceeding in ways that are proportionate to

(a)the amount involved in the proceeding, $20 million forfeiture amount (b)the importance of the issues in dispute, and R. as adjudged by the bench hence the single most important case in Canadian jurisprudence can be written off as being 'frivolous & vexatious' on the part of the plaintiff in this unresolved labour matter where no compensation has been paid. (c)the complexity of the proceeding. R. disclosure is quite clear in this case.

Consequence if fact not responded to

(8)An allegation of fact in a notice of civil claim, if not admitted, denied or stated to be outside the knowledge of the defendant, is deemed to be outside the knowledge of the defendant.  R. As the Defendant Union does not appear, the court must act in that vacuum; that is the law.

When presumed facts need not be pleaded

(3)A party need not plead a fact if

(a)the fact is presumed by law to be true, or R. The court must accept as true a plaintiff's account if it is not rebutted

(b)the burden of disproving the fact lies on the other party. R. I have been unsuccessful in getting the plaintiff to file as to why they will not provide me as a Union client with my copy of the named disclosure.

Substance to be answered

(15)If a party in a pleading denies an allegation of fact in the previous pleading of the opposite party, the party must not do so evasively but must answer the point of substance. R. The central problem lies not so much with the failure of the Employer and Union to provide disclosure; it lies with over 50 judges whom refuse to request that disclosure which was earlier filed with B.C. Justice Mary Southin in 1986. In brief, she covered up a fraud and the succeeding courts have been guilty of covering up a cover-up. No Justice System can withstand that charge and expect credibility.

Application to judge or master  (RULE 3-8 DEFAULT JUDGMENT R.C.)

(8)If a registrar is not certain that a plaintiff's claim against a defendant relates to a claim within subrule (3), (5) or (6), the registrar may refuse to grant judgment and the plaintiff may apply to a judge or master for default judgment. R. So far I have not experienced this type of diversion as a Judge always handles this matter as requested by me.

Rule 9-3 — Special Case

Statement of special case

(1)The parties to a proceeding may concur in stating a question of law or fact, or partly of law and partly of fact, in the form of a special case for the opinion of the court. R. A Judicial Enquiry is merited although fraught with the problem noted above. I have asked Premiers and courts such as for Saskatoon QGB 52 of 2019 for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor otherwise I am limited to requesting the above named disclosure.

With a Special Prosecutor, I could formalize the other two challenges; namely, the alleged fraudulency of named judges and the constitutionality of the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985) which is of current concern across Canada. It should be noted here that all three parties at one time or another have asked for clarification on the constitutionality of BILL 35.  I would not tie up court time on the latter account bowing to court directives in handling those matters apart from this case where I merely provide the necessary written material for the purpose. My focus is on disclosure.

 

(signed) Roger Callow (Plaintiff)  April 07-2019

 

 

APRIL 09-2019

Dear Ms. Payette, Governor General of Canada

1) Forgive me for not using the honorifics considering your titular role which is not to say that the GG can draw the attention of the PM to any matter of concern which the 34 year unresolved labour case where no compensation has been paid contrary to any number of extant laws due to systematic judicial abuse which goes unchecked, would qualify.

 

2) However, there are a few situations which require executive action such as earlier when the GG decided to continue with an incumbent Tory government even though there was no constitutional question raised. Earlier, I requested the B.C. Lieutenant Governor to initiate action to resolve the unique case above which was within their power only to have them duck out (under B.C. Premier Horgan's directive, no doubt) continuing the ongoing crisis which now sees a B.C. Chief Justice included in a fraud charge in a venue outside B.C. My concern here relates to judicial interference in the Registry which is not an uncommon occurrence in this case explaining why copies of any action are included to Premiers with B.C. Premier Horgan already committed to the conspiracy. Hence copies of B.C. events are placed in the surrogate office of the Governor General.

 

3) The focus of the Governor General should relate to the role of the 'individual' in Canadian society consistent with the 1982 Bill of Rights and United Nations objectives. Those rights have been expunged from Canadian democracy as a result of this 34 year unresolved legal matter.

The proper course is for a Judicial Enquiry (and not by JUSTICE CANADA) although which forum is best suited for this task is not easily attained. As matters now stand, the Prime Minister of Canada is the head of a quasi-dictatorship which is why your role in the above case is all-important. Please do not let the Canadian people down in that regard.

