DECEMBER 21-2015


TO: Board of School Trustees (S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                    6 pages      SENT BY FAX


FROM: Roger Callow   N.B. Note new address as of January 01-2016 although mail will be forwarded to me from the old address. Tel/fax remain the same.

1285 Cahill Drive #2001 Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

tel:/fax: 613-521-1739




ENCLOSURE: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau whom is unlikely to meet his December 31-2015 deadline set by this writer in which Canada will enter into a phase of uncontrolled judicial excess on a level and degree never before encountered in any Judicial System of a democratic country. To mark this new phase, a new website has been constructed for 2016: employescasecanada.ca (N.B. only one 'e' plus .ca designation)



1) As you know from previous correspondence to you, B.C.'s Harris & Company is not acceptable to this litigant for their many legal transgressions for which many judges are prepared to turn a 'blind eye'; most likely due to the fact that T-2360-14 filed in Federal Court alleges fraud on two levels; the various court processes over a period of 30 years encompassing, as it does, 10 separate court systems and 40 judges plus that of the 'original' conspirators.


2) Under the most unusual circumstances of events in Quebec, referred to inaccurately in Harris & Co., where a separate Notice To Dismiss (running a court within a court) was unilaterally filed by Lavery, de Billy for the Employer to be heard January 18-2016 in Montreal Appeal Court (C.A.M. 500-09-025753; Lavery de Billy, senior partner, personally would seek to cherry-pick which items of the filed appeal by me which, surprise, surprise, does not include any reference to the egregious fact that two separate judges - one the hearing judge and the second one to re-open the case and write the judgment without any reference to the existence of the hearing judge. The Quebec Judicial Council is strangely quiet on this charge filed on August 01-2015 by me. It would appear that de Billy's pre-emptive bid on January 18-2016 is to bury that major legal transgression with, it is presumed, the co-operation of a desperate court. It should also be noted that I sent a letter earlier to de Billy in which I requested their Bill of Costs awarded to them by Goulet j.c.s. There was no response. That did not stop Harris & Co. from referring to unpaid bills in Quebec before a specious Surety hearing before SK Appeal Court's, Justice R. Ottenbreit ,on November 25 (telephone conferencing) in which the judge failed to ask why there was no evidence from Harris & Co. as to these unpaid bills?  More on Ottenbreit j. later in this account.


3) DELIVERY: I always follow correct judicial procedures whether by courier, or registered mail or fax; the latter two with evidence of delivery. Not so the litigants for the Employer which I claim are devious in that regard. For example, one Registered account from Harris & Co. was sent to the correct apartment building with the wrong apartment number. Fortunately, an alert neighbor delivered the document to me. Hicks, Morley et al (whom has since dropped representation probably due to my referral of this outfit to the oversight bodies for excessive malfeasance as supported by Ontario judges McKinnon and Scott - both originally Federal Court employees - were reported by me to the Canadian Judicial Council for their role in that debacle) no longer respond to any correspondence from me including a  collection for a 'Bill of Costs'. (Nor does the CJC respond.) Their personal courier never required a signature reflective of the possibility of a 'ducks and drakes' approach as I have no idea which 'so-called' deliveries were never made.





Once before in another specious Surety hearing in B.C. held immediately before Xmas in 2010, the time allotment for payment was in early January in which I was notified of this assessment by the Employer after the due date (no copy from the Appeal Court of K.C. MacKenzie sent to me). I learned from other sources of this fee and paid within the time limit although the Appeal Court challenge CA038538 did not proceed due to judicial machinations. Normally, Harris & Co. deliver their registered material by Canada Post (including Purolater). So why did they select FED EX this time noted for their sloppy delivery features? For example, notices are attached to the mail box for registered mail from Canada Post if the resident is not at home. Fed-Ex, not having access to apartment buildings, merely place a notice on the entrance-way call board used by about 5% of tenants. Again, it was an alert neighbor whom notified me of the notice. Presumably, if I had not been made aware of this delivery, Harris & Co. could slip this factum requesting 'Dismissal' into the SK Court of Appeal hearing without my ever being aware of this addition which, along with the collusion of the court, could bury the main issues. In brief, I would be portrayed as an ignoramus as a consequence of this stunt. It is their variation on the theme of 'running a court within a court' as per the Quebec example.


