FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA - OTTAWA                         

                             REPLY - DECEMBER 23-2014                    T-2360-14

Re-submission to accord more closely to FC rules



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 Dec. 24-2014



Roger Callow

208-2220 Halifax Drive

Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7

Tel/fax: 613-521-1739                                                                   Plaintiff


Roger Callow, Plaintiff, answers in response to the statement of defence:


1. As the defences set out by the Respondents are virtually identical, this reply is made to both simultaneously and hence will not accord with a strict definition of a rejection by a paragraph by paragraph of their argument.


2. At core of this case and in many hearings before the courts is that in  close to 30 years, there has been no judicial finding in the apparently illicit lay-off of former West Vancouver senior high school teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985. Without a finding, compensation (includes pension rights) cannot be assigned.


3. This case has been before 8 different courts and over 30 judges including two inconclusive trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. The plaintiff's accusation against the court in this process might best be defined as misfeasance (the illegal or improper performance of an action in itself lawful). Court rules in the provinces of B.C. and Ontario as well as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court are woefully inept in dealing with this type of fraud; alluded incidentally in the Preamble to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004 as a 'conspiracy of the judicial process'.


4. Currently, the charge in Federal Court is one of fraud against both the Respondent organizations and their lawyers currently representing them (the Employer appears to have lost his Ottawa connection with Hicks, Morley et al). Advice that other than the lawyers named above should be representing their interests by this plaintiff was ignored. These charges spread across B.C., Ontario and the Federal Court.


5. Of the four court hearings in Ottawa on this topic; two of which are pending in the Appeal Court of Ontario with a third awaiting a finalization of the judge's 'temporary notes' dependent on other outcomes which never materialized, the comment by Justice McKinnon, which accords with my  own, is that only the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) is competent to handle the plaintiff's claim.


6. Unfortunately, Registrar Roger Bilodeau is insistent that Section 40 which states that the SCofC under Section 40 hears only cases from Appeal Courts with this personal addition;  that those Appeal courts must comprise of 3 Justices. In short, the Ontario and Federal Courts are mere speed bumps if that process is to apply here.


7. The above lengthy definition explains why both the Justice System and the Respondents have  a vested interest in defeating this plaintiff's submissions at the expense of the rights and welfare of this plaintiff.


8. To date, the majority of cases laid by this plaintiff lack due process by the attending Justices whom, for want of another expression, I will label 'short shrift' judges given to 'duly processed' maneuvers. For example, Justice Beaudry notes in a December 18 letter from the Registry... In addition, the Plaintiff has also submitted four un-sworn affidavits of service,....'. Considering electronic filing, most courts ignore such affidavit information now. In fact, what I did on receiving my filing number of #T-2360-14 was to cross the street and get a mailing receipt which I attached to the Delivery notice and returned to court. The Registry did not see fit to stamp an oath receiving this document. I mention this matter here as I do not wish Justice Beaudry or his ilk sitting on this case. Indeed, a copy of this letter is going to Chief Justice Paul Crampton to assign his most experienced judge; hopefully one  with a background in constitutional and labour law.


9. The sole point made by the Respondents is that this case is frivolous and vexatious, a badly over-worked phrase in the legal industry used to deny due process of legitimate claims as the plaintiff submits is the case here. The fault here, it needs be noted, is not so much against the Respondents - whom may advance almost any argument they wish - rather, it  lies with the judiciary in accepting unsupported claims.


10. The key to the most important claim is whether the teacher lay-off was to be processed according to the conditions of BILL 35, an imposed government statute, or according to the conditions of the collective bargaining rules and the Unions.


11. Herein lies the significance of the 'secret memo notes' - material from meetings held by the Respondents at the time of the lay-off returned by the court and later, after the School Board refused to return employment to this plaintiff as recommended by the court. As the earlier arbitration did not withstand this judicial review, the plaintiff was left in limbo.


