FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA - OTTAWA                      

                              DOCUMENT  4 - January 12-2015          T-2360-14


Geoff Litherland esq. representing the Employer

FAX: 604-684-6632                                                               Respondent #1


Bruce Laughton Q.C.  representing the Union                             

FAX: 604-683-6622                                                              Respondent #2


N.B. This account sent by fax to both Respondents  January 12-2015

N.B. Documents 1-3 previously delivered to the above by

Dec. 24-2014 and are now included with #4 to the Federal Court



Roger Callow

208-2220 Halifax Drive

Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7

Tel/fax: 613-521-1739                                                                   Plaintiff


As of the above date, this plaintiff has not received any rebuttal from the Respondents to Documents 1 - 3 which are now being appended to Document 4 herein with all Documents to be entered in the Federal Court on the above date.


1) Conspicuous by its absence are the 'secret memo notes' I requested of meetings held by the Employer and the Union of which B.C. Supreme Court Justice, Mary Southin, returned them to these parties 'because she did not use them'.


2) Those memo notes, it is submitted here, define the nature of the alleged fraud against these two parties and the role of the B.C. Government (BILL 35) and the judiciary extending up to the present day


3) Regrettably, Parliament has not seen fit to impose such as the 'notwithstanding clause' which has never been enacted in Canada; this  unresolved labour matter stretching over 30 years in 8 separate courts and over 30 judges in this serious national legal matter notwithstanding No compensation has been paid.


4) While appeals have been made to such oversight bodies as the Canadian Judicial Council controlled by Chief Justices, there is never any response. Indeed, it is submitted here that these judicial capers originate in the Office of the Chief Justices with appointees whom do not conduct due process over the arguments before them. In short, while this plaintiff lays claim to having a battle with the Respondents, he has a full scale war with the Justice System of Canada; the very ones charged to evaluate their own conduct of whom, it is submitted here, are 'running a court within a court'.


Specific Questions to be answered by the Federal Court Tribunal & the Respondents


5) Where are the secret memo notes? This court must order them to be provided to this plaintiff on charge of being part of the conspiracy.


6) Is this case a matter of the collective bargaining rules of the Union movement as the Union interests appear to support or, alternatively,  an action under the BILL 35 conditions which circumscribe the collective bargaining rules which the Employer appears to assert? As no definition on this level was received from the Respondents, the court will have to rule accordingly. (SEE WVSB Trustee letter Feb. 7,1996 enclosed here)


7) Nor was any response received regarding the personal roles in the accused fraud  of the current Respondents. Detailed letters defining the role of Mr. Bruce Laughton and Mr. David Yorke of the BCTF Union in this regard were included. Their alleged cupidity, if not downright fraud, is defined by the court interpretation of  6)


8) Federal Court Rules permit a tribunal to give a written analysis, which is basically an analysis of materials presented to them by this plaintiff, before future proceedings are arranged.


The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms


9) This section is being included primarily to dispose of the specious arguments set forth by the Respondents as a means of escaping any detailed analysis of their actions. 'Frivolous and Vexatious' allegations appear to be their favorite  gambit quickly rubber-stamped by gullible courts wishing to duck their responsibilities.


A) One of the most notable effects of the adoption of the Charter was to greatly expand the scope of judicial review, because the Charter is more explicit with respect to the guarantee of rights and the role of judges in enforcing them than was the Bill of Rights. The courts, when confronted with violations of Charter rights, have struck down unconstitutional federal and provincial statutes and regulations or parts of statutes and regulations, as they did when Canadian case law was primarily concerned with resolving issues of federalism. The Charter, however, granted new powers to the courts to enforce remedies that are more creative and to exclude more evidence in trials. These powers are greater than what was typical under the common law and under a system of government that, influenced by Canada's mother country the United Kingdom, was based upon Parliamentary supremacy. As a result, the Charter has attracted both broad support from a majority of the Canadian electorate and criticisms by opponents of increased judicial power. The Charter only applies to government laws and actions (including the laws and actions of federal, provincial, and municipal governments and public school boards), and sometimes to the common law, not to private activity.





It is submitted here that the imposed B.C. government's BILL 35 of 1985 (since recalled in the 1990's before this sole laid case was resolved) is ultra vires in that the term 'current demonstrated ability' is undefined in the Act or in law although for structural reasons (BILL 35 did not supplant any part of the Education Act), the term may not refer to the competence of a teacher.