5) The theme of 'running a court within a court' was also used extensively in Ontario by Hicks, Morley et al and both SK and QC courts ignored my request to ignore these highly specious actions referred to the oversight bodies. For example, there is not one, but two versions of the McKinnon j. (13-59060) April 10-2014 Hearing Date). The first Decision came down on April 23-2014 and the second one came down on September 15-2014 making no reference to the first one. Quebec's Lavery de Billy quoted the former judgment while Harris & Co. quoted only the September 15-2014 in the Appeal, no doubt as a means of getting the courts to acknowledge both versions because of their ignorance due to no interchange of court information between the provinces. That's fraud and why I submit Harris & Co. should NOT be permitted to represent the Employer in SK. The Quebec Appeal court has been made aware of this judicial ON duplicity although it would appear that Lavery de Billy would seek to pull the same stunt with their unitary 'Order to Dismiss', to be heard in Montreal Appeal Court on January 18-2016. Will Harris & Co. also sneak in a separate action similar to de Billy to 'Dismiss'? January 2016 will tell.


6) As referenced in 2) above, more needs to be said on the Ottenbreit j. 'surety' application. While disagreeing with the lower court's Megaw j. decision which explains why this matter is under appeal, there is no real opportunity to discuss Ottenbreit's action which I label 'specious' at best. The surety has been paid under protest for reasons noted above. The real concern with the Ottenbreit action is that it undermines the three Appeal Court judges assigned to this matter which was no doubt his intention. By rights, only those three should have sat on this surety matter; much like the court sitting on the 'Motion to Dismiss' in QC. Speculation has it that Ottenbreit's unitary action could be construed as sending a not  so unsubtle message from the Office of the Chief Justice to the three assigned judges regarding the desired outcome for the Appeal. That's influence pedaling which operates below the radar of the law. There were other features of Ottenbreit's court which I found 'less than desirable'. All SK citizens are the poorer for court malfeasance.


7) For the above reason, I have requested a one-hour preliminary conference by teleconferencing requesting a discussion of the continued appearance of Harris & Co. should the Employer insist on going with this legal outfit currently under investigation by the B.C. Law Society based on a SK Law Society reference. I also demand the necessary disclosure of the 'secret missing memo notes' of Justice Southin in 1986 whom quashed the 1985 arbitration ruling, as she did, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable leaving me in a 30 year state of limbo regarding my illicit lay-off where no compensation - including pension rights - has been paid. Request for those memo notes underlies every legal hearing since 1986 which 40 judges would studiously ignore prompting my  accusation that the Judiciary of Canada is guilty of cover-up on a level never before witnessed in Canada (theme of Federal Court T-2360-14 mentioned above). The accumulation of these court denials on evidence disclosure now amounts to conspiracy on their part. The Appeal Court of SK must demand production of those memo notes as a precursor to all information in this Appeal. Otherwise, the court is proceeding without 'dealing with a full deck' in much the same fashion as the lower court's Megaw j. did in absence of calling for the memo notes.


8) The assertion of this writer here is that I was never laid off by the Board of School Trustees in June of 1985 which Justice Southin was well aware but chose to cover up fraud on the part of some school officials and their lawyer whom probably wrote the Board Approval form filed 'after the fact' of the Superintendent's fraudulent letter quoting the School Trustee's endorsement to dismiss under the new BILL 35 which was not yet declared law. No trustee took the stand although I exhorted the Union lawyer to place them on the stand to attest to lay-off numbers in absence of Harris & Co. to call them or for the arbitrator to make that request.