 

Yours truly,   Roger Callow (signed) Plaintiff

 

PREMIER PALLISTER

MAY 01-2019

MESSAGE:

1) As you may read from the website (APRIL 2019); I was unsuccessful in getting the Premiers of SK and AB to appoint Special Counsel in a 34 year bid to obtain a (well defined) disclosure from the B.C. Employer/Union conspiracy augmented by over 50 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada on four unsuccessful Appeals in this unresolved labour matter regarding a senior West Vancouver, B.C. teacher fired (oops, laid off for economic reasons) under the neophyte imposed BILL 35 which was rescinded after its sole use in this case in typical banana republic fashion. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid.

2) When I was expelled from B.C. in 2013 for 'reasons best known to a judge'; I turned to other Canadian venues including the Federal Court, ON courts, QC courts, PEI courts, NS courts and more recently B.C. again (new gov't.) AB and SK courts. Due to judicial malfeasance which no oversight body would even acknowledge, let alone examine, this plaintiff has been left with little other choice than to include judges as part of the civil fraud cases which I currently launch as a means of protection against wild assertions by judges appointed to this case registered in a corrupted judicial Registry. No recognition therefore exists of allegations of judicial malfeasance as oversight bodies collectively bow out. In Manitoba, I add the B.C. legal outfit of Harris and Company to the fraud accusations which has been associated with this case on the behalf of the Employer for many years. The Union never appears.

3) Manitoba is coming up against the Federal Government regarding the imposed carbon tax which, similar to SK and ON, they can expect to lose although their case is stronger. Rather than depending on Section 91 and 92 of the BNA ACT, as was the case of the first two, MB presented a carbon tax proposal to the Federal Government to which the latter did not respond. No doubt Manitoba's plan did not include the 20% fee applied by the Federal government; a distinctive downer for the Feds.

4) Providing me with Special Counsel would enable MB to challenge the Federal government on 4 levels: a) disclosure on which all else depends and is the focus of my case b) the constitutional question regarding imposed legislation  c) the named judges which I include only to protect myself from outside assertions from the unexamined judicial record. d) the addition of Vancouver's Harris & Co. for fraud as they are too cosy with the courts.

5) The insidious feature of imposed legislation is that the government level concerned may change the parameters after the initial court sanction. For example, BILL 35 was for the purpose of teacher lay-off for economic reasons (which was not a problem in 1985). As it was in addition to the Schools Act, it did not displace any of the other features related to teacher employment as it stated in the BILL. Compensation features were included for affected teachers (paralleling compensation features under the collective bargaining rules and such as the B.C. Labour Board).

6) In ON (12-54944 Ottawa Registry 2014 Mackenzie j ), the Employer as Plaintiff sought to extinguish all rights of this Defendant for compensation on the grounds that the courts had no oversight powers over an arbitration which the court in 1986 quashed ruling the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. I was left in limbo where I remain to this day. MacKenzie j merely ruled that, as the Defendant, I was being frivolous & vexatious. Three different accounts of his Decision exist with each not referencing the other. That's fraud at the highest level.

7) In brief, Justice Southin covered up a fraud and all succeeding courts are guilty of covering a cover-up.

8) Should you choose not to assign Special Counsel, I will be left with the basic disclosure features of my civil fraud case. Who knows, I might find an ethical judge in MB; I certainly have not anywhere else.

9) Due to the history of this case, all materials are now focused through the Office of Governor General Julie Payette to make direct contact with the incumbent Prime Minister on a matter of national importance for a country without an efficacious legal system cannot be a democracy. Both you and the GG will be kept aware of events of this MB action as it unfolds. Events are also posted on my web site: SEE 2019 RECENT 5....

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

14) Unfortunately, other than the Employee's Case (imposed BILL 35 B.C. 1985), there is no extant case as to what can happen when a government seeks to circumvent Parliament and the Courts with imposed  legislation: Consider the following argument;

 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA AUTHORITY...