12. Both Respondents have steadfastly refused to hand over those memo notes. Material received under the access to information rules in 2004 showed that the vote affirming the plaintiff's lay-off marked 'Carried' did not have the vote break-down listed in arbitration. The new information showed that only School Trustee President Margo Furk and her successor, Mike Smith voted in favour of the motion in this 5 man Board. The Superintendent's lay-off letter of June 28 (BILL 35 became law on July 1,1985 and was used only against this teacher before it was rescinded in the 1990's before this case had been completed) quoted Board authority. Somebody committed perjury. That is why those memo notes are instrumental in defining this fraud.


13. As to the status of Geoff Litherland esq. who was assigned this case only at the turn of the century, it is submitted here that he joined forces  with Mr. Laughton to falsely represent his case before B.C. judges whom, it needs be noted here, were only too willing to acquiesce to their demands in disqualifying this case. Due diligence on the part of the court was sadly missing; particularly the failure of the Supreme Court of Canada on the plaintiff's first visit under the 'inherent jurisdiction of unions' which would, of necessity, have cleared up the jurisdictional responsibilities of the Courts vis a vis this case.


14. The accusations against Bruce Laughton Q.C. are far more serious as he began as Junior Counsel in 1987 on this case where he represented, as per Labour law, both this plaintiff's interests and those of the Union which the law considers uniform. He went on to represent the Union after this plaintiff dismissed his services. It is submitted here that the documentary material to follow will illustrate extensively that Laughton and B.C. staff lawyer, David Yorke, misrepresented themselves to both this plaintiff as well as to the court and B.C. Labour Board. Again it is noted that there was no due process - or a very faulty one - from the various legal personnel charged with overseeing this case.


15. In July of 2013, Deputy Chief Justice, Alistair Cullen, of the B.C. Supreme Court, banned this plaintiff from the B.C. Courts of law. In that action; on his own recognizance, without taking legal argument nor quoting applicable laws and for reasons best known to himself, he forced the plaintiff into courts outside of B.C. for a judicial finding in this unresolved case where no compensation has been paid.


16. Both the presiding Justice and the Respondent lawyer in Ontario were well aware of this short-coming as they both imputed reasons for Cullen's actions leaving the plaintiff to prove a negative which is an impossibility. That action is part of the fraud alleged in this case. There were many other irregularities in Ontario in this matter referred to the oversight bodies which continue to be eloquent in their silence on these issues.


17. A second Ontario Superior Court judge whom was only interested in dealing with the frivolous charge apart from any other legal arguments, failed completely to address the 'Cullen Creed' and my written objections filed in court on this point. Unfortunately, the Justice did not finalize his judgment so that the Ontario Appeal Court would not take any appeal from the plaintiff. The point here was that under the rules of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice, it was submitted that the court did have a role in all matters which the Employer introduced as a topic.


18. The Federal Court was not immune to these machinations over the 'Cullen Creed'. In August of 2013, the plaintiff first attempted to file in Federal Court but was rejected by Madame Justice Gleason as he did not make a finding argument sufficiently different from an earlier case filed in 2011 (T-1386-11). This decision was referred to both the Canadian Judicial Council and to the Minister of Justice, Peter MacKay. There was no response (There never is from the CJC). The material returned to me still had a sticker on one page labeled 'see this' from a Department worker leaving the impression that Gleason j. was little more than a 'rubber stamp' for decisions made elsewhere. It is this type of judge I wish to avoid and should I receive short shrift again, I will cite Chief Justice Paul Crampton for removal; not an easy action to include in this account, but due to past irregularities in this case in the Federal Court, a necessary one.

19. As the Respondents have been supplied material labeled DOCUMENTS prior to filing in court plus this letter; they are in an ideal situation to address all arguments set forth and not relegate these very serious charges to a specious 'frivolous and vexatious' notation.

20. Equally and perhaps more so considering their leadership role, the courts must stop evading their responsibilities by seeking to diminish this case in some fashion or another in order to dispose of it.

Yours truly


Roger Callow  December 23-2014

cc Chief Justice Rt. Hon. Paul Crampton