9) The West Vancouver Trustees could obviate my first preliminary request in SK by appointing new legal Counsel, preferably from SK. They could obviate the entire appeal in both SK and QC by providing me with those missing memo notes. Who knows, I may be completely wrong in my assertions and all this connivance was for nothing as I do not believe any court hearing this matter has ever seen these memo notes relying, it is assumed, on the services of an eminence gris operating through the back door of the Offices of the Chief Justices. In that assessment, Premiers B. Wall in SK and P.Couillard in QC are severely and negatively affected.


10) At this juncture, only Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has the opportunity to forestall a legal disaster the likes of which has never been seen and will follow Canada throughout the 21st century. He has until December 31-2015 to act although, at this late date, it appears that he will fumble the ball.


Yours truly,


Roger Callow  APPELLENT  CACV2783 (SK)

'The Outlawed Canadian' in an outlaw Justice System employeescasecanada.com


FOLLOWING IS A RE-HASH OF DOCUMENTS ON FILE TO FOLLOW IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT (As part of the 'Perfection Process'; I was forced to index the Harris&Co. Original Factum - before this current one - in an 8 hour enterprise in which a detailed analysis was given by me.) I now have to repeat that process due to Harris & Co.'s bid to 'Dismiss' which includes a repeat of selected 'cherry-picked' passages which, as noted above, is probably a set-up paralleling the action in QC courts. For this reason, I insist that the 3 SK Appeal Court judges refer to all material currently on file with them including this letter in any such bid by Harris & Co.


cc P.M. J. Trudeau / Premiers B. Wall & P. Couillard / RCMP


December 27-2015



Philippe Couillard - Que. Premier                               Quebec Court of Appeal

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL                                        C.A.M. 500-09-025753-153

employeescasecanada.com                                     100 Notre-Dame E.

Edifice Honoré-Mercier-3 étage                                 Montreal, QC H2Y 4B6

835 boul. René Levesque Est                                                        and

Que. Quebec G1A 1B4                                                    RCMP

                        and                                                                 ATTN: L. Forgues S/Sgt.

Rt. Hon.  J. Trudeau P.M.                                                            'C' Division

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL                                        4225 Dorchester Blvd.

'employeescasecanada.com'                                        Westmount, Qc H3Z 1V5

80 Wellington St.

Ottawa, ON K1A0A2




Roger Callow  self represented plaintiff/appellant

1285 Cahill Drive #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7 (new address as of January 01-2016)

tel/fax: 613-521-1739




To place the Quebec Judiciary under trusteeship due to a pending judicial fraud


The reasons follow with reference to other inequities in Canada related to the matter of the illicit legal handling of the lay-off of senior West Vancouver Secondary teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985. No compensation has been paid which includes pension rights due to judicial machinations before 10 courts and over 40 judges across Canada. This account refers primarily to an impending fraud about to be committed in C.A.M. 500-09-025753-153 in a Hearing for Dismissal by the Respondent to be heard in Montreal on January 18-2016. This marks the first time that the authorities can stop this impending fraud.



1) The general problem is one of duplicity dating right back to the 1985 arbitration which was subsequently quashed leaving this targeted employee in limbo.

2) At core of the arbitration was the fact that West Vancouver Secondary Principal had produced two versions of his professional report on teacher, Roger Callow; one positive and one negative; the latter becoming the signed document. That perfidy was reported to the Ministry in Victoria to which they appear to have responded with BILL 35 and my subsequent lay-off without ever reconciling the two accounts. The arbitration revealed the duplicity but was conspicuous by its absence from the arbitrator's Report. The arbitrator was labeled patently unreasonable for his actions.

3) The Employer insisted that the conditions of the imposed BILL 35 which were only ever used against this target before it was rescinded; were the operant conditions for this case and NOT the collective bargaining rules first asserted by BC. Supreme Court Justice Spencer in 1995. Neither the Employer nor myself were promoting that point as it was the clear abandonment of this issue which the court failed to address because I lacked status under the collective bargaining rules. Succeeding courts 'aped' that thinking.

4) The only forum then open to me in B.C. was the B.C. Labour Board which repeatedly failed to call a Section 12 hearing wherein the Employer could make their point outlined in 3). The BCLB merely asserted each time that the Union had done nothing wrong which is not the same thing as whether they did anything right.

