DOCUMENT #5 (by Roger Callow)


1) On June 28,1985, the Superintendent of West Vancouver, B.C., Ed Carlin, hand delivered a lay-off notice to senior high school teacher, Roger Callow, for reasons of declining enrolment (not factually supported)  whom was the only teacher ever laid off under the auspices of the B.C. government's imposed BILL 35 which was effective as of July 1, 1985.

2) In Justice Southin's words in 1986 when she quashed the arbitration favouring the School District, the School Trustees had 'jumped the gun'. 'Nowhere, she declared, did the Board of School Trustees demonstrate a desire to lay off a teacher'. In short, either the Trustees were lying or the Superintendent  who quoted that authority was guilty of fraud.

3) BILL 35 was declared by the BCTF Union to be 'the battle of all teachers' and talked the few school boards who planned to use this legislation out of so doing but left the case to proceed in West Vancouver. This BILL was revoked in the 1990's before this sole laid case was resolved implying further government cupidity. West Vancouver School District was never placed 'in dispute' by the Union.

4) This case remains unresolved to the present day although it has been before 8 different court systems and over 30 judges. No compensation has been paid. The charge is one of systematic judicial abuse as the various courts and judges would seek to keep this plaintiff in limbo contrary to major laws leading to the consequent demise of the credibility of the Canadian Justice System.

5) This plaintiff's assertion is that the B.C. Government was hi-jacked and the judiciary was co-opted to sanction an apparent 'sweetheart deal' between a School Board and a local Union, the West Vancouver Teachers' Association.

6) The action which prompted to what can only be called 'overkill' by the government was detailed written evidence mailed directly to the Ministry of Education in Victoria in March of 1985 (Jim Carter, the Deputy Minister was a former West Vancouver principal) from this plaintiff regarding alleged fraudulent actions on the part of an administrator and colleague of Carter's. In that material, I accused a principal of changing  this plaintiff's Professional Report on Teacher from a positive to a negative whom was subsequently  caught in the act by me.

7) Regrettably the B.C. Government chose to treat this threat as a whistle blowing incident with a decision to 'shoot the messenger'.

8) The focus of this account is on the nature of the judicial cover-up dating from 1985.

9) To the legal fraternity, the anointed Judicial Record is all important. For example, if a tree falls in the judicial forest, does it make a sound? Absolutely not unless the sound is recorded on the Judicial Record. In short, failure on this level is laid at the door of one of the litigants , as has happened here, for failing to do those things which would have that sound bite registered in law.

10) This shortcoming in law is particularly prevalent at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC), a great burial ground for civil issues as that esteemed body ducks out of hearing close to 85% of Appeals; no reason given. The litigants are left with a lower court decision which explains why the SCofC will only hear matters from the highest court in a province (plus Federal Court).

11) The reason that the Justice System has been exposed in their perfidy in the Employee's Case(Canada) has to do with a very unique feature of this case; namely, that there is no lower court decision as the original arbitration was quashed. The SCofC on two occasions passed up hearing this issue and are now on tap to hear it regarding the topic of fraud against both the original conspirators and the judicial processes. That allegation was first referred to in 2006 in the Preamble to the SCofC.

12) Provincial and Federal Court machinations appear designed to thwart a third SCofC appeal in light of Parliament's failure to invoke such as the Notwithstanding Clause or the Peace, Order and Good Government clause under P.M.  Stephen Harper.

13) Typical in this process of derailing a case by judicial overview, is the badly over-worked legal term, 'frivolous and vexatious' as applied to one of the litigants. While not barring a litigant from court, he may continue 'only with permission of a judge'. In effect, the charge is similar to pinning a yellow star on the shirt of a Jew and sending him before a Nazi courtroom.

14) B.C. Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie in October of 2010 sought to derail one such case laid in B.C. Appeal Court by this plaintiff as she correctly assessed that the matter could potentially  be appealed to the SCofC. On her own recognizance and for reasons best known to herself, she dropped CA038538 laid by this plaintiff making it clear that she did not wish this plaintiff to seek a solution in B.C. By not assigning a docket number, no doubt the hope was that the only thing that would show on the Judicial Register was the fact of the plaintiff's failure to proceed in CA038538. That's fraud.