R:   (34) 5  points

a)    see (27) regarding 'finality' in the Employee's Case

b)    The  courts  have bought into the specious Employer's  argument that the central  issues have been previously decided. Not so. Justice Southin in 1986 ordered the matter back to arbitration when the Employer failed to return employment to this Plaintiff as she recommended (not ordered). The Employer did not return to arbitration even after losing an Appeal on that point of a reconvened arbitration.

c) R: I have had a belly-full of Appeal Courts which in this case and many others provide political answers as opposed to good judicial responses. Ignoring the central issues is key to this cabal of Chief Justices operating under the protection of Justice Canada where there is no oversight - or alternatively political interference - hence one sees such as the LAVSCAM disaster. In the Employee's Case, every Province this case has been seen (6 );there has been considerable judicial abuse.

d) R:That's exactly what the Employer did in this case by claiming that the courts have no oversight powers of imposed  legislation (BILL 35 -B.C. 1985) of which Appeal they lost as noted above. Even ON Mackenzie j. refused to discuss this issue which was the reason why the Employer launched the case as the Plaintiff.

e) R: If this matter of my senior teacher lay-off had been a playground disagreement; it would have been  resolved inside of 15 minutes and, I dare add, with considerably more justice than 34 years of wasted litigation. If Justice Southin in 1986 had ordered my return as opposed to recommending my return to teaching in West Vancouver, this matter would have ended there. It was a stunt, according to my then legal Counsel, Harry Rankin (d), that she could not get away with. Well, she has to date, as a cover-up of her perfidy has been reinforced by over 50 judges in a 'cover-up of the cover up': Justice Canada, by rights, should pay all bills for this travesty of immense proportions never before encountered in any judicial system.

 

NEW BRUNSWICK (JUNE 2019)

JUNE 01-2019

BY: Roger Callow Plaintiff employeescasecanada.ca  SEE 2019 JUNE  sub-heading NEW BRUNSWICK (34 year unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation has been paid due to the 'intricacies' of the imposed BILL 35 (1985) used only against this senior West Vancouver teacher in an alleged lay-off for economic reasons.  e-mail: rcallow770 @gmail.com

Sun, 26 May, 12:44 (3 days ago)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif

...I am a litigant subject to the vexatious litigant judgment in Ontario. I will be making an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
I can see from Canlii that Justice Thomas made an order against you on the inherent jurisdiction of the court   Callow v West Vancouver Teacher’s Association (Local School District Number 45), 2019 ABQB 353(CanLII)
Justice Thomas copied this directly form (sic) the order of Justice Corbett in Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2019 ONCA 359(CanLII) and Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2018 ONSC 58 (CanLII),
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently granted leave to appeal in  Vuong Van Tai Holding Inc v Alberta (Minister of Justice and Solicitor General), 2019 ABCA 165 (CanLII) and suggested that Makis v Alberta Health Services, 2019 ABCA 23 (CanLII), and Lymer (Re), 2018 ABCA 368 z(CanLII) be heard together.  The NSRLP obtained leave to interven (sic) in Jonsson v Lymer, 2019 ABCA 113 (CanLII)
I spoke with one of the lawyers and they have agreed to have appeals heard together  and the main issue will be the court making vexatious litigant order (sic) on the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
The order that was made against you was also made on the inherent jurisdiction and without the attorney general.

... have attached the decisions to this email in an attachment, Bring an appeal and ask for leave and ask if you can have you (sic) appeal heard together.  RESPONSE:

I DID NOT PARTICIPATE FOR ETHICAL REASONS AS THESE JUDGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED AND TRIED CRIMINALLY

1) New Brunswick, due to its challenge to the imposed  Carbon Tax is about to undergo a similar 'whang, bang, thank-you ma'am, performance paralleling other provinces including PEI. In brief, you stand little chance of success if you follow the routine of SK which ignored my legal advice and instead brought a knife to a gun fight. No matter which way their appeal goes, they are tarnished with the lower court conviction in perpetuity. (N.B. has been chosen as this is the first foray by this case into this province raising the question as to which interests control your courts...the Premier or the grey eminence?)

2) While it is an uphill battle, giving this plaintiff Special Status in order to function on 3 levels is required in order to make a constitutional challenge. That was Premier King's role after the abject failure of the Green Party. It would seem now that PEI must go it on their own and SK shows the folly of that course ....

5) I was dumbfounded to find Harris & Co. present on an ad hoc presentation before Konkin j. on April 25 never believing that Konkin j. would ask him to forward his 500 word submission to me for a rebuttal. The material was borrowed from another court and in no way referenced the Saskatoon Court. Konkin j. lied to me on that direct question....

7) The maxim that 'It is a fool whom has himself as a legal client' applies equally to legal firms.