B) Equality rights:

Section 15: equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination



It was clear in the arbitration that I was 'in a race against one' in the selection of a lay-off candidate for reasons of declining enrolment. Two days before the lay-off was 'so-called' approved by the School Trustees (must see secret memo notes for verification) ,I was slated for a full course of studies in the fall of 1985. What happened in those two days to reverse that decision?


C) Interpretation and enforcement

The task of interpreting and enforcing the Charter falls to the courts, with the Supreme Court of Canada being the ultimate authority on the matter.

With the Charter's supremacy confirmed by section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the courts continued their practice of striking down unconstitutional statutes or parts of statutes as they had with earlier case law regarding federalism


In general, courts have embraced a purposive interpretation of Charter rights...This is tied to the generous interpretation of rights, as the purpose of the Charter provisions is assumed to be to increase rights and freedoms of people in a variety of circumstances, at the expense of the government powers.




Both Ontario Superior Court Justice, Colin McKinnon (#13-59060) and myself were in agreement that the proper venue for hearing this case is the Supreme Court of Canada. Keep in mind that the accusations of fraud also apply to earlier actions taken by the Federal Court in this case.


D) Most importantly, from a lawyer's perspective, is the fact that the principle of stare decisis does not apply to tribunals. In other words, a tribunal adjudicator could legally make a decision that differs from a past decision, on the same subject and issues, delivered by the highest court in the land. Because a tribunal is not bound by legal precedent, established by itself or by a reviewing court, a tribunal is not a court even though it performs an important adjudicative function and contributes to the development of law like a court would do.

Although stare decisis does not apply to tribunals, their adjudicators will likely nonetheless find a prior court decision on a similar subject to be highly persuasive and will likely follow the courts in order to ensure consistency in the law and to prevent the embarrassment of having their decisions overturned by the courts. The same is true for past decisions of the tribunal.

Among the federal tribunals, there is a small group of tribunals whose decisions must be appealed directly to the Federal Court of Appeal rather than to the Federal Court Trial Division. These so-called "super tribunals" are listed in Subsection 28(1) of the Federal Court Act (R.S.C. 1985, Chapter F-7) and some examples include the National Energy Board, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Competition Tribunal, the Canada Industrial Relations Board (i.e. federal labour board), the Copyright Board, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ("CRTC").


This type of 'pack judicialism' is at the core of the charges of fraud against the 'processes of justice' as first mentioned in this case in the Preamble to the Supreme Court in Canada in 2004. No hearing was held. At this point there is no way that the court may conduct itself in order to maintain consistency with earlier court decisions in this case and avoid embarrassment 'by telling the truth'. That is the systematic nature of the fraud made by this plaintiff and why the Canadian Justice System is in a 'state of suspended credibility' as a direct consequence of this unresolved legal matter. Trying to keep matters operating below the radar level of the Judicial Record has backfired as 'there can be no process without judgment'.


Courts of inherent jurisdiction

The superior courts from the provinces and territories are courts of inherent jurisdiction, which means that the jurisdiction of the superior courts is more than just what is conferred by statute. Following the principles of English common law, because the superior courts derive their authority from the Constitution, they can hear any matter unless there is a federal or provincial statute that says otherwise or that gives exclusive jurisdiction to some other court or tribunal. The doctrine of inherent jurisdiction gives superior courts greater freedom than statutory courts to be flexible and creative in the delivering of legal remedies and relief.


Ontario Court Hearings (4) have consistently ignored the rule of 'inherent jurisdiction'. In short, I have been expelled from the B.C. Courts in an unresolved legal matter for reasons 'best known to two judges'. The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected hearings on this basis due to the fact that 3 judges (Section 40 does not state the requirement of 3 judges) from the highest court in a Province have not heard this case. That's how our judiciary functions behind the scenes in such legal capers as the Employee's Case where they are not held accountable. That's anarchy.




10) Acquire the 'secret memo notes'.


11) Adjudicate whether this is a matter under the collective bargaining process or under the mandate of BILL 35.


12) Quash the lay-off order of senior West Vancouver high school teacher, Roger Callow, on June 28, 1985 (BILL 35 operant as of July 01-1985) and pay full back salary (to compensate for foregoing social advantages) to this time appropriately compounded with interest. This amount belongs to this plaintiff apart from judicial findings. I would remain on salary until a resolution to the main issue is made. This request is based on the failure of the Employer to return to litigation as ordered by the courts. Quash any restraining Orders against this plaintiff as a means of expediting a resolution.


13) As a detailed definition of fraud requires access to the 'secret memo notes', no suggestion as to how to proceed on this level is available at this stage.