15) A second Order in July of 2013, again on his own recognizance and for reasons best known to himself, Associate Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court, Austin Cullen did assign a docket number (although  there was no reference to the earlier 'MacKenzie Creed') with this time, omitting the all-important 'may proceed with permission of a judge'. In short, this plaintiff was expelled from the courts of B.C. thus creating a constitutional crisis as access to the courts of law is the bedrock of any Justice System. The B.C. government of Premier Christy Clarke turned a blind eye to this catastrophe leaving the matter to be directed to the Minister of Justice, Peter MacKay. He has done nothing on this or other major transgressions in this case. The four Parliamentary leaders (Harper/Mulcair/Trudeau/May) have been equally silent on a topic which undermines the entire course of Canadian jurisprudence to such an extent and degree that we have become 'just another pretty banana republic'. Failure of the anti-employee Canadian media to inform Canadians of this legal debacle  negatively affecting  35 million Canadian citizens, completes this national disaster of unheralded proportions.



16) Nowhere has the constitutionality of BILL 35 been challenged to date although it is clear that the term 'current demonstrated ability' is undefined in the Act or in law generally. If the Federal Court quashes that government Order as it is submitted here that they should (even though the government withdrew the BILL in the 1990's in an apparently fraudulent manner), then the law is clear; the lay-off notice for this plaintiff is invalid. That is the first question set to the court.

17) What authority is the Union acting under for this plaintiff in this case? The B.C. courts beginning in 1995 claimed that the Union was acting under the rules of the Collective Bargaining System. The Employer claim is that as BILL 35 was mandated by government, a different set of rules applies. In short, did the Union misrepresent themselves in a fraudulent manner to the plaintiff implying that the court was correct in assigning the Union sole status to resolve this matter on behalf of this plaintiff? In any event, the Union interests did nothing leaving this plaintiff to proceed in Federal Court and Ontario where access to the Justice System was still available.

18) Labour law is all about compensation. A price tag must be placed on a job which the plaintiff has always been willing to do. Currently, that price tag is $6 million with the price to go up, not down, in the future. If the Court wishes to assess the specific  amount owed, then it would come down to gauging the propriety of the lay-off. At any rate, this submission requests that all back salary from 1985 plus interest appropriately compounded be assigned the plaintiff on the grounds that this amount exists apart from judicial findings. In short, the plaintiff should never have been released from salary until this legal matter was resolved. Of course that action would draw into question why any number of judges failed to restore salary to this plaintiff. 'Bury the issue' seems to be the order of the day and do it in such fashion that the fault is laid at the feet of this plaintiff.

19) Copious materials detailing the alleged fraud, including the role of the two lawyers currently representing the Respondent Employer and the Respondent Union in DOCUMENTS 1 - 4, have been provided those two parties in order that they could make a measured response. Their reaction follows.

20) An unbelievably stupid 'one liner' from the representative for the Employer claiming that they support the Union position regarding the 'frivolous and vexatious' appellation of this case. They filed no Response preferring the Federal Court Registrar to scuttle this case; a no doubt understandable  approach  to them considering their lawyer is named as part of the fraud accusations. Presumably, should the case progress to court, the Employer will be looking for yet another legal outfit. Third time lucky?

21) The Union position, while being more complete, is equally puzzling. They do not address any of the central questions raised above for the Federal Court. What they do refer to is a highly specious Ottawa court document (#13-59060)launched by the Employer  with no Union presence on April 10,2014 which applied the 'frivolous and vexatious' label as a means of undermining this writer's situation (I was the Respondent in this case) where they had made the request to discuss all claims without including the role of the Union. The subsequent case that this writer laid as the plaintiff (#14-61592 September 23-2014) did include the Union which failed to put in an appearance. The machinations of the court led to an Appeal to the Canadian Judicial Council of Judges for alleged fraudulent actions (both judges were Federal Court appointees to Ontario Provincial Court). The question needs be raised as to why the Employer did not make this argument presented by the Union in their submission for it is clear that the Union has very little knowledge of these events.

22) No matter as these Respondents are depending on the continuing failure of the courts to conduct due diligence which has rewarded them royally in the past.   I can't believe that the Respondents would mount such a weak case; unless of course, they have prior knowledge as to the outcome of T-2360-14.

23) For the above reason, should Chief Justice Paul Crampton, a Harper appointee made in December of 2009 whom chose to ignore my protests at that time as to Federal Court misconduct, fail once again, I will call for his removal in the event that I receive yet another 'B' level judge who fails to conduct 'due diligence'. Prime Minister Harper will be charged with that action on pain of being asked to step down from his own post should he fail to act. It may very well be that the supply of 'B' level judges ('merely following orders') has been exhausted...'C' level judges? ('brain-dead' or ones such as 'Justice Rip van Winkle' - DC-12-1872 ON  - whom managed to fall asleep in a one hour hearing as I so aptly pointed out in court.


