QUOTE: 'Where there is no publicity, there is no justice.' Jeremy Bentham

Dec. 10-2014                                            File No. T-2360-14 Federal Court (Ottawa)


Geoff Litherland esq. representing the Employer                                 Respondent #1


Bruce Laughton Q.C.  representing the Union                                        Respondent #2


Roger Callow                                                                                             Plaintiff


INCLUSIONS:  B) 5 page letter regarding the failure of the Respondents to produce the 'secret memo notes' of Justice Southin plus other meeting notes between the Employer and Union in 1985 and 1986 on which the current charges of fraud are based.



1) It would appear that once again the Respondents in this case would reject a legal request to obtain the necessary evidence noted above in B) for which I have given a December 20, 2014 date ultimatum.

2) If either of the Respondents have destroyed this evidence, please inform me by the above date otherwise I would expect compliance with the law.

3) A little background is helpful here.

a) The Employer (Hicks, Morley et al representation in Ottawa whom has appeared to drop out of this case) filed #13-59060 heard on April 10,2014 in which they asked that all claims be discussed in this issue with their claim that they did not owe any compensation in this 29 year unresolved case where no compensation has been paid. In this bid, they did not include the Union; a major omission in that regard as the Union was an active force in the B.C. phase of this case.

b) The presiding Justice made no reference to that request in his Decision nor to my verbal accusations of fraud based on the 'conspiracy of process' first raised in 2004 in a failed bid before the Supreme Court of Canada. As the Respondent, I appealed that case which appears to have dropped down a 'legal black hole' at the Appeal Court where I have asked Chief Justice G. Strathy to investigate.

c) As plaintiff, I laid #14-61592 alleging fraud, for a first time, on the part of the Respondents plus the courts. Neither Respondent filed a Notice of Appearance although Hicks, Morley made a surprise entry at the hearing on September 23-2014 amid some highly controversial actions which have been forwarded to the Upper Canada Law Society and the Canadian Judicial Council (2 federally appointed judges). No word has been received to date on those investigations.

d) As the presiding Justice only wrote notes contingent on other legal actions which never took place, the Appeal Court rejected my appeal of those 'notes'. Again, this strange judicial performance is under review by the oversight bodies.

4) A general opinion seems germane at this point. All three parties to this action - the Employer, the Union, and myself as the targeted individual - have been playing both ends against the middle where sits the Justice System and have varied their course during the past 29 years.

a) I was laid off under the terms of BILL 35, an imposed B.C. government action in July 01-1985 (lay-off letter June 28-1985.) The School Board's position is that this Act circumnavigates the collective bargaining rules hence the challenge is one of 'breach of contract'. However the Board was willing to recognize the collective bargaining process when they claimed that the court could not intervene in the arbitration due to the fact that there was a 'consentual' agreement between the Union and Employer. They lost their case before Justice Southin on that point and she proceeded to quash the arbitration favouring the Employer leaving me in limbo. The Employer also warned the B.C. Labour Board in writing that if a Section 12 hearing  was held at my request that they would strongly object to my status before them on that accord. The B.C. Labour Board held no such hearings depending, instead, solely on the assertions made by the Union to dispose of my complaints. Now in 2014, the Employer raised the 'breach of contract' provisions argument in #13-59060  although they were not specific in those terms.

b) The Union is in the same position albeit for different legal reasons, as the Union is in the Ghomeshi case currently being splashed around in the newspaper. Without any reason given in that case, the collective bargaining rules do not apply; rather what you have is a 'breach of contract' under control of the arbitration procedures of the court, not the Union. Similarly here, the court is the final arbiter of my case as the Union is providing what I label as gratuitous assistance.

c) It is charged here that no matter which label applies, the Respondent lawyers listed herein are part of the accusations of fraud and should not be representing their clients.

d) Mr. Laughton, representing myself and the Union, was dismissed by me in 1987 but continued on to represent the Union even to the extent of filing joint factums with the Employer. I went on to other lawyers but Mr. Laughton's current appearance can only be labeled as being 'ethically challenged'.

e) To a lesser extent is the involvement of Mr. Litherland as he came on to this case after other Employer Counsel appeared to 'duck out', However with that much being said, he is also guilty of conspiring with Laughton to undermine my bid to obtain compensation.

