BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com 

(28 year unresolved legal case)    CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’ seeking a pulitzer prize journalist to expose the scam of 21st century Canada



1) APHORISM: ‘Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither’.

2) PSAC MOTTO: ‘We are not trading it, selling it, swapping it or giving it away.’

3) ‘But moderates always seemed to deal in hopes rather than facts.’ Fall of Giants  Ken Follett

4) ‘Stupid Is As Stupid Does’  FORREST GUMP

5) “…Where is the accountability? The bidding process looks like it has been rigged three times. How many times will it take before someone asks what the hell is going on here?” said (businessman Bruce Atyeo on government real estate relocations) O.C. March 30-13 A1


TOPIC: ‘Deal reached with (Public) high school teachers..Union still to vote on agreement that would bring an end to labour dispute’ O.C. headline story April 01-13 A1


‘DON’T EAT THAT, ELMER’…April Fool Day’s Special


1) Out down behind the barn, we used to have a saying; ‘Don’t  eat that, Elmer’.


2) Recently in Ontario, the Liberal government broke the back of the ‘collective bargaining process’ with Ontario teachers in a classic manouvre of splitting the French & Catholic School Boards who accepted an ‘imposed’ agreement , from the public Secondary and Elementary teachers union who rejected the process and retaliated by withdrawing from unpaid extra-curricular activities which received the opprobrium of the newspapers.


3) Make no mistake about it, The Public Board Unions lost and teachers have resumed extra-curricular activities. While the Premier resigned, the Liberals have not suffered any repercussions in terms of the polls.

The Public Teachers would have been better off rolling over and playing dead such as was the case of the French/Catholic Teachers than to fight this issue and lose as they compromise the efforts of anyone else fighting a similar battle. Now it would appear that the Public Teachers are about to add insult to injury by curring favour with the authorities.


4) It is immaterial what is in the agreement between the Liberal government and the public teachers as the key lies in ‘imposed’ agreements as opposed to ‘consentual’ agreements; a legal distinction at the heart of the Employee’s Case’.


5) The March 31-13 newsletter details the steps of this B.C. government conspiracy in which the Government was hijacked (‘imposed’ BILL 35 legislation) and the judiciary co-opted(gerrymandered government arbitrator later ruled ‘patently unreasonable’ with his findings quashed) to sanction a ‘sweetheart deal’ between Employer (West Vancouver School Board) and the local Union (WVTA) later sanctioned by the parent Union, the BCTF.


6) When I changed lawyers after the arbitration and challenged the matter to court, the thrust of the Employer argument was that as BILL 35 was a ‘consentual agreement between union and employer’, that the courts had no jurisdiction. Of course they lost that argument and 28 years of litigation has followed.


7) BILL 35 was disingenuous in the extreme. Ostensibly it was a Bill to deal with the lay-off of teachers in B.C. for those School Districts which did not have a policy in place. There was no problem to be solved. The Bill was deliberately made to be ultra vires in order to promote School Districts to sign consentual agreements with their respective Boards which they did at the behest of the BCTF.


8) In West Vancouver, teachers attended a meeting in 1986 where ‘a bundle of information’ was plunked down in front of them (replicate that scenario throughout 75 School Districts) and about 10 minutes to recognize that their new deal was vastly improved over BILL 35. What the BCTF did not tell those teachers was that with a ‘consentual agreement’ they were signing away their access to the courts leaving them with no more than a ‘cozy little arbitration’ should they be so misfortunate to require legal services. That’s why the BCTF is a rogue Union. The Union had expected the court to order me back to work (as opposed to merely making a recommendation) so that I would be laid off a second time; this time with only access to another cozy arbitration. In short, it was a case of overkill by the conspirators.


9) What the authorities have seen over the years is that the Professional Teachers of Canada have sat on their duff over the E.C. ; no doubt at the behest of Union leaders discouraging  teachers to dig deeper on this case while the Employee’s Case is fought by only one teacher.  Ontario is now exploiting that weakness in a game plan which will see the end to the collective bargaining process in Canada.


10) If the Ontario teachers agree with a settlement with the Liberal government, they will have given de facto recognition to the ‘imposed’ agreement and risk compromising any possible court challenge to future ‘imposed’ agreements; a move that could be expanded to all unions in Canada.


11) Here’s one scenario. Tory Tim Hudak is straining at the leash to bite the ass of Ontario Teachers. It’s personal with him. While the current agreement is with the Liberals and may be honoured by them; a future Hudak government is not so bound and may exploit this teacher weakness in myriad ways. For example, the Tories could revise teacher salaries to be ‘revenue neutral’ (much like the GST…I think you get the picture) in which – starting in September, all teachers on staff would be paid $65,000 ; a boon to young teachers at the expense of senior teachers. New staff would require, say, five steps to reach the $65,000 figure. Currently there is no problem with filling teaching positions with the legions of unemployed teachers being turfed out of the Universities for close to a decade. Hudak would become the ‘candy kid with the sticky fingers’ in the public mind as this selfsame public could give a ‘rat’s ass’ about the welfare of ‘those overpaid senior teachers…up the revolution!’