5) The Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 could have established the constitutional question ducked by the Labour Board raised above regarding imposed legislation vs collective bargaining rules. That failure to hear this matter under Chief Justice Lamers (d.) / B. McLachlin (the incumbent Chief Justice / Cory created a constitutional crisis for employers and employees which exists to the current day.

That's when Canada became a Third World Country.

6) Litigation continued in B.C. courts until July 23-2013, when Appeal Court of the B.C. Supreme Court, Deputy Justice A. Cullen expelled this plaintiff from B.C. Courts for reasons best known to himself. The all-important - may proceed only with the permission of a judge - was missing from his importune action making it, as submitted here, ultra vires. The difficulty here was where, as the Plaintiff could I turn for justice? Justice Esty in St. Ane Nackawic encapsules the problem aptly with this observation...What must be avoided at all costs, is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law. That is what happened here.

7) The first court applied to under the terms of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice was the Federal Court T-1386-11 which was disposed of in a secret meeting as was the second court appeal T-2360-14. In both cases, B.C. Prothonotary, Roger Lafreniére, `jumped the gun` in rejecting a matter which was directed by this plaintiff to be before a judge in Ottawa. Appeals were thwarted by the Registry. I have called for the Suspension of Chief Justice Paul Crampton as one consequence.

8) The second appeal was made in Ottawa, Ontario in four highly specious hearings which ran afoul of the Ontario Appeal court Registry with no oversight body willing to take responsibility. I have called for the suspension of Ontario Appeal Court Chief Justice, George Strathy, as one consequence.

9) Both QC and SK courts were advised by me to stay well away from these turbulent events in Ontario; a warning which was ignored, no doubt as a means of legitimizing scandalous actions in Ontario by QC and SK courts.

10) That scandal related to actions of Hicks, Morley et al for the Employer (since dropped representation of them with no replacement) when Hicks, Morley rather than filing a response to my action (similar to Quebec`s Laval, de Billy in the Appeal Court for January 18-2016), chose to launch their own case in which they sought to deflect my factum by `cherry-picking` those items which the courts would deal in such fashion as to dismiss the original charge by this plaintiff. I call that fraud but it appears to be a fraud all too common to our justice system.

11) In 13-59060 before ON Superior Court Justice, Colin McKinnon, Hicks, Morley called for all claims to be discussed which I certainly was not against. McKinnon j. ignored that request preferring instead to blast this Respondent as to why I was here. `You might just as well be in a court in Texas or New Mexico,` he bawled. The fact that I was the Respondent and not the Plaintiff appeared to pass him by. No doubt the report of his bombastic judgment on page 1 of the Ottawa Citizen on April 26-2014  `...This must be stopped, Now.` probably puffed up his ego no end.

12) The detailed `vexatious`  ruling which McKinnon j. applied in his first ruling on April 23-2014 forbad this Respondent from further legal action without permission of a judge He was well aware of the shortcoming of the B.C. `Cullen Creed`.

13) As I had never seen the detailed version of the vexatious  Order which was produced by the court services (as opposed to the Employer), I produced a rebuttal as plaintiff in 14-61592 heard on September 23-2015 before ON Superior Court`s Justice R. Scott. Following is an analysis of that event appearing on my web site: employeescasecanada.com


1) At the core of this unresolved 29 year labour matter where no compensation has taken place in defiance of the collective bargaining rules, is the failure of the Supreme Court of Canada to hear two central appeals. 85% of civil cases are rejected for a hearing with no reason given. It is a great burial ground for issues in which the de facto judicial position is to elevate the role of the judge(s) over the laws of the country (whether or not that is the intended outcome)

2) The Employee's Case is unique from any other rejected SCofC case in that no lower court decision exists to fall back on hence 'no judicial answer has become a judicial answer' in kafkaesque Canada.

2) The lower courts do not have the same powers of disposal depending heavily on bureaucratic delay as a means of forcing the aggrieved litigant from shifting from a 'Notice of Claim' to 'A Notice of Appeal' from which a judge may more easily dispose of a case for jurisdictional reasons. Applying the 'frivolous and vexatious label hastens that process as seen here in this case.

