(INTERNET TITLE: MB APPLICATION.Oct.09-2019

SEE employeescasecanada.ca 2019 OCTOBER Sub-Heading above)

THE QUEEN'S BENCH

WINNIPEG Centre

Law Courts Building Main Floor

408 York Avenue

Winnipeg, MB R3C 0P9

Registry Office t: (204) 945-0344 f: (204) 948-2369

(address of court house)

SENT BY MAIL with $225.00 fee (9 pages plus EXHIBIT A - 3 pages)

FORM 62B

APPLICATION

ORIGINATING PROCESS

BETWEEN:

ROGER CALLOW

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

Plaintiff/applicant

- and -

1)Board of School Trustees

(School District #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)

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

tel: 604-981-1000 fax: 604-981-1001 SENT BY FAX Defendant #1

and

2) West Vancouver Teachers Association (Local School District Number 45)

ATTN: Renee Willock - President

4915 Marine Drive

West Vancouver, B.C. V7W 2P5

tel: 604-926-1617 fax: 604-926-1119 SENT BY FAX Defendant #2

AFFIDAVIT OF ROGER CALLOW

(name of party)

I, ROGER CALLOW, of the PROVINCE of OTTAWA, ONTARIO,

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

(name of party) (city, town, etc.) (name of city, town, etc.)

in the Province of ONTARIO, MAKE OATH AND SAY (OR AFFIRM):

(Where the deponent is a party, lawyer, officer, director, partner, proprietor, member or employee of a party, set out the deponent's capacity)

1. I am the self-represented applicant, and as such have personal knowledge of the facts and matters hereinafter deposed to by me save and except where same are stated to be based upon information and belief, in which case I verily believe them to be true.

2. (Tell your story in numbered paragraph form. Insert as many numbered pages as needed to disclose all relevant facts)

AFFIDAVIT of FACTS

I, Roger Callow of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, swear and affirm the following is true:

1. I turned 65 on August 24, 2006, which brought into play my pension rights;

2. My pension rights are determined on the basis of contributions to the plan, both mine and the employers;

3. The amount of these contributions is dependent on the date of termination of my employment;

4. Because I was a tenured teacher, my employment could only be determined by a proper legal process;

5. In my case the validity of the termination has never been determined. Technically although I was unable to work and was not paid, I remained a teacher under the employment of the Board;

6.I require that a proper termination date be determined, or a settlement be achieved providing me compensation which would include pensionable service benefits. Currently, an ON Teachers' Pension(early B.C. plus ON)is being received

7. The pension inquiries caused me to examine how I could get compensation or a termination date determined considering that I was expelled from British Columbia in this unresolved legal matter for 'reasons best known to a judge' (Cullen Creed) in 2013. There is no other remedy I can pursue other than as requested in this petition

8. Whatever approach is made, disclosure as outlined above is at the root of any successful remedy.

AFFIRMED : in the Province of Ontario (Ottawa) on October 09, 2019

Roger Callow (signed) Appellant

2. The Plaintiff claims: (State the precise relief claimed. Then set out in separate, consecutively numbered paragraphs each allegation of material fact relied on to substantiate the claim and the precise relief claimed. Attach as many pages as needed.)

a) This charge of civil fraud and my request solely for disclosure a priori follows on the recent actions of British Columbia Supreme Court Chief Justice Hinckson (2018 and September 2019) and others in courts in Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia in their respective judiciaries in a British Columbia based Labour Case.

b) Over 50 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada on 4 occasions (2004 - 'ultimate remedy') have refused to call for the necessary disclosure underlining this case thus forestalling any settlement. That disclosure which is limited to the meeting notes of the Defendant School Board in June of 1985 are known in which two of the five School Board Trustees called for my senior teacher lay-off under the neophyte conditions of the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985) which was 'in addition to 'the Schools Act and did not supplant any part of it'. The arbitration favouring the Employer was quashed and the arbitrator ruled patently unreasonable for failing to show a 'causal factor'. As the affected party, I was left in limbo. During the trial Justice Southin of the B.C. Supreme Court called for all meeting notes from that June meeting of the Board (re-visited in July 15-1985) which she later returned 'because she did not use them. Other material supplied in the Arbitration but conspicuous by its absence from his Decision illustrate most clearly, it is alleged here, that a fraud had indeed taken place. For example, there is no mention of the testimony of Deputy Superintendent Bill May responsible for staffing, whom claimed that there was no need to lay off any teacher in West Vancouver in June of 1985.