'Frivolous & Vexatious'

24) Considering that this is the only argument set forth by the Respondents, comment is required. In this regard, it would seem that they are dependent on a continuation of the Judiciary acting as an agent for them in escaping their responsibilities.

25) Such a charge requires a list of events leading up to this request. My records show no such list from the court in B.C. The Respondents have failed to acquiesce to my request to produce such a record if, indeed, one exists.

26) Nor was such a list produced by Federal Court's Madame Justice Gleason in a parallel Order when, in 2013, she denied continuation of an action that I laid in Federal Court under alleged spurious conditions  of which I have since referred to the Canadian Judicial Council. There has been no response. As there was no hearing, this plaintiff was powerless to respond to her Decision.

27) The only list of background legal circumstances on this charge was produced by Justice McKinnon of Ottawa Superior Court #13-59060 (April 10-14 Hearing Date). That list was prepared by the court (not the Employer)and was fraught with errors, particularly as they related to the MacKenzie Creed and Cullen Creed. As I had not seen this list before the judgment, I required the laying of #14-61592 (September 23-14 Hearing Date) to provide a rebuttal. (N.B. A protest referring to those two Creeds has been sent to the B.C. Judicial Council. There has been no response.)

28) Of more importance than the McKinnon Order on which Laughton quotes extensively, are the transcript notes from the hearing  included in part in my factum which addresses the problem of the MacKenzie as well as Cullen Creed. There was a full discussion in court on those two points as well as in the succeeding #14-61592 in which Justice Scott failed to bring down a Decision leaving the 'non-record' of temporary notes which the Appeal Court would not hear due to structural reasons. (There must first be a written Order.) It was this failure on the part of both judges to pay particular attention to the fact that there was no stated reason for the existence of both creeds which brings into focus the charge of fraud and judicial cover-up as the courts are accused of acting as an agent for the Respondents. McKinnon j. attributed reasons to both accounts which do not exist. I labeled that 'judicial malfeasance' (as opposed to the usual 'judicial bias' in the Appeal) which is part of the accusation of fraud made in this hearing; and one which exposed the earlier judicial perfidy of the Federal Court in handling these Creeds.

29) Hence the court has full justification to not only ignore the appeal of the Respondents on this basis, they may justifiably quash all such restraining Orders so that this plaintiff has access to all courts without impediment.



30) As all material to be placed before the interim hearing which all parties agree should be conducted on a written basis as a means of defining future action apart from a final Decision, the Court may now proceed on the basis of essentially evaluating the arguments set forth by this plaintiff considering that the Respondents do not raise any detailed arguments against any part of this plaintiff's factum outlined in the Notice of Claim and the previously filed 4 DOCUMENTS.



1) There is no dispute with the Union summary outline of the Statement of Claim made by this APPLICANT (Federal Court uses term synonymously with PLAINTIFF)

1(a) The Applicant has been the target of fraud.

1(a) The Applicant was laid off from his teaching position in 1985 without compensation.

Paragraph 2 and 3 - The Applicant seeks an order that the Respondents produce "secret memo notes".

Forward Paragraph 2

The Applicant's case is unresolved due to systematic judicial abuse.

Forward Paragraph 4

The key accusation against the courts is that the accusation of fraud is unresolved.

Forward Paragraph 14

The Canadian justice system is in a conflict of interest.

Conspicuous by its absence from the above list: A charge of fraud against the two Respondent lawyers; the one against Laughton dating from 1986.


2) The Respondent Union would base their case under Lack of Jurisdiction focusing on RULE 221 (1) On motion, the court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that (a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence(sic), as the case may be.'  (b) - (f) an extension of (a)... and may order the action be dismissed or judgment entered accordingly.'



3) In general, the codes of laws for the various courts hold the antithesis of stated positions. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) seeks to clarify this confusion and this plaintiff quotes liberally from that source in DOCUMENT 4.

4) The question of fraud is central to the Canadian legal system and not bound by jurisdiction and time. While the Union argument recognizes this question, they fail to provide the documents central to this charge which have been requested by this plaintiff. Regrettably, the Federal Court rules only refer obliquely to this charge: Under 'matters not provided for' (4) On motion, the Court may provide for any procedural matter not provided for in these Rules or in an Act of Parliament by analogy to these Rules or by reference to the practice of the superior court of the province to which the subject-matter of the proceeding most closely relates.