3) No one court may deal with the notion of systematic judicial abuse as only the Supreme Court of Canada can provide that overview; but the trick is to get there when the lower courts do everything in their power to frustrate applications to the SCofC; either through judgments such as the above or through Registry applications over which there is no appeal. The government may also act.

4) In the above case, the precedent (the West Vancouver School Board's Final Solution) set can be paraphrased as follows: 'As the Employer, we are not dismissing you and incurring fiduciary responsibilities under the collective bargaining rules; rather, we are laying you off (different set of laws) with this caveat; if you do not accept $1 for all outstanding claims, you will not collect your pension (as happened here). That proposition alters the work environment to such an extent and degree, that the Union movement and all it stands for is dead in Canada. Considering that the collective agreement is, in essence, the honouring of a signed contract; it is the death knell not only of the judiciary, but also our government. In short, democratic Canada is no more.


QUOTE: "Justice? You get justice in the next world. In this one you have the law."

William Gaddis, American novelist  '...It is, as Gaddis suggests in the above quote, the wrong question. "Justice system" is a misnomer, and it's hardly restricted to the United States. It is, at a certain level of notoriety, a political/economic system, susceptible to all kinds of external forces that have very little to do with actual justice. It favours the wealthy, the famous, the connected, the ones who can afford a long, drawn-out trial and a crafty defence team,...causes judges...to fawn and equivocate and work very hard to find ways to excuse their actions....Ottawa Citizen columnist Cam Cole


14) On September 15-2014, McKinnon j. - unknown to me - issued a second judgment just before the hearing before Scott j. in 14-61592. Hicks, Morley et al for the employer did not file a Notice of Appearance hence it was with some surprise that they appeared at this hearing. In answer to the question as to whether or not Justice Scott was aware of his intended presence, the representative merely wrinkled up his nose.

15) When court was pronounced, Hicks, Morley ran to an eager judge with his hand  held out to receive the September 15-2014 Order of McKinnon which did not make any reference to the First Order although it had similarities. My protest as to this highly illegal action went nowhere. To top it all off, I never received a judgment from Scott j. and hence was refused an Appeal on that basis. Scott`s `notes` mysteriously appear in the Employer`s factum currently. The oversight bodies (the Canadian Judicial Council under the aegis of Hon. B. McLachlin - SCofC  - which handle all complaints against judges originally appointed by the Federal Court of which was the case with McKinnon and Scott - never acknowledged the complaint.

16) By making reference to these two judges in both QC and SK, the Employer no doubt seeks to sanction their actions `through the back door`; an all too common tactic in this case.



17) The letter from Mtre Catherine Dufour of the Quebec Appeal Court dated December 18-2015 is a disturbing one on many accounts:

a) `Once again, we strongly suggest that you contact a lawyer in order to protect your rights' RESPONSE (R): Who says that I do not use legal advice? Just because a case goes under the name of the plaintiff is not proof positive that legal referencing has not been done. A better explanation of the innuendo here is that this plaintiff is 'right for the plucking' by any justice so inclined.

b) '...Regarding your letter dated December 14,2015, we inform you that the Court cannot fix a date for the hearing of the appeal at this stage. Indeed, the Clerk of the Court has not yet declared the file ready to be placed on the roll as the factums have not yet been filed' R. Fair enough as I am now in the process of re-filing which does not explain why the court assigned the Respondent a filing number (500-09-02753-153) for his Order to dismiss on January 18-2016. Placing the 'cart before the horse' has nothing on this caper as I am left trying to defend a negative which is an impossibility; namely, what is it that is being dismissed as nothing is on file other than Lavery, de Billy's Order to that end? Someone should be immediately dismissed on this basis as it reflects a collusion of infinite proportions which will lead to a charge of 'intent to defraud' for all parties referenced should the sitting judges concur with Lavery.

