RED NECK NEWS - 2006
(PULITZER PRIZE anyone? or Why the B.C. North Shore News has delisted contact with me. Read on and see the whole conspiracy unfold)
Want to help? Residents of the North Shore should tell advertisers in the North Shore News why they are boycotting their business.
Jan./07 - NOTE: The
North Shore News is a community newspaper catering to many judges and their ilk
resident in North and West Vancouver.
In many ways the above article is symbolic of a Canadian media intent on ‘not getting the story’. All Canadians are the poorer for such blatant support of this ‘Old Boys’ Club’ mentality.
'...She knew journalists. Some were intelligent, many stupid. A few believed in telling the truth; the majority just wrote the most sensational story they could get away with....' Whiteout Ken Follett
NORTH SHORE NEWS (B.C.)
December 19 /06 - Research
has produced this gem from the North Shore News dated 04/06/03/04/23/03. All
media as a courtesy have been asked to forward accounts on the Employee's Case
(Canada) to this writer. www.employeescase.com
Presumably, the above 'red rag' (see two other articles on this topic in this
newspaper under 'MEDIA' on website.) ‘forgot’ to forward a copy of this
following 'Old Boys' Club’ disinformation account. (Of course I would have
requested equal time for rebuttal should I have been made aware of this article
at the time.) My observations on the article follow in italics.
Laidoff W. Van teacher no longer can sue
Colin Wright email@example.com
As far as a B.C. Supreme Court judge is concerned, a former West Vancouver teacher who was terminated 17 years ago by the trustees of West Vancouver School District 45, has exhausted all his legal options in his quest to get his job back.
1) It has not been established in a court of law that , as the targeted individual, I was indeed laid off by the school trustees. Probably not, according to information produced in the arbitration which was later quashed by the courts as a means, I submit, of covering-up this strategic information. The court ordered the matter back to arbitration. As the School Board had already contravened the School Act by cutting my salary before the arbitration was completed and as the judge failed to re-instate salary until the renewed arbitration, the School District believed they were under no compunction to do anything.
2) What is basically at question here is appropriate financial compensation which is governed in this case by contract. Williamson would see no compensation to flow in this case and yet all parties - the Employer, the Union, and myself as the targeted teacher- all agreed that some compensation was due under the contract and the terms of the lay-off. That is why his judgment is unconscionable, particularly as it was the courts which earlier ordered a re-arbitration. Surely they had an obligation to see that the re-arbitration was held in this career-ending decision. As such Williamson was merely ducking out of his legal responsibilities in this matter.
3) Justice Southin noted in her judgment (1986) in which she quashed
the arbitration ruling, as she did, that the arbitrator had been ‘patently
unreasonable’ and that ‘nothing was adduced in evidence which would suggest
that the School Trustees intended to lay-off a teacher in June of 1985'. She
recommended that employment ‘should’ (as opposed to ‘must’) be returned to
Callow. Williamson would gloss over this material and defer to the
Union/Employer argument which follows.
In dismissing two recent lawsuits that teacher Roger Callow had brought against the West Vancouver Teachers’ Association (WVTA) and the school district, Justice Paul Williamson took the relatively rare judicial step of invoking Section 18 of the Supreme Court of B.C. that orders Callow not to launch further legal proceedings in any court without leave (permission) of the court.
In effect, a muzzle order
which placed me ‘outside the law’ in this unresolved case; a first for any
In his reasons for judgment, Williamson said “this plaintiff (Callow) has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious legal proceedings in this court. The grounds and issues have been rolled forward from one proceeding to the next. The same issues have been raised repeatedly in circumstances where it is obvious the action cannot succeed.”