12) What can Ontario teachers do? First of all, realize that the ‘right to work’ mentality is continent wide and is entrenched in the anti-employee media. Create a quality digital newspaper, much like an Epoch Times in which the editorial section would be controlled by employees. The unions may wish to assist that process but should not lead it. Sponsoring causes e.g. Falun Gong protests (International)and  the Employee’s Case (National) should be their focus.  Currently, Canada’s courts have been reduced to a virtual state of anarchy over this case and that battle now extends to 34 million Canadians.


13) The OTTAWA SUN has made an astounding announcement. They dismissed some of their senior editorial staff and are dropping support for the Harper government preferring instead, to support the leader-apparent of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau. All new leaders are given a limited time opportunity to comment on the Employee’s Case…or else hold their peace forever. Neither the campaigning Trudeau nor B.C. NDP’s Adrian Dix have commented on the E.C. during the campaigns as I have invited them to do.


14) The ‘Banksters’ of the world are covering their tracks behind governments ‘printing more money’ in Britain, Canada, and the U.S. to lower unemployment. It’s not working. This is what is upsetting the SUN.


April 05-2013                SENT BY REGISTERED MAIL                                 MAY 05-2013 – SECOND REQUEST


TO: Board of School Trustees S.D. #45              FROM: Roger Callow

       (West Vancouver,B.C.)                          

       1075-21ST Street                                      

       West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9                    FAX: 613-521-1739


MESSAGE:                               PART I


1) As you are no doubt aware, 3 actions are currently pending in the courts over the 28 year unresolved matter of the lay-off of senior teacher Roger Callow in June of 1985. No compensation has been paid (includes pension rights). Only one of those cases (Ontario)has received a timely response on behalf of the School Board of West Vancouver. The two cases in B.C. Supreme Court and Appeal Court await docket numbers for which the respective Chief Justices have been notified.


2) There is no statute of limitations on matters of fraud hence matters relating to the initial lay-off are still pertinent in all of the three above cases plus any further legalities.


3) In that respect, it would appear that due to my ignorance,I forewent a basic right of an employee to request a tribunal directly with the Employer to ascertain the facts of this case which exist apart from any legal procedures. Rather, I had foolishly trusted to the ethics of a government-appointed arbitrator to reach a fair conclusion. He was later ruled ‘patently unreasonable’ in this matter.


4) It would appear that this arbitration failure is at root of some – but not all – of the courts inability to give voice to the obvious deprivations suffered by this plaintiff at the hands of the Employer.


5) For the above reason, I request an ex parte tribunal (due to geographical separation) of answers to the following questions in order to clarify matters  as a means of finalizing this long drawn out affair.


PART II – Questions


6) Which legal route is the Employer choosing in this matter? Are they functioning on a matter of employee lay-off or employee dismissal? Or are they functioning on a basis of a combination of these two options? The question is pertinent as different laws apply to each situation.


Following are questions which would arguably point to fraud on the part of the Employer:


7) In March of 1985, I provided evidence of a potential fraud in the making on the part of administor, John Williams, who was in the process of finalizing his professional report on this teacher, to the Ministry of Education in Victoria. The incumbent  Deputy Minister of Education, Jim Carter, the former principal preceding Williams in West Vancouver Secondary School and an associate of him, was himself the focus of a high profile dismissal of a senior secondary teacher eight years previously in the same school.


8) Shortly after, BILL 35 was proclaimed which permitted School Boards without a plan for teacher lay-offs, to apply under these conditions. At the time, no School District required such an ‘imposed’ document  as there was no need. This Bill – described to me by a Union lawyer as the ‘Roger Callow Bill’, was promulgated as ‘the battle of all teachers’ by the Teachers’ Union.


9) On June 26,1985, as the senior teacher concerned, I was hand-delivered a notice of lay-off by the Superintendent quoting School Board authority  and BILL 35 which became law on July 1-1985.  I immediately responded by handing him a written protest.


10) The School Board meeting notes of June 26 make no note of any teacher lay-off. Indeed, they make note of 16 new appointments; many of which could have been held by this teacher. Justice Southin later noted that nowhere did the School Trustees demonstrate a need to lay off a teacher under the conditions of BILL 35. How do you explain this discrepancy on the first level of this perceived fraud?


11) The Board apparently met and agreed to this lay-off in a motion in June marked CARRIED and filed in arbitration without giving the voting pattern. Information received in 2004 under the access to information laws show that of the five School Trustees, only Chairperson Margo Furk and her successor, Mike Smith,voted in favour of the motion. As Justice Southin later noted, a revised dismissal notice  within very restricted discussion time was approved in a meeting in early July held for the purpose which was not attended by the whole Board. Why not? What was before the Trustees at that time? Again, this unexplained action, considering the circumstances, points to the possibility of fraud.