18) The question which Lavery de,Billy studiously avoids is why two judges were assigned this case; a sitting judge and a second 'super-numerary judge' to re-open the case and write the Decision without any reference to the original judge. Hence Lavery de Billy's Order to dismiss relates only to that second judge. We still do not have an Order from the sitting judge hence all this pre-activity is superfluous.

19) My complaint on this dissonant action above to the Quebec Council of Judges dated August 01-2015 goes unanswered.

20) Further, without the calling for the necessary disclosure of the 'secret missing memo notes' of School Board meetings in June of 1985 which are constantly filibustered by both the Employer and Courts; no court can be said to possess any degree of credibility on this issue.

21) Sufficient grounds now exist to reference Lavery, de Billy to the Quebec Law Society and a copy of this account is included for the purpose. As such, they should NOT represent the Employer at this January hearing until a decision is made on their actions. The Employer, the West Vancouver School Trustees are also receiving a copy of this letter for the purpose.


22) Sufficient grounds exist for Premier Couillard and Prime Minister Trudeau to impose a trusteeship over the legal processes in this case in Quebec as all Quebecers are poorer for such nefarious legal dealings. Seeking justice in the streets is the only alternative if the authorities turn their back on the shenanigans noted above, of which this account is a harbinger.


cc SCofC Hon. C. Gascon

West Vancouver,B.C. School Trustees

Quebec Legal Society / Lavery, de Billy

Quebec Judicial Council

QC Appeal Court Hearing January 18-2016 C.A.M. 500-09-02753-153     


ADDENDUM - Courts of law are not able to simply 'dismiss' without first going through the process of locating the appropriate forum for transference. Consider this argument from SK Courts where a similar 'dismiss' proposition may be in the works.




1) It is the considered opinion of the Plaintiff that the term 'frivolous and vexatious' plus the bid to overturn a case under the terms of an 'order to dismiss' are badly overworked rules as evidenced by the Pavlovian inclusion of these terms in most court cases.

2) The above approach is favoured by lazy or 'otherwise inclined' judges to avoid applying time consuming 'due diligence'. This was the charge against Megaw j. of the Queen's Bench (2015-SKQB-308) and why this Decision to reject the plaintiff's claims is being appealed.

3) A most disturbing feature of this Appeal was a decision by Appeal Court's Justice Ottenbreit in November 2015 to grant a surety bid on loose evidence; a feature it is clear which contravenes the laws on sureties. Apparently, declaring a matter as a 'special case' permitted Justice Overbreit to over-write these rules. The surety was paid.

4) For 30 years in this unresolved B.C. Labour Case the plaintiff has not received any compensation - including pension rights - due to no judicial finding although the B.C. Courts had re-ordered re-arbitration after the initial arbitration favouring the Employer was quashed with the government-appointed arbitrator ruled patently unreasonable .

5) The above court challenge has strong overtures of fraud, it is submitted here, as evidenced by the 'secret memo notes' of meetings held in June of 1985 by the West Vancouver, B.C. School Trustees to discuss BILL 35 (only ever used against this targeted senior teacher before it was withdrawn before legalities had concluded) and the lay-off of former senior teacher, Roger Callow.

6) Those memo notes were returned by B,.C. Supreme Court Justice, Hon. Mary Southin (r. 2004) 'because she did not use them'. Sufficient evidence was produced in the quashed arbitration to suggest that the government (BILL 35) was hi-jacked, the judiciary co-opted (gerrymandered government-appointed arbitrator) to sanction a secret 'sweetheart deal' between an Employer and the local West Vancouver Teachers Union; the only body that the B.C. courts would recognize to represent all interests of this plaintiff.

7) In latter years, the Union has joined legal links with the Employer to leave this plaintiff in a permanent state of limbo.

8) In July of 2013, Supreme Appeal Court's Deputy Justice, Alistair Cullen (the Cullen Creed) on his own recognizance and for reasons best known to himself expelled the Plaintiff from B.C. forcing him to seek justice outside the province in other courts. The all-important 'may proceed only with the permission of a judge' was conspicuous by its absence; a matter the Respondent is only too well aware although they claim in their factum that this term was included in B.C. actions. (Apparently by joining their claim with other judicial decisions; they hoped to cover-up this subterfuge).