Williamson is merely mimicking the Employer/Union argument. The only issue discussed was whether I could represent myself in court against the Union’s objection to finalize this legal matter. I believed that I had that power anyway but in this case of over 30 judges up to and
including the Supreme
Court of Canada on two occasions, the answer was a repeated ‘no’ leaving this
case ‘unresolved’. That is how the Canadian Justice System imploded due to
Lloyd McKenzie, information officer for the B.C. Court of Appeal and the B.C. Supreme Court, said such orders do happen periodically.
Oh, oh, the beginning of
the disinformation by drawing in authorities whose pronouncements will be
twisted to support the reporter’s point of view.
“There are people who take lawsuits before the court without substance,” McKenzie said. “And, occasionally such orders have to be made.. There are people who are consistent suers. It becomes a vocation for them and they just flail away at the proverbial dead horse.”
I read those case studies. None of them even
remotely connect to the Employee’s Case (Canada). Williamson made up the law on
this case. However, the reporter has established in the reader’s mind that we
are dealing with a whacko; all it requires now is to acquire a few whacko
quotes from Callow’s web site to prove that ‘all is
well in authority land’. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Callow, who now lives in Ottawa, taught at West Vancouver’s Hillside junior high (since demolished)- surely Wright is not going to blame me for that one although I wouldn’t put it past him!- from 1969 to 1984. Hillside was a full secondary school.
In 1984, he transferred to West Vancouver secondary where he taught social studies but, within a year, he was suddenly laid off. On his Web site, Callow states he was laid off for “whistleblowing” but what whistle he blew, and why, is not explained.
Oh yes it is. No wonder Wright didn’t include
the web address in his report.
Nevertheless, he’s been fighting his layoff through the B.C. court system ever since, and, despite Williamson’s March 11 ruling, Callow says his legal battle will continue.
“It will be appealed,” he told the North Shore News when contacted at his Ottawa home. ‘My legal counsel is preparing the appeal now. We have 30 days to appeal it and I’ll be posting it on my Web site.”
Again, no web site
address. This was the sum total and only conversation I ever had with the North
Shore News although reading on in this report, one is left with the impression
that many other things were said.
Callow’s trip through the B.C. judicial system and the Labor Relations Board (LRB) began in 1985 when, after being terminated, he grieved his termination under the B.C. School Act and on Jan. 28, his grievance was dismissed. By the arbitrator.
Next, the WVTA (Union) sought a judicial review of the case on Callow’s behalf in which the court ruled the arbitrator had erred in his award and sent the matter back to the arbitrator for a re-hearing on specific issues. The trustees board appealed this decision, but the B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed it.
A long way from what
Justice Southin said in her indictment. Who peddled
this line to a gullible Wright, ...the Union?
For the next two years, according to Williamson’s synopsis, Callow “was involved in a dispute with the association on how the re-hearing should be conducted” - but in November of 1989, the arbitrator died.
Without placing individual School Trustees on the stand to testify to lay-off figures (16 new positions created with no lay-offs), which the Union would not do and why the authorities not incorrectly felt they were looking at a ‘sweetheart deal’, there is no case. With that much said, there was nothing stopping the School Trustees from returning to court which they would have, I submit, if I had been retained on salary as per contract regulations.
Callow surfaced again six years later, this time to petition the B.C. Supreme Court to set aside the arbitrator’s award, quash the dismissal and reinstate him in his job with the West Vancouver school district.
How do you ‘quash’
something that does not exist in the first place? ...’alleged’ dismissal.
Wright has me defending a negative which is an impossibility.
However, the courts ruled they had no jurisdiction in the matter and that Callow was bound by the settlement reached by its association. Callow tried to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, but was denied an appeal there.
That’s the whole point.