c) While the general notes of the Employer meeting showed an actual increase in teachers with positions that I could have held; a second meeting was held by their legal counsel, Stuart Clyne on July 15 supplanting the original June lay-off notice after it was known that I was contesting the Board's action in which, Southin j. 'sniffed' in court, in a meeting which did not include the entire Board of 5 members. It is those latter minute meeting notes which, it is submitted here, illustrate a fraud of immense proportions. Unfortunately, when she returned the documents to the two sides, the Union purloined my copy from the legal counsel which I employed and has refused ever since to provide me a copy. Two cases specifically against the Union for this disclosure have been mounted in PEI and Victoria, B.C. Other events have superseded those actions as illustrated in the letter to B.C. Attorney David Eby with an enclosure to P.M. Trudeau on the topic of Hinckson cj's September 2019 perfidy.

d) No compensation has been paid in 34 years in this unresolved legal case (now includes pension rights) so that technically, I am still an employee of the West Vancouver School Board awaiting deferred salary.

e) By failing to call for disclosure, B.C. Justice Hinckson cj has abetted a fraud reflected in the failure of over 50 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada over a period of 34 years to call for the all important disclosure which, it is alleged here, would demonstrate fraud. The Defendants did not file an appearance in 2018 making, in law, my presentation legally as a default matter of fact.

f) The nature of the Hinckson's cj 'oblique' action, particularly in September of 2019, (SEE 3-page letter denoted as EXHIBIT A) has impaired continuing in B.C. Courts by this appellant. SEE also employeescasecanada.ca 2018 HINCKSON cj FRAUD

g) It is due to the failure of the oversight bodies in both the Justice System and Government to acknowledge serious malfeasance by specific judges which explains why their names are being included in this filing and others although I do not call for anything further than a priori disclosure of the aforesaid July 15-1985 disclosure. The court may decide how to proceed on those other charges apart from this disclosure.

(i) Ottawa Supreme Court Justices C. McKinnon and R. Scott whom, it is alleged here, conspired with the Employer's Ontario lawyer, Hicks, Morley et al to pervert the course of Justice in this case in 2014. The latter has since dropped representing the Employer. It is this fraud which permeates cases in all other venues. Three versions of the McKinnon judgment exist, none referencing the existence of the other.

(ii) Those other venues lie in Quebec, Saskatchewan (2016 & 2019), Nova Scotia (2017) British Columbia (2018 and 2019). The alleged fraud in Saskatchewan relates to an Appeal Court which held a secret voir dire with the Respondent Employer in 2016 without my knowledge in which it was agreed that they would not be heard in court to answer my charges vis a vis the inclusion of the Ontario material of McKinnon j./Scott j. Nor was disclosure called for as I requested. In addition Surety payments were made without a proper court Order. The 2019 conspiracy action forwarded to the oversight authorities relates to Saskatoon QBG 52 0f 2019 and an apparent court conspiracy involving three judges under the aegis of Justice Konkin; now to be heard in New Brunswick.

(iii) The role of Vancouver's Harris & Co. for the Employer runs throughout all these accusations of judicial malfeasance and is now named along with the above judges for examination by the oversight bodies plus an action being laid in New Brunswick. The oversight bodies appear to be working in league with this legal outfit in what is best termed as 'running a court within a court'. The depths of that perfidy should be revealed with disclosure for if a criminal fraud charge may be laid, which is beyond the purview of this plaintiff, everything flowing from the original action is 'null and void'. Further, if both Respondents do not appear as has happened in other venues, this plaintiff's accusation must be accepted by the court as fact; namely that a fraud does indeed exist as perpetrated by named personnel in this factum:

5/28/2019 Gmail - Your case in Alberta Courts - important

NI Gmail Roger Callow <rcallow770@gmail.com>

Your case in Alberta Courts - important

2 messages

26 May 2019 at 12:43

To: rcallow770@gmail.com

I am a litigant subject to the vexatious litigant judgment in Ontario.

I will be making an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

I can see from Canlii that Justice Thomas made an order against you on the inherent jurisdiction of the court Callow v West Vancouver

Teacher's Association (Local School District Number 45), 2019 ABQB 353 (CanLII)

Justice Thomas copied this directly from the order of Justice Corbett in Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2019 ONCA 359(CanLII) and Peoples

Trust Company v Atas, 2018 ONSC 58 (CanLII), (my highlighting)

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently granted leave to appeal in Vuong Van Tai Holding Inc v Alberta (Minister of Justice and Solicitor

General), 2019 ABCA 165 (CanLII) and suggested that Makis v Alberta Health Services, 2019 ABCA 23 (CanLII), and Lymer (Re), 2018 ABCA 368

(CanLII) be heard together. The NSRLP obtained leave to intervene in Jonsson v Lymer, 2019 ABCA 113 (CanLII)

I spoke with one of the lawyers and they have agreed to have appeals heard together and the main issue will be the court making vexatious

litigant order on the inherent jurisdiction of the court

The order that was made against you was also made on the inherent jurisdiction and without the attorney general

Please email me to discuss

ADDENDUM: The Saskatoon hearing judge on May 25-2019 made reference to the Thomas j. action. (R.C.). He did not provide a written judgment as I requested.

i) As it would take a special prosecutor to pursue the charges against the judges above and because this part of the charge is of limited interest to this plaintiff, details of their perfidy is not included. A short recommendation from the court for the Minister of Justice to investigate should suffice here.