5) INTERPRETATION: The Federal Court is responsible for matters regarding Federal Employees hence they have a body of knowledge which equips them for the enclosed task. The Federal Court and all the provinces recognize that compensation is at the heart of the Collective Bargaining Rules and that in any dispute, money in the form of compensation must change hands. That has not happened in this case or, alternatively, has yet to happen. Further the Federal Court was created by the BNA Act of 1867 prior to the establishment of provincial labour codes. Surely Parliament did not envisage those provincial practices to obviate the Federal Court labour code as appears to have happened here.

6) Further Federal Labour Board Rules for consideration by the court:

Questions of Law

220 (1) A party may bring a motion before trial to request that the court determine

(a) a question of law that may be relevant to an action;

(b) a question as to the admissibility of any document, exhibit, or other evidence; or

(c) questions stated by the parties in the form of a special case before, or in lieu of, the trial of the action.

Time for service of affidavit of documents

223 'Document within party's power or control' (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a document shall be considered to be within a party's power or control if (a) the party is entitled to obtain the original document or a copy of it.

INTERPRETATION: Over the years, the Respondents have steadfastly refused to hand over the 'secret memo notes' (Notes regarding Employer/Union meetings which Justice Southin ordered in 1986 but later returned 'because she did not use them'. These memo notes are central to the question of authority for the Union to act under the Collective Bargaining rules.) N.B. Information received from the Employer by this Plaintiff in 2004 under the Access to Information Rules revealed that a motion for dismissing this Plaintiff by the Employer was noted as 'carried' in arbitration evidence without showing the vote count. The vote count  turned out to be 2 out of 5 in favour. No trustee took the stand to testify as to this anomaly.

7) TAB 4 in the Union 'Motion Record' is based entirely on a judgment from Ontario Superior Court Justice, C.D.A. McKinnon j. (2014 ONSC 2547 Court File No. 13-59060 heard April 10, 2014, Judgment April 23, 2014.


8) The Union has never appeared in Ontario where there have been four hearings on this issue. Two Appeals are outstanding but marred by Appeal Court procrastination. On the one occasion in which they were named in a statement of claim by this plaintiff, they did not file a Notice of Appearance hence it is most puzzling why the Union, rather than the Employer (which appears to have lost their Ottawa legal representation due to the highly irregular actions of Hicks, Morley et al and two judges including McKinnon) has presented this Decision. Those concerns have been forwarded to the Canadian Judicial Council as both judges were former Federal Court Appointees to Ontario.

9) If Laughton wished to quote anything from this specious ruling under Appeal although there are obfuscations on the part of the Ontario Court of Appeal as known to Premier Wynne; then he should have referred to the transcripts of which this plaintiff includes a sampling. A keynote is that McKinnon j., whom didn't give this writer any leeway, was prepared to agree with me that the concerns here quite rightly should be handled by the Supreme Court of Canada. Unfortunately, the lower courts in B.C., Ontario, and the Federal Court have all seen fit to thwart that progression of appeals which, it is submitted here, was the intention. That is fraud. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms permits such exposure of such judicial perfidy as quoted in DOCUMENT 3. Indeed, based on this case; an entirely new definition of court processes needs be labeled; 'the court as speed bumps'.

10) For a first time, a full discussion of the 'Cullen Creed' in which this plaintiff was expelled absolutely from the B.C. Justice System in an unresolved legal case once ordered back to litigation for reasons 'best known to a judge' ,was discussed in detail in court. McKinnon j. later in his judgment speciously assigned reasons to the Cullen Creed which do not exist in that document making it very difficult to challenge his actions. I labeled his actions in the Appeal as being 'malfeasance' as opposed to the usual 'judicial bias'. For sure, an Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Cullen Creed was not possible under his Order in a B.C. Court. That's anarchy. Action from the CJC is very slow in coming in this regard.

11) And what is Laughton asking for in the dispensation of this preposterous response motion? Why, $12,000. Considering that a copy of DOCUMENT 5 is going to the Prime Minister; I will put in my nickel's worth on 'billable time nonsense' in general. Nortel, for example, is currently sitting at $1.4 billion in legal fees with the same question today as at the time of the bankruptcy; how to divide the residue between the pensioners and the shareholders? If those legal fees had gone to the pensioners, all the remaining moneys could have gone to the shareholders and everyone would have been much better off sans the legal fraternity. Similarly, if the Employee's Case had been a school yard battle, it would have been resolved inside of 15 minutes with, I might add, considerably more justice than what is happening in our courts of law on this issue. PROTEST PLACARD:  NO RULE OF LAW: 1)CHINA  2) CANADA

Truly, it may be said that Canadians are being badly governed.


cc Chief Justice (Federal Court) Hon. P. Crampton

     Rt. Hon. S. Harper  P.M.