The Union never signed any settlement despite my legal Counsel’s insistence on
that point. Otherwise, I would have been in a legal position to sue them
leaving the whole sorry mess to be publicized...and that would never do. See
web site regarding the failure of the Supreme Court to hear the ‘universality
of Unions’ question which continues to go unanswered and explains why NHL
Hockey Player Yashin was also denied status to have
his case heard while a ballet dancer with Union Association membership was
heard and even won in court. That’s why we are looking at a massive political
football. (Professor Martin in his book on the topic labeled the Supreme Court
of Canada as being ‘highly political’)
Callow then took the dispute before the LRB, but it was dismissed on first hearing and dismissed again on reconsideration. Callow then applied to the B.C. Court of Appeal for a judicial review of the LRB’s decision, but that appeal process was also denied. Meanwhile Callow had launched lawsuits against the WVTA and the West Vancouver school district (seeking $1 million in damages from the former and $2 million from the latter) for “conspiring to terminate his employment and refusing to reinstate him.”
This paragraph must have
been written in the editorial offices of the Union. Conspicuous by its absence
is the fact that the Union dropped representation of the case while one and at
the same time refusing Callow the necessary legal sanction (I always believed I
had that anyway) to finalize the issue with the School District. As the School
Trustees dropped their ‘dollar offer’, the courts would now have no choice but
to intervene in this matter and finalize the case.( Subsequent to this article,
a second Appeal was made to the Supreme Court of Canada on the grounds that
desertion of this unresolved case by both the School Trustees and the
Union called the court’s rule of ‘inherent jurisdiction’ into play to finalize
the matter. See web site for that ‘Preamble’ which serves as an indictment of
the Canadian judiciary. In effect, the judiciary permitted the Employer/Union
to stall in this ‘sweetheart’ case until they deserted the matter; that is what
the Supreme Court of Canada condoned as they were the only court to deal with
the case after the desertion.
A master of the B.C. Supreme Court dismissed both these applications. In the most recent decision against Callow, Williamson cited a 1990 Alberta Court of Appeal judgment that indicated once a person is represented by an association in a collective bargaining circumstance “he lost his right to self-representation.”
Our point exactly. The
Union must sign a settlement...then I have the legal right to sue them. One of
the more despicable acts by the Justice System, and there were many, was when
the Employer, the Union and the LRB appeared before the master in question
without my presence as I had been kept totally in the dark as to the hearing
date. The Vancouver Justice System refused to investigate that gross piece of
miscarriage of justice. The Appeal Judge also chose to ignore this major
The current legal issue, Callow said, involves disclosure. He claims the West Vancouver school board is obligated to produce the documents and minutes from the meetings at which his layoff was discussed and provide the reasons why he was laid off. Wright implies a conversation with me which he did not have. He’s merely reading my web site. The documents in question were provided to Justice Southin at her request in 1986. As such, the Union was in possession of a copy of said documents. The Union steadfastly refused and no judge would order those documents to be turned over to me. Documents in my possession would suggest that, indeed, Justice Southin’s statement in 1986 was correct; namely, that I was not laid off by the School Trustees. Evidence from the quashed arbitration from the Assistant Superintendent, Bill May, responsible for staffing - conspicuous by its absence from the arbitrator’s report - was that the School Trustees did not recommend the lay-off of any teacher in June of 1985 thus confirming Justice Southin’s observation.
In the wake of Williamson’s order, Callow said he has written to the Canadian Judicial Council of Judges (CJCJ) to investigate Williamson on the grounds of “a gross dereliction of duty”. Again, Wright has picked that up from my web site..
Callow notes that if the CJCJ does not see fit to conduct such investigation “it should close up shop.” from web site. The CJCJ have their own problems...see earlier comments by Professor Martin.