12) In arbitration evidence, Assistant Superintendent Bill May, responsible for staffing, declared he notified the Board in mid-June that there was no necessity to use BILL 35 to lay off a teacher. When asked the question as to where the request originated, he replied, ‘the Superintendent’. How do you account for this discrepancy considering the Superintendent was quoting School Board authority? This discrepancy points to fraud on someone’s part.


13) Justice Southin repeated over and over; ‘Mr.Clyne (School Board Counsel), I want to know for a certainty: ‘What was before the Board of School Trustees when they chose to lay off Mr. Callow?’ As no trustee was placed on the stand in arbitration by Clyne nor did the arbitrator make such a request, the arbitration depended on the testimony of the Superintendent. Why didn’t the trustees take the stand to testify as to lay-off numbers and their apparent authorization of the Superintendent’s action? The Superintendent’s evidence on lay-off figures which the arbitrator depended on are highly suspect under these circumstances.


14) The arbitrator concluded that the Board had justified their need to lay off 16 teachers (he apparently converted 16 new hires into 16 lay-offs adding that this plaintiff was appropriately selected to be the 17th based on the Superintendent’s evidence. )  Yet it was clear to all that this plaintiff was the only lay-off. How do you account for this gross discrepancy? Fraud is implied although conspiracy looms large at this point.


15) The other matter other than declining enrolment considered by the court was the matter of ‘current demonstrated ability’ (cda); a term undefined in the statute as well as in law. (The topic of funding was handily defeated. The claimed short-fall of $500,000 turned out at year’s end to be a surplus in that amount.) The Arbitrator construed cda as dealing with teacher competence although Justice Southin later condemned that action on the grounds that BILL 35 related solely to economic factors with all other considerations to be governed by the Schools Contract: In a press interview, Trustee Mike Smith was quoted as stating…’Why should the School Board lay off a junior teacher when it is shown that a senior teacher showed less demonstrated ability?’ Obviously, he was still thinking in terms of lay-off at this point. As to Justice Southin, her observation on this point:

Mr. Callow was the one and only teacher laid off in West Vancouver purportedly under the provision of the new statute (BILL 35). From all this, I conclude that an arbitrator who instructed himself properly could reasonably have determined that the Board used the new Act for an improper purpose; i.e., he could reasonably have held that the lay-off was not “due to” any of the factors but due to the Board’s desire to terminate this man who was a trouble to it.

Had the arbitrator found a purpose outside the statute, his duty would have been to reinstate Mr.Callow.’ What are your comments on this finding? President Margo Furk was quoted in the media stating’…well, that’s her opinion.’


16) When the School Trustees did not return employment as recommended by Southin, she ordered the matter back to arbitration; an act which the Board unsuccesfully appealed. Why didn’t the Board return to arbitration as so ordered by the court? Was it due to the fact that the School Board ‘jumped ship in mid-stream’ and decided to proceed on the basis of ‘employee dismissal’? If so, should the Board be considered to be acting fraudulently as nothing concrete transpired from the Board on this point after that decision to abandon the case?


17) Under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, compensation must be paid. Regrettably, as recently as November 01-2012 (#12-54944 Ottawa Superior Court R. Maranger Decision currently under appeal), the Board failed to answer the key question as to whether or not they were obliged to pay back salary to 1985 which belongs to this plaintiff despite legal outcomes. Earlier requests for the court to order this plaintiff back to employment were unsuccessful. Under the law, no employer is forced to take an employee back but they must provide suitable compensation. This feature in which the Employer would seek to ‘gain through the back door what they could not gain through the front door’ is attributed more to judicial culpability than any other cause. For example, there can be ‘no process without judgment’ except, it would seem to imply, in Canada.


18) The answers to the above questions, I submit, are evidence of a government conspiracy in which the government was hi-jacked, and the judiciary co-pted to sanction a ‘sweetheart deal’ between employer and union although no definition of Union culpability is included here.


19) Of course refusal to give a definitive answer to the above questions relating to fraud would jeopardize your position in any of the three courts where actions are currently extant plus future legalities.


Yours truly,


________________________     April 05-2013


cc SCofC Hon. R. Wagner on behalf of all SCofC judges

Christie Blatchford – postmedia news – on behalf of all Canadian media

Hicks, Morley - Ottawa Counsel for Employer for 12-54944 & DC-12-1872

West Vancouver School Trustees

Chief Justices Lance Finch (B.C. Appeal Court); Robert Bauman (B.C. Supreme Court); Charles Hackman (Ottawa Superior/DivisionalCourt

Registrars – Ottawa Divisional Court / B.C. Appeal Court / B.C. Supreme Court


encl. a copy of April 05-2013 letter to the West Vancouver School Trustees appears on my web site under APRIL-2013: www.employeescasecanada.com