1) In March of 1985, in a meeting requested by Superintendent Ed Carlin in the Office of West Vancouver Secondary Principal, John Williams, the discussion over an incident 'went south' prompting an enraged Superintendent to 'invite' (my words) Williams to write a negative teaching Report on me.

2) The Principal's 'satisfactory' Report to that date was to be changed. (Reports may only read 'satisfactory' or 'unsatisfactory'. 3 negative Reports over a 2 year period leads to dismissal for 'teacher incompetence' - see web: employeescasecanada.com ORIGINS for Ken Raison story of a senior West Vancouver teacher dismissed in 1978; the first B.C. teacher to be so dismissed under these circumstances. The principal at that time was Jim Carter whom became the Deputy Minister of Education at the time of BILL 35 in 1985) while Carlin was the Superintendent.

3) When Williams told me that he was coming in one more 'gratuitous' time, I mailed the record of the previous evaluations (all 'satisfactory') to Jim Carter in Victoria; a former colleague of Williams whom no doubt figured a second case of an 'incompetent' senior teacher being dismissed in the smallest teaching District in B.C. was not going to look good for his own resumé hence the birth of BILL 35.

4) The last visit of Williams was clearly negative leaving him with changing the evaluations of  his earlier visits. I caught him with those written discrepancies just as I later caught the entire Canadian Justice System in their 29 year perfidy.

5) Carlin was in a panic. Having 3 successive negative Reports on me with the first one clearly fraudulent would not pan out well for the School District no doubt accounting for Justice Southin's comment...'the School District must have been too painfully aware of pursuing me on the basis of teacher competence'.

6) Similar to the Ghomeshi affair where the CBC met with him to resolve an issue; Carlin met privately with me to suggest that the Report of Williams be withdrawn.

I refused on the grounds that the way could now be paved for 3 sequential negative Reports as per Raison's story which also took place under Carlin's aegis.

7)The proposal agreed on was for the Director of Instruction (DoI) to write a (positive) Report before school was out in June of 1985 as a means of burying William's Report. That personage hated Carlin for the treatment he had received in the Raison story in 1978 and was on his way to retirement in June of 1985.

8) When I notified Carlin in writing in early June that the Dol was apparently not going to do his job; Carlin told him to 'drop everything and get in there'.

9) When Dol only wrote 'notes' in 2 visits on the last days of school, I told him that BILL 35 was going to be used against me due to his cupidity of not marking it 'Professional Report on Teacher'. That could be paralleled to Ghomeshi being fired by CBC prematurely with no stated reason given.

10) Similarly under false circumstances, I was 'laid off' for economic reasons of declining enrolment which was farcical considering that 16 new positions were created, any number of which I could fill. (The government-appointed arbitrator converted those 16 new hires into 16 lay-offs with myself as the 17th knowing full well that I was the only lay-off). In Justice Southin's words, 'The Board used the 'imposed' BILL 35 document for the wrong reason; to rid itself of a troublesome pedant' knowing full well that the School District was using BILL 35 for the actual purpose it was intended in this sole-laid case after which the Bill was withdrawn in the 1990's before this case was completed. (It is similar to Ontario's imposed BILL 115 of 2013. That practice is known as 'banana republic justice' which is essentially government fraud.)

11) The significance of 'imposed' legislation is that the courts may review such as labour board action which happened here when I changed lawyers. Interestingly, the BC Teachers Federation persuaded all School Districts to sign a 'consentual' agreement with their respective School Boards regarding lay-off (including West Vancouver in 1986) thus curtailing any court challenge to an arbitration by any other teacher). I don't believe there was one B.C. teacher whom realized that they were signing their death warrant as dismissals could now be hidden behind lay-offs. That is why I have called on all B.C. School Districts to place their District 'in dispute' (affects hiring practices) until this case has been resolved. No doubt the teachers' Union leaders are badly frightened on this accord and discourage the rank and file teachers accordingly.