APR/06 - many letters deleted due to space
"In Canada, if an issue falls in a forest and it goes unreported in the press, it does not make a sound"
B.C. Columnist Doug Collins The Jerry Springer of the North Shore News fined for carrying one of his racist columns. His epitath: 'Zapped by the Jewish Lobby,1999; corpse to follow'
'While no-one would question Collins' personal war record (WWII veteran), does anyone know which side he fought on?...Does Doug Collins?( BLACK ROGER c.1986)
Get This Straight(c. 1986)
'...The teacher who was dumped was Roger Callow, and his dismissal (whatever happened to 'lay-off with recall rights'?) will go into the history books along with other great happenings like the invention of the steam engine and the telephone.' (you may yet be right here, Doug)'...Can you remember any other teacher being shown the door for incompetence?...The revolutionary heave-ho of which I speak became possible because the Socreds have brought in BILL 35 (dead on, Doug)...As far as Mr. Callow is concerned, I cannot say whether he is in fact incompetent...(Why not? You did everywhere else in your diatribe)...Enter Mrs. Margot Furk, the schoolboard woman from West Vancouver who looks meek, but isn't...(she looks about as meek as Attila the Hun...and to think Dougy was also criticized for being anti-female) She was one of the leading lobbyists for BILL 35 (Don't forget the role of John Reynolds, local MPP now the federal justice critic for the Reform Party for Christ's sake!) and voted for Callow's removal...'How was it possible, I asked her, that a man who had been employed for 17 years could be incompetent?' "Because in the past no one had the guts to do anything about him," she added smartly...UP THE REVOLUTION' (I'll try, Doug, I'll try...but it seems the revolution has already hoisted you on your own petard and from the sounds of your squealing, you don't like walking the proverbial mile in my boots...Oh, well, I think those boots are far too big for you anyway...so, Doug...enjoy,enjoy the revolutionary heave ho....
ADDENDUM No column from Collins after Arbitration thrown out by the Supreme Court of B.C.
Purple writing ...so you thought columnist Doug Collins could not be outdone? Read on...
Try this editorial c1986 from the North Shore News, Collins' paper which is delivered regularly to the doorstep of the 'meek' school trustee, Margo Furk, and her ilk. (If nothing else, Doug, West Vancouver may be known for many things but I don't believe it has ever been known to be meek and, contrary to the parable, they do expect to rule the earth, the justice system notwithstanding!)
In response to the editorial, employers may indeed remove an employee for any trumped up accusation; as long as they are prepared to pay appropriate compensation. What happened here is that the skinflint School Board believed that by 'laying off' an employee with so-called recall rights, those so-called 'responsible' school board trustees could escape their compensatory obligations. That is one of the reasons why this case affects the rights and interests of every Canadian employee.
Friday, September 19, 1986 - North Shore News News Viewpoint
Right to fire
So West Vancouver School Board has announced it is going to spend another $10,000 to appeal a Supreme Court decision that ruled against the board for firing long-time teacher Roger Callow.
The board's plan to appeal comes after Justice Mary Southin ruled that arbitrator Louis Lindholm should not have approved the firing of the 44-year-old social studies teacher under Bill 35 last year.
B.C. Teacher's Federation took the board to court over the arbitrator's decision, expressing its fear that the firing would set a precedent, whereby teachers would be fired without sufficient reason.
But the Board claims it fired Callow because he did not show present demonstrated ability, and the teachers are not arguing that point!
What has the world come to when an employer cannot fire an employee because he is not doing his job effectively? Are the rest of the teachers so insecure about their own present demonstrated abilities that they have to band together like a group of superstitious old women, fighting off an enemy that doesn't exist?
And now the school board plans to sink a further $10,000 of taxpayer's money, on top of the over $15,000 it has already spent, into an appeal that should never have warranted a court case in the first place.
Let's quit wasting time, money and energy on court battles, and have qualified teachers teach our children, and the responsible school board members manage our education system.
(presumably an election makes school trustees responsible...If so, why did they not do the responsible thing and take the stand and 'perjure' themselves as to lay-off numbers? As the press boycotted this high profile case in the first place, how can they claim to know what went on ...or do they really care about good journalistic principles? RWC)
OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER PAUL MARTIN
(Abridged texts rewritten for purpose of newspaper clarity) www.magma.ca/~callow
by R.W. Callow PHONE/FAX: (613) 521-1739
1) In June of 1985, the West Vancouver School District purportedly laid off senior teacher, Roger Callow. 'Purportedly' because Justice Southin who quashed the arbitration in support of the School Board decision in 1986 claimed that nowhere did the School Board demonstrate a desire to lay off a teacher. As the targeted teacher present at that arbitration, I know for a certainty that they did not approve of the lay-off thus putting the lie to the Superintendent's letter to that effect.
