Murphy's Law: Any attempt to do nothing, so nothing can go wrong, will go wrong
A) '...It is the School Board's strongly held view that the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdiction to make any ruling regarding the hearing of a future arbitration hearing due to the fact that the arbitration was not a proceeding under the scheme provided in the Labour Relations Code, the former Industrial Relations Act, or the former Labour Code. Instead, the arbitration in question was a hearing pursuant to the provisions of the School Amendment Act, 1985, which the Board has no jurisdiction to interpret or apply. S. Clyne for the Employer to the B.C. Labour Relations Board February 7, 1996 TAB 8 of REPLY BOOKLET
B) 2) Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that any law (BILL 35 RC notation) that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of Canada-the supreme law of the land-is, to the extent of its inconsistency, of no force or effect. A tribunal must respect the Constitution so that if it finds invalid a law (BILL 35 and 'current demonstrated ability' undefined in the statute or in law generally although for structural reasons, it may not refer to teacher competence. RC) it is called upon to apply, it is bound to treat it as having no force or effect. Weber vs Ontario Hydro Dominion Law Reports 125 D.L.R. (4th) p.594 SEE REPLY BOOKLET
First Page labeled Constitutional Question
Dec. 15-2014 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
1) As the Respondents do not appear to be forthcoming as to providing the 'secret memo notes', I provide the following hypothesis. When 3 former West Vancouver Association Presidents met with Superintendent, Ed Carlin in 1985 - two of the three of which served in the school where I had accused Principal John Williams of fraud vis a vis his Professional Report on this teacher to Deputy Minister of Education, Jim Carter - a scheme was hatched. Carter it needs be noted here, was a former West Vancouver Secondary Principal where Williams was a teacher and was himself involved in a highly publicized dismissal of a senior teacher in 1978 in that same school. Ed Carlin was the Superintendent in both 1978 and 1985 when I was laid off for reasons of declining enrolment (there wasn't any).
The scheme hatched was the imposed BILL 35 which the BCTF declared was the battle of all teachers in which they talked a few School Districts out of using it; but not West Vancouver where this target was the sole laid off teacher under this BILL before it was withdrawn in the 1990's before my case had been resolved (banana republic justice).
The arrangement made, it is submitted here, between Carlin and the WVTA personnel was to bypass the Union due to the nature of the Bill as a piece of Government legislation which did not involve the collective bargaining rules hence leaving this target to finance any challenge from his own pocket; a near impossibility. The BCTF refused to accept that WVTA position as the membership would question the value of union membership if the employer could just run an end game around the Union. (The Union, it needs be noted here, also represented the interests of the Principal as administrators were part of the Union until 1988.)
The secret memo notes would consist of those meetings between the Superintendent and the WVTA members. Additional information is sought with meetings between the WVTA and Carlin held after the Court recommended that employment be returned to me. Interestingly, the School District was never placed 'in dispute' (affects hiring practices) at any time. The School Board rejected the court recommendation creating the next 28 years of legal wrangling.
2) There were legal counsel before Litherland for the School Board but he was still involved in negotiations with Laughton over the succeeding years suggesting his culpability in the charge of fraud as he appeared to alternatively declare this case a matter under the collective bargaining agreement or as a topic of a 'breach of contract' where the Labour Board had no role. If the Supreme Court of Canada (A. Lamers Chief Justice /B. McLachlin incumbent Chief Justice plus a Justice Cory) had heard this topic under the 'universality of unions' question, that matter could have been cleared up although it must be noted with considerable embarrassment to a number of B.C. Judges and the B.C. Labour Board.
3) On April 10,2014, Hicks, Morley et al launched #13-59060 in Ontario Superior Court asking that all claims be discussed with a conclusion that the Employer did not owe any compensation to this targeted employee. While it was not stated, it would appear that their case was founded on the 'breach of contract' rules as they did not see fit to include the Union. Suffice it to say that the Employer has lost the services of the Ottawa firm of Hicks, Morley whom was referred along with two Superior Court judges to the oversight bodies for 'irregularities' where it awaits adjudication. The court above did not grant the Employer's wish.
4) Laughton was the Junior Counsel assigned in 1986 by Harry Rankin (d.) when I dropped the Union appointed lawyer from the arbitration and appointed Rankin for the court appeal which quashed the arbitration. Laughton purported to handle this matter as a collective bargaining issue although it was not until 1995 when Justice Spencer ratified it as such when I returned to court requesting that the should return employment of Justice Southin be altered to must return employment with all terms of the contract to be applied for reasons of abandonment. (I had been prematurely cut from salary in November of 1985 when Carlin believed that the arbitration would have been completed by that date and with a Board success. In fact, the arbitration had hardly got under way. Justice Southin had not seen fit to place me back on salary until a resolution was found.) It is submitted here that if the matter is indeed a matter of 'breach of contract' then Laughton has been acting under false pretenses which I claim is fraud. The fact that he went on to solely represent the Union after I had dismissed him is suggestive that this was indeed the case. Linking up with the School Board in some court hearings, such as he did by seeking a 'frivolous and vexatious' labeling is reflective of unethical behaviour if not in fact fraud. Mr. Laughton claims to represent the West Vancouver Teachers Association. A decade ago in answer to the question put to Mr. Laughton, all legal contact by him was made with the BCTF legal department with no contact with the WVTA. One WVTA President told me that he was told to forward all materials on my case to the BCTF. So what is Mr. Laughton's status in this case as it relates to the Union and to this case as a possible collective bargaining issue? The memo notes requested in this action are instrumental as to what he knew and when did he know it?
