The thrust of the Defendant Employer is that this issue was one of jurisdiction and did not deal with any of the central issues such as: Is the Employer bound to pay compensation (includes pension rights)? (Yes under the collective bargaining rules). If so, how and when? The court on November 2012 and 2013 bought into the jurisdiction aspect with a total disregard for the issues. The lower court was asked to focus by me on paying interim compensation (salary provisions which belong to me apart from judicial findings as I was always supposed to have been kept on salary until the issue was settled by the only two that the court would recognize; namely the Employer and Union who were in an obvious ‘sweetheart deal’ arrangement so that I was left in limbo when those two abandoned a return to litigation as so ordered by the court in 1987 when the Employer failed to return employment to me as recommended by the court. Judicial cupidity has supported that arrangement to such an extent and degree that the rule of law has been sacrificed in Canada in this lead civil story action still ignored by the media. The Appeal focusedsolely on the ‘Mackenzie Creed’ which denies me court access in the most egregious action by a judge in Canadian Jurisprudence. Again, no pointed questions were asked by this court on the issue level. It was characterized by my accusation in court that one of the three judges had dozed off in a probably pre-writtten report merely awaiting their rubber stamp.


Following is an annotated transcript of my presentation in the Lower Court used as evidence in the Appeal Court with irrelevant details left out. add clarifying comments added


THE COURT (C): Thank you. Mr. Callow, are you ready to go?

ME: First point, the elephant in the room. Why, after 27 years as the target -I’ll label myself as the target here- do I not have a court decision with regards to the validity of my layoff in June of 1985? Without that decision, compensation may not flow. That includes pension rights. Now, if my friend (Defendant) here has his way the precedence that will be set is that every employer will hide a dismissal behind a layoff.


     First of all, The (West Vancouver)School  Board did not answer my question as to why they are not obligated to pay interim compensation which I’ve outlined here (add: 28 years of salary with interest which belongs to me apart from judicial findings)? …


…This is a little more basic, and I’m going to set it forth in terms of a poker game. The cards have been played, the bets have been made, and I have ‘called’ the defendants. Now that I have laid down my cards, they read something like this.

1) On June 26th, 1985, the Superintendant of Schools in West Vancouver, Ed Carlin, hand delivered me a lay-off notice on the last day of school.

2) In that lay-off notice, he quoted School Board authority, which according to Justice Southin who quashed the later arbitration in support of the Board in 1986, stated that such authority was not there. Nowhere, she went on to note was there a School Board plan to lay off a teacher in June of 1985.

3) The Superintendant in his letter quoted the necessity of laying off a teacher due to declining enrolment. The School Board list on that night showed 16 new positions created (add: a number for which I was qualified ).

4) The arbitrator converted those 16 new hires into 16 layoffs adding  my name as the 17th knowing full well that I was the only layoff that year.

5) The Superintendant also quoted the neophyte BILL 35 as his authority. I was laid off on June 26. Bill 35 became law on July 1st,1985.


…Now I didn’t know at the time, but I now know that I was a target of a government conspiracy….


(C) How long were you a teacher? (add: This irrelevant information types the very few questions raised by Justice Maranger and is reflective of how he fails to deal with central issues.)….


ME: …The key note was that both sides agreed that the threshold test for lay-off was whether or not there was a need to lay-off staff. That was the threshold test which wasw never passed, but that arbitration was quashed, and the arbitrator was ruled patently unreasonable.

(C) You talked about a government conspiracy?

ME: …the government of B.C. was hi-jacked in terms of this BILL 35 legislation. As the union lawyer told me, this was  the ‘Roger Callow Act’. I was the only person ever laid off under BILL 35 conditions. That Bill was trrpealed in the 1990’s (add: before this case had been resolved). It’s commonly known as Banana Republic Justice. The Justice System was co-opted in that regard.


ME: …I have information through to The Chief Justice (Ottawa) Charles Hackland, Ontario Attorney General (J. Gerritsen) and Ontario Premier D. McGuinty, because what is at stake here is whether collective bargaining rules really have any value whatsoever.


ME: …When the  School Board did not return employment as recommended by Justice Southin, she ordered the matter back to arbitration, and the scary part is this. She did not place me back on salary. ‘That was a stunt she couldn’t get away with’ according to the legal counsel I had at that time. That’s why we are in this courtroom today. If she had placed me back on salary at that time, we wouldn’t be here today.