2) The three parties to the action - the Employer, the Teachers Union, and myself as the affected party - all agreed that compensation was due although we disagreed as to the amount. That is why we went to court in the first place, to adjudge liability. Should the lay-off have been adjudged legitimate that would imply one level of compensation. Equally so, should the lay-off have been illegitimate, which is my assertion, a second level of compensation would be called for.
3) After 19 years and over 30 judges up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada, we still have no decision. The current round of legal activity by the combined forces of the Employer and Union under the frivolous and vexatious laws would, if they succeed, drive this teacher out of the justice system without giving an answer to at least two judges who stated that, as the affected party, I had a right to a judicial decision in this matter.
4) In essence, what the School Board cannot get through the front door of the legal system is being obtained through the back door in that a de facto validation of the results of the quashed arbitration are being applied. I label this action as the "The West Vancouver School Trustee tail wagging the Canadian judicial dog".
5) The judges, in their wisdom, have in this process sanctioned the 'sweetheart deal'. Due to precedent law in this case: a) an employer may escape his financial responsibilities by laying off employees as opposed to terminating them;
b) an employer may curtail salary provisions before any legal challenge is made to their action as has been customary to date thus robbing the employee of any leverage in obtaining a timely settlement, or in this case, any settlement at all;
c) an employee with Union or Association membership is barred from court except through the representation of his Union or Association whom may abandon the case without fear of suffering any repercussions from the employee.
That has not been the legal situation to date.
6) verbatim: "At the very least, the above nineteen year 'billable time' exercise in a matter which should never have seen a court room in the first place, reflects the fact that the government should not cave in to the 17% increase in salaries demanded by Canada's senior judges. If anything, spend the money on a legal reform committee with an eye to displacing the rule of the judges with a system in which the 'law of the land' will prevail.
July 25/05 - letters omitted due to space
MESSAGE: Legislating is for legislators, not judges (Ottawa Citizen editorial Oct. 10/2003)
'...as a common law country, judges have always made law in Canada through their judicial rulings. But we'd prefer they leave the drafting of legislation to the people we elect to do that job - and that our legislators stopped passing the buck to the courts.'
This simplistic message is at the heart of the Employee's Case as it ignores and hence excuses the role of the Canadian media in failing to protect our democracy. Indeed, it is due to their current boycott of the above case by which I make the claim that the anti-employee Canadian media is being downright hypocritical. Here's why.
The 'Old Boy's Club' is entrenched in all facets of our leadership; mainly through the offices of the lawyers who are entrenched in our courts and governments which regrettably extends into our press as well. The blunt point is that, in terms of the above editorial, there is in fact no buck being passed. Rather what we have is collusion on a massive scale. In terms of press failure, few realize that the sweetheart deal in Canada has been officially recognized by the Canadian justice system from the above case although they will be soon to appreciate that point as this matter will work its way through the legal system like a cancer as lawyers refer to the above precedent- setting case. Further, it has also been established that employers may now evade their financial responsibilities in terminating employees by merely laying them off complete with fictional recall rights as happened here.