The point here, Harris& Co. is highly unlikely to get any legal firm to represent them in the new forum (New Brunswick). Of course, the original question of disclosure is paramount in a case where I call on the court to act on a one-time without prejudice non-negotiable $20 million dollars to cover all costs from Harris for the three parties which I claim are equally responsible; the Employer, the Union, and the Courts of law. That is, unless Harris & Co. hand over the well-defined disclosure either to me privately or as ordered by the court.

 

CIVIL vs CRIMINAL LAW (JUNE 14-2019)

     The Canadian Justice System in its cleverness has permitted large interests to exploit the dichotomy between civil law (a personal matter between litigants with a dollar value attached) and criminal law (controlled by the state and barred to litigants such as myself involved clearly in a criminal matter on both the part of Harris & Co. and the Saskatoon Court (QGB 52 of 2019) ).

     The point here is that if the disclosure called for shows a criminal intent, then everything flowing from it is 'null and void'. That is the calamity facing the Employer in this case. That is the calamity facing Justice Canada by refusing to date to call for disclosure with over 50 judges.

     The employeescasecanada.ca has shown systemic abuse on the part of Justice Canada which goes without investigation negatively impacting all contracts - both private and diplomatic in Canada e.g. NAFTA(2). President Trump has been advised to warn all foreign interests in this regard to boycott Canadian courts until this matter is resolved.

 

 

AFFIDAVIT

I, , ROGER CALLOW  Retired

of 1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001 in the City of Ottawa in the Province of ONTARIO, SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT :

I am the in this matter and as such have personal [plaintiff/petitioner etc.]

knowledge of the matters herein referred to.

OR

I am in this matter and have personal [plaintiff/petitioner etc.] knowledge of the facts and matters referred to by me except where indicated to be on information and belief and where so stated I verily believe them to be true.

SWORN at the City of  OTTAWA, in the Province of ONTARIO on SEPTEMBER 15 , 2019 )

 

(signed) Roger Callow

AFFIDAVIT of FACTS

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.

AFFIRMED : in the Province of Ontario (Ottawa) on  SEPTEMBER 15, 2019

Roger Callow (signed) Plaintiff

HABEAS CORPUS

8) All law is based on habeas corpus (produce the 'body'...of evidence) which in law is called disclosure. The 34 year employeescasecanada.ca  is the worst example of judicial abuse in that regard. The public had some insight into the problem with the failure of the judge to order disclosure in the highly publicized Vice-Admiral Mark Norman trial where a 'stay of proceedings' was used to derail that enquiry. In brief, our highly secretive court and government systems are counter-productive to a well operating democracy. That is why a copy of all these proceedings go to the Governor General of Canada. Perhaps she should take advice on this matter from the U.S. President as international interests are negatively impacted as well on both a commercial and diplomatic level due to this high level of secrecy.

9) My personal interest lies in obtaining the long denied disclosure. Once I receive that either voluntarily from Harris & Co. or alternatively, by a court order prior to any hearing (see RULE 23.01) with possible RCMP intervention) and I depart N.B. Courts as I will pursue the matter elsewhere. What the N.B. court and government plus the Governor General after that wish to do will be of their concern. I have given the court the option of holding Harris & Co. fully responsible for the total cost of settlement in a one-time without prejudice offer for a non-negotiable $20 million settlement. That option expires if this court case is obviated once again. Disclosure lies at the heart of my compensation appeal as well as the case against Harris& Co. along with the courts and associated government bodies.

 

Yours truly, (Roger Callow) Plaintiff

 

PEI - CIVIL FRAUD (AUGUST 2019)

BACKGROUND (B) focus: Bruce Laughton QC legal counsel for the Union

 

6) When the original lawyer , Allan Black, appointed by the Union with my agreement lost the arbitration, I switched lawyers to Harry Rankin (d.) who requested that Southin j. either return my teaching career or place me back on salary until this legal matter was resolved. He failed on both accounts.

 

7) I next obtained the services of Labour specialist, Leo McGrady who also failed to get Southin j. to change her mind specifically into appointing a new arbitrator. The Union paid for all legal services to that point. In the interim, the arbitrator died creating a 'frustrated' situation; a legal term in which litigants are not to be held responsible for  'glitches' in the law.

 

8) Black, the original Union lawyer for the arbitration made a pre-announcement that in the event of any conflict between myself and the Union; he would drop out and not represent either side. As McGrady was hired by me, his loyalty should have been to me in providing disclosure which he did not do before he dropped out on a technicality.