ME: …Where’s my arbitration? I had that discussion with B.C. Supreme Court Justice Horace Holinrake: “Mr. Callow, you have a right to a court decision”, and I said, “Fine, where is it?” He replied, “Not my jurisdiction,” to which I said, “Well, if it’s not your Department, then whose Department is it?” “Jurisdiction” he replied, “I don’ty know, but not mine,”. That is the contumely that I have been treated with, and I am not just speaking about the Vancouver courts. I’m speaking about the B.C. Labour Board who have never held a hearing under SECTION 12 on this issue. I’m also talking about the Federal Court of Canada where hearings are held without my notification.


(C) I heard you brought this all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. What did you bring?

ME: Four times…Because essentially no Justice System was prepared to either order the matter back to arbitration…The Employer had to go back to arbitration if they did not sign an outside agreement with the Union, which they never did (add: leaving me in legal limbo)

…The first Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was on the ‘universality of unions’. I’ve always believed that I had the right to present my case in court, but in my particular case, the courts decided otherwise.


(C) …And in that Collective Agreement matters such as being laid off, things of that nature goes to arbitration, right, by virtue of a Collective Agreement?...And I guess that’s why you’ve kept going in this circle?


ME: …It came down to this fact; that the Union stated that they were going to sign an agreement (add: and open themselves to a massive lawsuit by me) with the Employer whether I agreed or not. Then, inside of one month, they turned around and said that they were not going to sign an agreement without my consent. My lawyer wrote them at that time noting this flip-flop and pointed out that if the Union thought that this was a reasonable solution to the problem, that they should indeed sign it. The Union refusal on this level left me in limbo.


ME: Earlier In 1995 when I went to B.C. Supreme Court before Justice Spencer (add: As the Employer and Union were not returning to arbitration, I requested that the court change Southin’s should return employment to must.) Spencer pointed out that I had been left in limbo through no fault of my own. I don’t think you may find any fault in terms of the way I have conducted myself. It seems to be that trying to get justice has been considered a fault.


ME: Look at all this unsuccessful appeal: no chance of success, frivolous and vexatious. These terms are bandied about without any focyus on the prime fact that I am standing here today without a court response, and without that court response, compensation may not flow. That proposition changes all Labour Law. Who, under these circumstances, will belong to a Union? Also, who will pay into a company pension scheme under these circumstances?


ME: The second approach to the Supreme Court of Canada was in 2006 under the terms of ‘ultimate remedy’.

This process is based on the concept that money must be paid. There isn’t any mon ey paid here because there is not any final judgment. In this I fault the Justice System.


ME: The third time – this was a bad one – and the fourth time –the Sjupreme Court of Canada, in my opinion, ducked out onan administative excuse. Hiding a judicial decision behind an administrative decision is considered the lowest of the low in jurisprudence. In the Third Decision, the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ undermines the whole question of the efficacy of the Justice System. A judge cannot, on her own volition, without taking legal argument (add: nor quoting pertinent laws in an undocumented Order which delists a duly laid court action for reasons best known to herself and,again, for reasons best known to herself, would deny this plaintiff with access to the courts in an uncompleted legal action) because it makes a decision which cannot stand because it must not stand. I don`t believe that there is anything in Canadian Jurisprudence that measures up to the egregiousness of that action.


ME: Now I am banned from that court in Vancouver. The Defendant, in effect, says that I May not come here either which is more of the same, and this is the only court left to me. I have no more courts, and on that level I think of justice on a national level in terms of one famous jurist, Justice Estey (St. Anne-Nackawic) an oft quoted phrase: ``What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.”

I don’t think that there’s too much question that that is indeed the situation here.


ME: Summary of the fourth trip: The Employer and Union joined together to acquire costs from a $10,000 surety bond I had earlier posted to have the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ heard in B.C. Appeal Court. Costs would follow on this case which the court clerk rejected for reasons best known to himself and to which Chief Justice Lance Finch refused to moderate. The legal point above is that I had no status in court to protest this payment because the MacKenzie Creed did not bind both sides.


ME: request the court to put this question to the Defendant  here: (add: It didn’t) One; is the Employer obligated to pay this interim compensation,and I don’t want some sor t of loose fuzzy-edged answer such as ‘Yes, under certain circumstances.’ That’s not an answer. Do they owe that debt to me? And if so, when should it be paid?


(C) Have you been working in the last 27 years? (add: typical evasive answer reflective that no pointed questions are asked as it relates to the central issues before him: interim compensation and the ‘MacKenzie Creed’.


DEFENDANT: Subject to any questions, we have no further submissions



NB Divisional Court Hearing followed same pattern as lower court.