Examine the basic problem from the point of view of the West Vancouver School Trustees. Faced with an alleged fraud (documented evidence) on the part of Principal John Williams regarding his professional written report on senior teacher Roger Callow, the Board realized that they could not go the route of trumped up evidence of dismissing the teacher for incompetency as had been the case seven years prior under Principal Jim Carter at the same school for another senior teacher.(Carter was the Deputy Minister of Education in Victoria at the time of Callow's lay-off.) Hence Bill 35, a bogus document dealing with so-called economic lay-off for teachers was to be the answer. The Union backed off when they realized that they had a vested interest in supporting a School Board lay-off. Should Callow be successful in his bid, for example, a second teacher would be laid off and so-on at $50,000 per trial until the proper individual was selected for lay-off. Further, at that time the Union represented principals so that in all likelihood they would be faced with a similar cost for Williams should he be dismissed. Legal Counsel J.S. Clyne, who represented the Board in both trials, would of necessity have had to convince the trustees that the press publicity which followed the dismissed teacher case in 1978 (see web site) would not be pursued in Callow's case. The fact that the School District added rather than reduced staff in 1985 cinched the case against them but with no press coverage at the arbitration hearing, the gerrymandered appointed arbitrator felt free to ignore the facts and ruled in favour of the School District with the subsequent blessing of the press (see web site "North Shore News").
After changing lawyers, the Union had little choice but to support my bid to appeal which went ahead before Justice Mary Southin in 1986. She was initially enraged at the obvious complicity of the authorities and demanded all School Board meeting records relating to the lay-off which meant that the Union would also receive a copy. What she must have learned to her chagrin, of course, was the high level of complicity involving not only the government and arbitration but the media as well and accounts for all efforts being made to derail this case starting with her and, as I have detailed in my web site, has been at the expense of letting judge-made law become a reality in Canada. For example, a case in point is the rather pathetic conspiracy of the B.C. Labour Board, the Employer, and the Union to attend a court hearing on Sept. 30/02 without my knowledge (even though I had been in contact in the preceeding week with the two litigants). The key to that so-called misunderstanding is the criminal failure of the B.C. Court system to investigate that misdemeanor. More recently, Justice Williamson, in his infamous 'muzzle law' has forbidden me to appear in court on any issue (I currently have a conspiracy action laid against the two parties; a preventative clause constrains me from including the B.C. Labour Board in that charge). That appeal is to be heard on Jan. 9/04 in B.C. Appeal Court. Neither the Union nor the Employer will provide me with a copy of the meeting notes which I submit would point out that Superintendent Carlin (also active in the 1978 case as well) perjured himself in the arbitration as regards to his lay-off letter and the need to lay off a teacher with School Board support. Both parties claim that it is not the role of the court to call on this evidence. As the evidence has already been placed on file with the court in 1986, I submit that the court under Williams was deficient in not providing me with my rightful copy of such information under the disclosure rules.
So in effect there is no 'buck passing' as the simplistic and misleading Citizen editorial would gull their audience into thinking. If anything, what is being peddled is the 'bull' as well known to such anti-employee media as the Ottawa Citizen (see web site). Obviously they would be much happier publishing in Nazi Germany although they would publicly deny that point.
While the Employee's Case has changed the nature of Canada forever as far as employment concerns are involved, that action pales against the 'muzzle law' of Justice Williamson which affects all Canadians and, as such, hits at the very underpinnings of our democracy for what he has authorized has been 'the right of a court to operate within a court'. What was he afraid of should he have permitted my conspiracy charges to go ahead against the Union and Employer?...justice?
One thing now appears apparent; if the media is required to save Canadian democracy, it is unlikely to be the Canadian media.
... latterly, a very defensive Dave Brown reluctantly attended a session with my legal Counsel in January/ 2002, no doubt at the insistence of his Editor, to declare this issue a 'non-item'...but then, Russell Mills is gone and still the media blackout holds.... (2015 - in retirement, it was a very different Dave Brown with whom I had a telephone conversation)
Even American judges
treat Canada with contumely; (L.A. terrorist trial) "I'm disturbed that the tape recordings
don't exist anymore. Apparently that's the Canadian way of doing things....I
find the conditions placed on that person's testimony by the Canadian
government to be totally unacceptable. We're not running a Canadian trial here;
we're running a trial under the rules of the U.S. Constitution." U.S.