 

9) Unfortunately, Mr. Laughton  claimed to solely represent the Union against my wishes after he had been dismissed; a position he has maintained up to the current time. Over the years, he has even seen fit to join with the Employer to frustrate my legal attempts to get justice being abetted by the legal department of the B.C. Teachers Federation in that regard. That collaboration led to a charge of fraudulent activities (Federal Court T-2360-14 which was refiled in Quebec  and was part of a Supreme Court of Canada 'unheard' challenge 36883 QC). To the best of my knowledge, he never met with his purported representative, the West Vancouver Teachers Association preferring to deal solely with the BCTF legal department.

 

10) Part of the conspiracy charge against Mr. Laughton is that he handled the Appeal of Justice Southin after I had dismissed Rankin & Co. and hired Leo McGrady. If the Employer is to be believed, the Union had no role in this hearing hence their presence was gratuitous and dependent on my personal agreement which they never had. Indeed, if I was part of the Appeal Court process, I would have been privy to the disclosure that I am now seeking and hence the 34 year kafkaesque search including this one in P.E.I. would be redundant.

11) I believe that it is important for the court to be aware of this background with Mr. Laughton as there is a good chance he will seek to represent the Union from B.C. in my request for solely a written response. Ideally speaking, local P.E.I. representation would be preferred as they are bound by P.E.I. legal practices and not B.C.

 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN (AUGUST 2019)

(considering all Canadian authorities in this matter have abrogated their duties)

 

This account limited to Court Registries across Canada plus the GG

By: Roger Callow aka the 'Outlawed Canadian' in an unresolved 34 year labour matter due to the malfeasance of over 50 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada on 4 occasions: employeescasecanada.ca

 

While proof of a conspiracy does not pass the legal 'litmus test', the charge is that a conspiracy organized and abetted by Chief Justices across Canada where this case has been lodged does exist replete with damning evidence. This copy mailed to respective Registries.

 

1) Registries with file numbers but a refusal to appoint a court hearing time

a) Ontario (CV 18000 769 0000 since June 30-2018) Premier Ford personally wrote me that he would not intervene.

b) Victoria (19-0903 since March 2019) Obstructionist clerk no doubt under direction of Registrar and Premier Horgan.

 

2) Registries delaying the assignment of court file numbers

c) Manitoba The most complete action against the Employer and Union pointing out the role of the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms plus the constitutional challenge of imposed legislation (think Carbon Tax) as I was laid-off for economic reasons under the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. -1985) and where, 34 years later, I still have not received any compensation due me under the law. Latter-day hippy, the intelligent Premier Pallister, is remiss on this one.

d) PEI Premier Higgs and the Opposition Green Party have been a big disappointment in this case solely against the Union calling for disclosure which they purloined from me in 1986. (With fraud being shown, everything emanating from that action is 'null and void' (34 years back-pay). Considering the court quashed arbitration, this claim has much merit.

 

e) New Brunswick The charge here is unique and in contrast to the others focusing on the production of disclosure. Here the long-termed Employer legal firm, Harris & Co. has been charged with civil fraud (only the police and Crown prosecutor can lay criminal charges). The basic charge is one of Harris & Co. colluding with un-named personnel in the Saskatoon Court System (3 judges included) -QGB 52 0f 2019 laid in January-2019. If Premier Higgs were a responsible Premier; he would instruct his Chief Justice into laying a criminal charge. As a civil action, a price tag must be placed which is a non-negotiable $20 million dollars.

 

3) Through a legal process called  Referencing, the above provinces may direct the B.C. Judiciary to act in this matter. No province has done this escaping for judicial excuses; namely, being a frivolous & vexatious charge, a badly over-worked term in law. Pejoratively, I call it the 'I don' wanna' law.

 

4) QC and NS have already seen law suits amid much judicial malfeasance.

 

5) An interesting case lies in AB where I was invited to join a civil class action (an AB judge was quoted in the Saskatoon fiasco) with much money to be made by the lawyers  and their clients. I refused on ethical grounds. These judges should not be bailed out with taxpayer money. They should be dismissed and tried criminally. Premier Kenney is at the heart of this one and a Justice System which leaves much to be desired.

 

6) The specific complaint illustrated above is the disparate distance between civil and criminal law; much like those diseases which jump the human - animal genome such as flu from pigs.

In that regard, Justice Canada can neither go forward, go backward or stand still. If ever there was a definition of a living hell on earth, that is it.