9) The above point was stressed in court to Megaw j. although the Decision included the above falsehood having this plaintiff question as to who actually wrote this Decision?

10) The second factum 'cherry-picks' the first factum which was analyzed in detail to select arguments by the Respondent to justify their ill-thought out claim 'to dismiss'. The court should refer to the completed 'perfected account' before making any consideration of the 'claim to dismiss'.

11) What is new is found in the Book of Authorities of the Respondent regarding SK Rules of Jurisdiction. A detailed analysis follows.

12) No reference is made to the 'legal billable time' case studies as no case parallels a plaintiff left in permanent limbo.



13) TAB 11 The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (SK)


Territorial Competence of Courts of SK

a) Application of Part

(2) The territorial competence of a court is to be determined solely by reference to this Part.

b) Real and substantial connections

(9) Without limiting the right of the plaintiff to prove other circumstances that constitute a real and substantial connection between Saskatchewan and the facts on which a proceeding is based, a real and substantial connection between SK and those facts is presumed to exist if the proceeding:

(k) is for the enforcement of a judgment of a court made in or outside SK or an arbitral award made in or outside SK

plaintiff comment (pc)

(9)The unique circumstances of being expelled from B.C. courts forcing the plaintiff to seek redress elsewhere in this unresolved labour case.

(k) Justice Southin ordered this matter in1986 back to re-arbitration after the Employer failed to return employment as recommended by her. Ensuing B.C. Courts rejected Southin j's 1986 Order to return to arbitration leaving this plaintiff in limbo.

Discretion as to the exercise of territorial competence

10(1) After considering the interests of the parties to a proceeding and the ends of justice, a court may decline to exercise its territorial competence in the proceeding on the ground that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum in which to try that proceeding.

pc Of course B.C. is the appropriate forum for this case but that would require the SK court to overturn the 'Cullen Creed'. That unwillingness on the part of the SK court is sufficient ground, it is asserted here, to exercise its residuary powers to effect justice in this case.

(2) A court, in deciding the question of whether it or a court outside SK is the more appropriate forum in which to try a proceeding, shall consider the circumstances relevant to the proceeding, including:

(f) the fair and efficient working of the Canadian legal system as a whole.

pc Is it fair for both B.C. and SK courts to deny the plaintiff any redress in this unresolved legal matter?


Transfer of Proceeding

Grounds for an order transferring a proceeding

13(1) The Court of Queen's Bench may, by order, request a court outside SK to accept a transfer of a proceeding in which the Court of Queen's Bench has both territorial and subject-matter competence if the Court of Queen's Bench is satisfied that:

(b) pursuant to section 10, the receiving court is a more appropriate forum for the proceeding than the Court of Queen's Bench.

pc a) Notice that the absolute abandonment of this issue by Megaw j. is not countenanced as, it is submitted here, he should have dealt with the matter of Employer abandonment.

 b) The issue placed before the SK court by the plaintiff is the 'ultra vires' nature of BILL 35 which any court may decide. This point had never been brought up by the Union, which claimed in 1985 that the imposed BILL 35 by the B.C. government was the 'battle of all teachers'. For example, the term 'current demonstrated ability', the only feature of this act applied to this plaintiff, is undefined in the Act or in law in general. Further, as BILL 35 was in addition to the Schools Act, it did not supplant any provisons of the School Act such as matters of teacher competency