f) Most regrettably, the courts have opted to side with these two powerful influences at my personal expense; mainly through the application of highly specious 'frivolous and vexatious' applications. There is nothing frivolous about charges of fraud against the respondents as has been made here along with attendant court processes. If the two respondents are seeking another pathetic 'frivolous & vexatious' ruling in a Federal court desperate to escape its own earlier role in the accusations of fraud, a factual background account must be included by the judge. Currently the 'frivolous' charge of #13-59060 is being challenged in Ontario Appeal court as well as the judge being referred to the Canadian Judicial Council by me for other abuses. A second judge (#14-61592) demanded I address those 'frivolous' charges which I did in terms of an inaccurate account of the 'Cullen Creed' (July -2013) from B.C. Supreme Court Deputy Chief Justice, Austin Cullen whom, on his own recognizance, without taking legal argument or quoting specific laws, and for reasons best known to himself; froze this plaintiff out of the B.C. Justice System (no 'with permission of a judge to proceed') forcing me to turn to courts outside of B.C. under the rules of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice in this unresolved legal labour case where no compensation has been paid. Assigning reasons to the Cullen Creed as the Employer and Judge would do reflects the perfidy of all involved in this scandalous enterprise.

5) The question of jurisdiction arose in 1995 as nothing appears earlier on this point, when I approached the B.C. Supreme Court under Justice Spencer with only the Employer as Respondent requesting that, as it was apparent that the Employer and Union had abandoned this matter by refusing to re-engage in arbitration as so ordered by the court; then the logical course for the court was to alter the should return employment as made by Justice Southin in 1987 to must return employment as the court has an obligation to follow through with recommendations. In order to duck out of making any decision, Spencer j. made the assertion, for reasons best known to himself, that this was a matter under the collective bargaining process (the first time the court made that claim) and that I was bound by any settlement made between the Union and Employer. They proceeded to do nothing.

6) In 1999, the Union notified me that they were going to make a final solution with the Employer whether I agreed or not. I wouldn't agree until I knew the sum offered. Then the Union did an about face, and said they were going to do nothing leaving me in a permanent state of limbo for my so-called intransigence.

7) There were a number of hearings in B.C. Courts in which I sought to collect interim salary; monies belonging to me apart from judicial findings while I awaited the Employer and the Union, the only two the court would recognize, to settle this legal matter. The courts, frustrated by the failure of the Employer and Union to finalize this case, turned instead on this plaintiff and used all forms of subterfuge to undermine his claim. Those actions on the part of the B.C. courts are part of this claim of fraud.

8) One can imagine the quandary the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) must have been in under this 'universality of Unions' question which is paramount in the current Ghomeshi case. Not only would the SCofC be in position of condemning the entire slate of B.C. judges hearing this issue from Justice Spencer on but also questioning the credibility of the B.C. Labour Board. The panel (including Chief Justice A. Lamers, and B. McLachlin-the incumbent Chief Justice) ducked out by not holding any hearing on this national question.

9) As I was being dunned for both Employer and Union legal costs, I chose to continue in Federal Court and Ontario Courts under the implied 'breach of contract' provisions solely against the Employer. My theme was that there has to be a financial solution even though the SCofC ducked out of a hearing in 2004 for a second time under the 'ultimate remedy' theme in which money must change hands under the collective bargaining rules. I declared the Canadian Justice System to have dropped to Third World status in that 'no legal answer being a legal answer' is preposterous as it undermines not only the basic credibility of the court system but also raises the question of whether a written document is 'not worth any more than the paper on which it is written'.

10) So which is it? Application of the Collective Bargaining Rules or Application of the Breach of Contract rules? It can't be both.

11) As to the outcome of fraud charges involving systematic abuse by the courts; there is unlikely to be any resolution of that charge leaving the Canadian Judicial System forever to be in a permanent state of suspended credibility.

12) At this point leadership is all important. In this case, Parliamentary leaders such as Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau and May along with the anti-employee media are MIA. Perhaps a backbencher, such as Jason Kenney, should he win a majority government in the next Federal Election, realize that the Justice System has to be rebuilt from the ground up. Minimizing the role of the 'billable time legal profession' in that endeavor is all important.


cc 'gang of four' Harper/Mulcair/Trudeau/May

SCofC  Hon. M. Moldaver