REMEDY SOUGHT

1) The focus of the remedy is to produce disclosure a priori in order to define the nature of the fraud which over 50 judges to date have failed to provide. That charge applies to both of the respondents for their copies of the July 15-1985 meeting notes. The conditions for disclosure are different from the Employer and Union. As a Union client, I have a right to be informed. The court may have to order the RCMP (Montreal Fraud Squad has a dossier) to seize these documents. One approach, should the Defendants not willingly produce these records is to set a fine of $500 per day for a period of 30 days after which the RCMP should be called in.

2) The Employer refuses to pay compensation without a court order on the grounds that the court has no oversight powers over imposed legislation which is currently a topic regarding Manitoba's challenge to the imposed Carbon Tax (or facsimile). The question to be asked here is how the Province may reject imposed legislation in the macrocosm only to accept imposed legislation in the microcosm of this case? In short, to put it in the vernacular, they cannot 'suck and blow' at the same time. (The Employer owes compensation even under BILL 35 conditions)

3) This plaintiff was laid-off from his senior teaching position in West Vancouver, B.C. in June of 1985 under the conditions of the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985). The Employer lost their Appeal in B.C. Court on that jurisdictional point. The lower court had quashed the arbitration in their favour ruling the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable for failing to show a causal factor. As the plaintiff, I have been left in limbo for the past 34 years.

4) The disclosure sought is for the minutes of the School Board Trustees in West Vancouver of June 1985 as revised on July 15-1985 which Justice Mary Southin called for and then returned to the Employer and the lawyer I hired to replace lawyers favouring the Union case. If the latter had turned my copy over to me rather than to the Union, we would not be here today. Under a Freedom of Information Request in 2004, I learned that two out of the five trustees had approved the lay-off under Bill 35; namely, Chairperson, Margo Furk, and her successor, Mike Smith.

5) As my salary was curtailed on November 04, 1985 before this arbitration was held, (a point challenged by the Union in the arbitration), I have been without compensation since that time (includes Pension rights for 13 years as the School Board did not recognize my retirement notice to them). Justice Southin did not see fit to return me to salary; a 'stunt', according to my then legal counsel, Harry Rankin, that she could not get away with. Well, she has 'got away with it up to the present day' including her second sitting on this case as the leading judge of an Appeal Case launched by me at the turn of the millennium. (She retired in 2004).

THE ABOVE TWO TOPICS UNDER THE HEADINGS OF 'CONCISE STATEMENT' AND 'REMEDY SOUGHT' IS MY COMPLETE CASE ALTHOUGH I AM PREPARED TO PROVIDE FURTHER MATERIAL ON REQUEST BY THE COURT.

DUE TO THE LINK WITH THE IMPOSED CARBON TAX, A COPY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING PROVIDED TO PREMIER PALLISTER AND PM TRUDEAU

Further, the tone of Deputy Registrar J. Wiggett's letter included here as to non-compliance is unacceptable. Granted that this is a convoluted case and earlier forms sought the inclusion of Premier Pallister in an intervener role with reference to the constitutional question. He never replied explaining why now I reference this case to the Prime Minister of Canada and the new Minister of Justice after the October 21 Federal Election. Deputy Registrar Wiggett should not be permitted to summarily dispense with this case on any 'whim'. If need be, turn the matter over to a Chief Justice for the purpose of examination.

The above Appellant, Roger Callow affirms that a copy of this action has been provided to the two Appellants on October 09-2019 by fax which have avoided Replies for the most part for a number of years. Hence it is clear that only a court order will suffice to produce the necessary July 15-1985 disclosure requested above. No court hearing under these circumstances is necessary. Either I get my said disclosure a priori, which is a basic right of habeas corpus, or I do not.

Yours truly,

Roger Callow Appellant.

encl.

1) Premier Pallister / PM Trudeau / Minister of Justice after October Federal Election (October 21-2019) SENT BY FAX

2) Three page letter to Premier Pallister dated October 07-2019 cc PM Trudeau

marked EXHIBIT A