5) As the Supreme Court of Canada failed a second time to hear this matter under the topic of 'ultimate remedy' in 2004 wherein money must change hands in any labour settlement; we are still in the dark as to which label this case should be handled under; a 'collective bargaining matter' or 'a breach of contract matter'? If the latter, then the court has sole control over final adjudication. If the former, the court still has an obligation as they at one time ordered the matter back for re-arbitration. The Employer did not return to arbitration hence the question of abandonment is still extant.
6) As the central charge is one of fraud against both the original conspirators and the court processes; it is incumbent on the Respondents to produce the requisite meeting notes. Otherwise the court must rule against them by placing this plaintiff back on salary appropriately compounded (30 years by 2015) until the only two that the B.C. Courts would recognize; namely, the Employer and the Union, finalize a solution. The matter of fraud against Litherland and Laughton stands apart from that recommendation as I have noted that neither of these two legal counsel should be representing their parties currently considering the charges that I have made against them. Certainly, their bid for yet another 'frivolous and vexatious' label by the court should be dismissed as being self-serving and hence not worthy of consideration.
7) A key document expelling this plaintiff from the B.C. Justice System; namely the 'Cullen Creed' by Deputy Chief Justice, Austin Cullen, of the B.C. Supreme Court, needs also be examined if not for fraud; certainly for being ultra vires. On July 23, 2013, Cullen j. on his own recognizance, without taking argument nor quoting specific laws, and for reasons best known to himself expelled this plaintiff from the B.C. Justice System. No 'permission of a judge' was included. Interestingly, Hicks, Morley et al and Ottawa Superior Court, Justice Colin McKinnon (#13-59060), attributed explanations to this document which do not exist leaving me to explain a negative which is an impossibility. I have referred this matter to an oversight committee. Hence if the Federal Court requires further litigation in B.C.; they will have to address this blockage.
8) There is no point for the Respondents to appear before the Federal Court tribunal without answers to the above questions for which it is incumbent on the court to require such information should they so attend.
cc As I have already made submission to the B.C. Judicial Council regarding the Cullen Creed and a second prohibitory Order from another Deputy Chief Justice, Anne MacKenzie of the B.C. Supreme Court (October 2010), I am forwarding this information to the Council for added information to my charge.
_________________ December 15-2014
Roger Callow (Plaintiff)
cc B.C. Judicial Council
cc SCofC Hon. R. Wagner
Dec. 16-2014 File No. T-2360-14 Federal Court (Ottawa)
Geoff Litherland esq. representing the Employer
By fax 2 pages including this one 604-684-6632 Respondent #1
Bruce Laughton Q.C. representing the Union Respondent #2
By fax 2 pages including this one 604-683-6622
208-2220 Halifax Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7
Tel/fax: 613-521-1739 Plaintiff
MESSAGE: Would you confirm receipt of 4 documents marked APPLICATION and numbered accordingly 1) - 4) and return by fax. Thank you R.C.
G. Litherland _____________________________ Date ___________________
B. Laughton ______________________________ Date____________________
1) As it would appear that both Respondents would place all their eggs in the one basket of accusing this plaintiff of 'frivolous & vexatious' action, would you:
a) Provide me with the background list of events necessary for such an appellation from the B.C. Supreme Court. I do not recall ever receiving such a list.
b) Explain the source of the 'Frivolous etc.' at the B.C. Appeal Court when no such hearing was ever heard. Again, I would like to see the background list if one exists.
c) The one list for a 'Frivolous etc.' that I have from Ontario #13-59060 where I was the Respondent did include a list produced by the court and not the Employer which I saw for a first time when I read the judgment.
d) As the Plaintiff, I wrote a complete rebuttal to the 'Frivolous etc. and included it in the succeeding #14-61592 which was the only thing the presiding Judge would consider. He ignored my comments on the Cullen Creed. As he wrote only 'temporary notes'; I could not appeal his action. The entire matter has been referred to the Canadian Judicial Council for a number of gross irregularities.
e) The key sticking point in the above 'Frivolous etc. accusation is the 'Cullen Creed' written by Deputy Chief Justice Austin Cullen of the B.C. Supreme Court on July 23-2013 expelling me for reasons best known to himself as he acted on his own recognizance, took no legal argument nor quoted pertinent laws. There was no 'with permission of the judge' for me to proceed in court. It was that document which drove me into the Ontario and Federal Court systems under the rules of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice in this unresolved legal labour matter lacking a judicial finding from which compensation may flow. The matter of his apparently ultra vires action is pending as a complaint by me to the B.C. Judicial Council of Judges. There has been no response to date. Both the court and the Employer in #13-59060 imputed reasons for Cullen's action which do not exist leaving me in the intolerable position of having to prove a negative which is, of course, an impossibility.
f) Finally, do not walk into court slapping documents down for which I have not been given an opportunity to peruse e.g. #13-59060. The fact that the Employer has been amazingly successful to date with their ruses should not be misconstrued as the future for this case in court focusing, as it now does, on the charge of fraud.
g) I still await the 'secret memo notes' referred to elsewhere on which the case of fraud is based although it is not limited to those notes.
h) Also come to court with a determination as to whether this case falls under the collective bargaining rules or as a 'breach of contract' plus an argument explaining why this plaintiff should not be returned immediately to salary with all back salary and interest to apply until a legal finding is reached as it exists apart from judicial findings.
Roger Callow Plaintiff
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
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.
Roger Callow December 23-2014
cc Chief Justice Rt. Hon. Paul Crampton