c) insertion by the plaintiff: The arbitration exposed that there was not one but two versions of the 'Report on Teacher' by West Vancouver Principal, John Williams; one being positive and the other marked negative. My whistle blowing to the Ministry in Victoria apparently led to the enactment of BILL 35 -the Roger Callow Act -according to one Union lawyer. The SK Court is competent, it is submitted here, to deal with this aspect of a BILL since withdrawn before this case was resolved. However, As SK is not qualified to give a determination as to the propriety of the lay-off, the proper course is to order the plaintiff back on salary (including unpaid back salary plus interest dating from 1985 which belongs to him apart from judicial findings) until a finding or outside settlement is reached. Leaving the plaintiff without any recourse as Megaw j. would have it, is not an option for SK and why the matter is under Appeal. The rules of SK decree that either a matter is transferred or the SK courts make a judicial finding (apart from 'not being involved') For example, the SK Legal Society acted properly by forwarding my complaints about the legal conduct of the B.C. Employer's Harris & Co. to B.C. where that Company is licensed to practice law. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has requested that the Employer appoint new Counsel, preferably from SK, to present any further SK cases including this one relating to a 'Motion to Dismiss' should it materialize so that SK rules, not B.C. ones are applicable.

 N.B. The key to this and all hearings for the past 30 years is the disclosure of the 'secret missing memo notes' from Southin j. in 1986.

Yours truly, 


Roger Callow  December 27-2015


December 27-2015



Quebec Law Society

Maison du Barreau du Québec

445, boulevard Saint-Laurent

Montréal (Québec) H2Y 3T8

Fax: (514) 54-3407



Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive #2001

Ottawa, Ontario  K1V 9A7

tel/fax: 613-521-1739   e-mail: the callows@gmail.com


REFERENCE:                           COMPLAINT

Against Lavery, de Billy (Respondent) C.A.M. 500-09-025753-153


Lavery, de Billy LLP

Ste 4000

1 Place Ville Marie

Montreal, QC H3B 4M4



The enclosed 14 page document is self explanatory as it relates to the alleged impropriety of Lavery, de Billy in the above case.


Yours truly,  


Roger Callow   Plaintiff


cc Lavery, de Billy / West Vancouver, B.C. School Trustees



December 27-2015


REFERENCE: Gatineau; 550-17-008208-157 / C.A.M.500-09-025753-153


Justice A. Therrien

Gatineau Court House

17 Laurier Street

Gatineau, QC J8X 4C1



Roger Callow    web: employeescasecanada.com

1285 Cahill Drive #2001     N.B. note new address

Ottawa, Ontario  K1V 9A7 



1) As of the above date, this plaintiff is still not in receipt of your judgment from last June-2015 in the above noted case although an Appeal has been filed under these most unusual circumstances.

2) What I do have is an apparently bastardized account from a second 'supernumerary' judge, Goulet j.s.c which purports to account for the above omission. It makes no reference to your presence as the sitting judge.

3) I call that omission 'fraud' and referenced the matter to the Quebec Judicial Council as a complaint on August 01-2015. There was no response.

4) While a docket number was assigned this case to the Respondent, Lavery, de Billy for the Employer the West Vancouver School Trustees, there is, in fact, no filed Appeal accepted by the Montreal Appeal Court.

4) Currently, the Respondent has listed the Goulet j.s.c. Decision for a 'Request to Dismiss' on January 18-2016 in Montreal leaving this plaintiff in a position of having to defend a negative; namely, how can a legal action be dismissed when it doesn't exist on the roster in the first place? Lavery, de Billy was referenced by this plaintiff to the Quebec Legal Society for this apparent perfidy.

5) While being unique, no doubt a question raised by the Respondent de Billy to the court after the hearing before you scrapes by as being legitimate under the law.

6) Not so legitimate is the appointment of a second judge to re-open the case based on de Billy's question and write a judgment. I call that fraudulent action 'running a court within a court' and submit both judges should be removed from the bench for an obvious conspiracy.

7) Should the January 18-2015 hearing proceed without the publication of your version of events, the entire Quebec Justice System of Premier Couillard implodes under the conditions outlined above.


Your truly,



Roger Callow  Plaintiff


cc QC Premier P. Couillard / P.M. Rt. Hon. J. Trudeau

RCMP (Montreal fraud detail)

Quebec Judicial Council / Quebec Legal Society

West Vancouver School Trustees (Respondent Employer)

QC Appeal Court Hearing C.A.M. 500-09-02753-153

SCofC Hon. R. Abella