12) I was 'laid off' on June 26, 1985 under the conditions of BILL 35 (which became law on July 01,1985) in a letter from the Superintendent quoting School Board authority. No mention of any lay-off in the School Report of that date was made in their end of June meeting. In testimony at arbitration the Assistant Superintendent responsible for staffing, Bill May, in answer to the question stated that nowhere did he recommend to the Board the lay-off of any teacher nor of Roger Callow specifically, in June of 1985. That damning evidence was conspicuous by its absence from the arbitrator's decision; a pattern of omission followed by the many court hearings to the present time.

13) Hence, BILL 35 was designed as cover-up for William's fraudulent activities which was to be done at the expense of my teaching career. Southin's comment is germane here: 'Nowhere did the Board demonstrate a connection between the enumerated factors (of lay-off) and the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow. (The essence of any trial is to draw a connection between the 'crime' and 'the perp'.)



14) At one point in the court challenge, Justice Southin ordered all memo notes of meetings held by the School Board and the Union on my lay-off to be provided to her; the so-called 'secret memo notes' requested by me as a source of defining the nature of the alleged fraud. She later returned those notes to the Employer and Union 'because she did not use them.'

15) Due to this knowledge on the part of Justice Southin, the conspirators were able to blackmail the courts for it is alleged here that if 'what did the court know and when did it know it' is revealed, it would lead initially to the vilification of the Southin Report. (Although I submit she was complicit in an even more elaborate fraud on this level.)

16) 29 years later, due to systematic judicial abuse, the entire Canadian Judiciary has collapsed under the weight of cover-up of this issue over 8 separate courts and over 30 judges and still the anti-employee media would remain mute on this topic negatively affecting 35 million Canadians.

17) The allegation here is that the School Board conspired with the local Union to lay-off this teacher as principals were also part of the Union (separated in 1988) and contributed significant funds to the Union. An attack on one principal, it was no doubt feared, could be construed as an attack on all principals.

18) There were a number of meetings held by the School Board dealing with discussions over BILL 35; none of which were referred to in Southin's account. In 2004, under the 'access to information' laws, I received copious materials from that school year but no memo notes as to BILL 35 meetings. One inclusion was interesting. Filed in arbitration was a document relating to the dismissal of me by the Board without showing a vote count. It was marked 'passed'. In 2004, the document showed that only 2 out of the 5 - namely Chairperson, Margo Furk, and her successor, Mike Smith - had approved the dismissal hence someone committed fraud. No School Board personnel took the stand to testify as to lay-off figures although I unsuccessfully pleaded with the Union lawyer to call them to the stand. (I replaced him when I filed for the court review.) Obviously the Board members were not prepared to perjure themselves but other Board officials did.

19) Hence the point alleged here is that the arbitration was to hide School Board perfidy and that perfidy in turn was compounded by Justice Southin's actions of quashing the arbitration thus concealing perjury by Board members.

20) Hence it is submitted here that Southin's  recommendation that employment be returned was a false flag as she fully expected the Board to reject that 'opinion' in Chairperson Margo Furk's words. Southin made that clear by delivering her decision in September, rather than the expected June, after all the new school year appointments had been made. By ordering the matter back before the same arbitrator - the one she labeled 'patently unreasonable' she felt assured that the Union this time would block any court appeal hence problem solved, or so she hoped.

21) The untimely death (or timely depending on how one looks at it) of arbitrator, Louis Lindholm, threw the conspirators into a tizzy so they did nothing as no new arbitrator could be expected to compromise his career on this highly publicized case.

22) It is submitted here that revelation of those 'secret memo notes' would reveal that Justice Southin blatantly lied in her decision. (Interestingly, Justice Southin did not recuse herself in 2003 when she led a 3 person Appeal Court challenge that I had made.)



23) To be sure, Justice Spencer of the B.C. Supreme Court was made aware of the above story so that in 1995 when I appeared before him on the basis that as the Employer and Union had failed to return to court as so ordered by Justice Southin - in short, abandoned this issue - the proper action by the court was to change her 'should' return employment to 'must' return employment to me with all terms of the collective bargaining to apply (all back salary which was mine apart from any judicial findings...essentially the same argument today as under the collective bargaining rules, I was to be retained on salary until a resolution was found).