 

7) The media deserve a special category for their boycott of this major national issue ....

cc Governor General J.Payette (last Canadian authority figure left standing and whose dismissal I have called for)

 

THE HANGING LETTER

 

HARRIS & COMPANY

February 7, 1996                          

Labour Relations Board 1125 Howe Street Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2K8

Attention: Margaret Arthur

Re: Callow v. The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 (West Vancouver) et al  BCCA No. CA020560

 

We are counsel for the Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 (West Vancouver) in the above-noted matter.

We note from Mr. Callow's Complaint (p.3(t)) that he seeks from the Labour Relations Board a direction that the Association "take the necessary action to continue the arbitration within the parameters of the 1988 Court of Appeal decision."

It is the School Board's strongly held view that the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdiction to make any ruling regarding the hearing of a future arbitration hearing due to the fact that the arbitration was not a proceeding under the scheme provided in the Labour Relations Code, the former Industrial Relations Act, or the former Labour Code. Indeed, the arbitration in question was a hearing pursuant to the provisions of the School Amendment Act, 1985 (BILL 35 - RC), which the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdiction  to interpret or apply. (my highlighting)

We request that the School Board be provided with an opportunity to make further submissions on this point prior to any granting of any remedy.

 

Yours very truly, Judith C. Anderson HARRIS & COMPANY

 

N.B. The B.C. Labour Board refused all my requests for a hearing as did successive B.C. Courts. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear this matter hence the jurisdiction question is at the core of this imposed government legislation. That is how I was relegated to a permanent state of limbo where no compensation (includes pension) was paid in defiance of the rules of labour contract. No Canadian media nor Parliamentary source will publish this ugly truth reducing Canada to Third World status.

 

 

B.C.HINCKSON cj FRAUD (2018)

 

PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

34) Does the conspiracy alleged against the Respondents in the conduct of the grievance process permit the Supreme Court of British Columbia to exercise its inherent jurisdiction?

52) Simply put, how can the justice system of Canada in all good conscience deny me access to the court to resolve an unresolved matter which even the court has declared should have been re-arbitrated. The fact that the original arbitrator passed away under a law which would not see the appointment of any other arbitrator (law of frustration) calls into play the courts role of inherent jurisdiction in order to finalize this case. Failure to do so up to and including one appeal already to the Supreme Court of Canada is a denial of the letter and spirit of the law in Canada.

ADDENDUM: If Hinkson cj did not wish to assign me the default $20 million thus resolving the entire case, he could have re-assigned salary as I should never have been released from salary under the collective bargaining rules until this matter was resolved. By rooting around in the files, he has brought up a matter which threatens the existence of the Canadian NDP  Party.

IF HINCKSON cj had called a hearing (or requested in writing), I could have responded with the following rebuttal:...

3) This account focuses on Res Ipso Loquitor for which neither MacKenzie (2010) nor Hinckson cj which repeats her error of not calling for argument nor quoting pertinent laws, chose to expel me from the courts 'for reasons best known to themselves' in an unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation has been paid. In brief, neither judge gave me the opportunity to address the court on this point of law explaining why I requested A.G. Edy to immediately suspend Hinckson cj. Edy's silence (plus Premier Horgan) speaks legions on this point.

 

Res Ipso Loquitor Latin for "the thing speaks for itself."

Overview In tort law, a principle that allows plaintiffs burden of proof with what is, in effect, circumstantial evidence. The plaintiff can create a rebuttable presumption of negligence by the defendant by proving that the harm would not ordinarily have occurred without negligence, that the object that caused the harm was under the defendant's control, and that there are no other plausible explanations. In the vernacular, this term is likened to the patient whom goes for a hospital arm operation and comes away without his foot instead.

 

Prima Facie Case To prove res ipsa loquitor negligence, the plaintiff must prove 3 things:

1. The incident was of a type that does not generally happen without negligence The court noted negligence when they quashed the arbitration in 1986 for failing to show a causal factor.

2. It was caused by an instrumentality solely in defendant's control. As the senior teacher laid off under the imposed conditions of BILL 35 (lay-off for economic reasons only); I had no say in that process

3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the cause. If I did, then disclosure is called for which over 50 judges including Hinckson cj. should have called for or ordered the RCMP to act. He ignored all issues limiting his response to a 'bastardized' interpretation of the 'MacKenzie Creed'.

 

4) A.G. Eby's inaction is the sole source of this judicial malfeasance. Premier Horgan should replace him and order this matter back to the court with a special investigator.  cc Premier Horgan / media