24) Spencer did nothing creating the legal template followed by 8 separate courts (including the Supreme Court of Canada on 2 occasions) and over 30 Judges. I was to be left in permanent limbo which defies any precept of a judicial system.

25) In 1999, the Union announced that they were going to settle with the Employer whether I agreed or not; something within their power. One month later they reneged on that decision to settle unless it had my agreement.

26) My legal advisor wrote them telling them that if they were not going back to arbitration as so ordered by the court in 1986, then they had to sign an outside agreement as part of their responsibilities under the collective bargaining agreement.

27) If the Union had signed without my approval, I would be in a legal position to sue them with the whole story coming out...and that would never do. Further, as the sign-out would exempt the Employer from any further charges, the Union could find themselves with a very hefty settlement fee; approximately 90% of the settlement cost.

28) The B.C. Labour Board (BC117/2002 Barbara Parkinson Decision) was cognizant of the Union's dilemma and refused any Section 12 Hearing that I requested as then the whole story would come out. Their conclusion? From the Union's factum, they concluded that 'the Union had not done anything wrong'. That action placed an end to the credibility of that organization.



29) In its many efforts to bury this case - including the hi-jacking of the anti-employee media - the Justice System slid continually downhill as detailed elsewhere on the site employeescasecanada.com to a level and degree where the entire Justice System of Canada is in a state of collapse. From that there is no recovery.

30) Similar to the Ghomeshi case, the only possible outcome for both cases is an 'outside settlement'; in my case for $6 million with the price tag to go up, not down from there. Legalities continue in search of those 'secret memo notes' until a settlement is reached. (For Ghomeshi, he should pursue the meetings held between CBC and the Union on his dismissal notice. The media is strangely quiet on the CBC-Union discussion in the Ghomeshi firing which probably provoked his dismissal. That's why an 'outside settlement' is the only possible outcome in that case as well if the conspiracy is to be kept intact.)



31) I am a completely innocent target of a conspiracy for I am not guilty of 'declining enrolment' in 1985 (if that is possible in this kafkaesque case) as there was an increase, not a decrease of teaching positions.

32) I have been robbed of my compensation as every job under the collective bargaining rules must have a price tag attached. My current 'tag' is $6 million. So far I have received nothing (includes pension rights).

33) Pay-out is dependent on the propriety of my lay-off. Due to the failure of the court to renew the arbitration that they so ordered, I have been left in limbo which flies in the face of such basic legal tenets as habeas corpus, due process, there can be no process without judgment.

33) The court is complicit in this conspiracy as over 8 separate courts (including the Supreme Court of Canada on two occasions - not heard) and over 30 judges have done nothing. While I may have a battle with the Employer, I have a full scale war with the courts.

34) Justice Estey  St. Anne Nackawic  'What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the laws.

35) Conclusion? Canada no longer has a Justice System due to systematic judicial abuse. No bureaucracy can withstand that charge. Similar to such as China, we have courts of law but no viable justice system.

36) And do you know what is so insidious about this case? This type of legal abuse is happening every day in varying degrees across the land. The significance of the Employee's Case (Canada) is that the authorities have been caught out in Canada for a first time.

35) former P.M. Pierre Trudeau 'It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.'

36) In this case, the politicians, the anti-employee media, the professional teachers of Canada and B.C. in particular, the legal fraternity; are all in the wrong.

37) The Blind Men of Hindustan Each one argued long and loud about the definition of an elephant; one proclaiming while touching its side that surely the elephant was like a wall; a second grabbing the trunk opining that surely the elephant was like a tree; and so on. The conclusion?...While all were partly in the right and all were in the wrong.

38) In the vernacular, cherry picking for truths is a lie. Canada is living a lie of grandiose proportions which  negatively affects the entire quality of life in our so-called democracy. It doesn't get any worse than that. PROTEST PLACARD: BEHIND EVERY ECONOMIC COLLAPSE IS A MORAL COLLAPSE

39) Corrupting legions of people in this legal caper by the authorities (even reading this account and doing nothing) defines us all.