JUMP TO HOME PAGE

NOVA SCOTIA LEGAL ACTION (Dec. 16-2016) #458698

March 10-2017

 

TO: Board of School Trustees                                             FROM: Roger Callow 

(S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)                                       1285 Cahill Drive East #2001

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9      Ottawa ON K1V 9A7

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                        tel: 613-521-1739                        

SENT BY FAX  (2 pages plus 2 March 08 letter)          employescasecanada.ca

                                                                                               

REFERENCE : Harris & Co.  for the Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver, B.C.) Letter of March 09-2017 regarding Nova Scotia  458698

ATTN: G. Litherland esq.

14th Flr. 550 Burrard St.

Vancouver, B.C. V6C2B5

tel: 604-684-6633  fax: 604-684-6632

   

cc Premier McNeil/ P.M. Trudeau / Court 458698 / RCMP

 

MESSAGE:

1) The letter from B.C. Harris & Co. dated March 09-2017 has an eerie tone to it as it apes 32 years of judicial actions before over 50 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada on 4 inconclusive occasions in the unresolved senior teacher lay-off of former West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985 under the auspices of the imposed BILL 35. No compensation has been paid (now includes pension rights) hence this case cannot be res judicata as nothing has been resolved in this continuous action.

2) That is why the appeal is now to the executive powers of the Prime Minister and yet P.M. Trudeau with all his man-power available to him is unable to find someone to untie this Gordian Knot. Considering extensive fraud is involved by both the Employer and the Courts of law, Trudeau could even send in the RCMP which has a record of these alleged frauds considering that the RCMP don't listen to me paralleling my court experiences.

3) Nor do the selected judges listen to me preferring to write their decisions quite apart from my legal arguments acting, in that process, as agents for the Employer.

4) Hence this Appeal to the Premiers of the provinces to intervene is made in order to retain court credibility without which the provincial citizens are left with nothing but the streets in their search for justice. That is now the state of affairs in Premiers Wall's SK and Couillard's QC  and now, it would appear, to be the case for Premier McNeil's Nova Scotia if he and the teachers at large do not become active. Teachers must MAKE NOISE now.

 

MARCH 09 LETTER from Harris & Co.

5) Originally, the 'case-neutral'  constitutional question laid by me did not require any presence from the Defendant Employer as the question is essentially one raised earlier by the Employer, but ignored, by the court in Ontario #13-59060 (McKinnon j). In brief, the question asked relates to the oversight powers of the court as they relate to imposed legislation. In the  Employee's Case (Canada), the Employer refuses to recognize the court's action of quashing the arbitration favouring the School Board ruling, as it did, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. (In short, he had sanctioned a sweetheart deal with legislation created for the purpose. He had converted 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs including me as the necessary 17th

6) Be that as it may, the court's function is to assess compensation which must be paid whether it be under BILL 35, the collective bargaining system, or some other scheme. No compensation has been paid due to  systematic judicial malfeasance with the dire outcomes noted above. Will Premier McNeil (plus P.M. Trudeau and the NS teachers) stand idly by and see their province go the way of SK and QC?

7) The Employer in entering 458698 as is their legal right, does not address the constitutional question. Nor do they provide the necessary disclosure which I now request as it is submitted here would reveal the fraudulent nature of my teacher lay-off in 1985. Without habeas corpus, there can be no justice system. So far Prime Minister Trudeau is willing to accept that proposition but Is this what Nova Scotia wants or needs?

8) It is clear from their factum that the Employer wishes to have this case thrown out of Nova Scotia while, in turn, I have requested that B.C.'s Harris & Co. be thrown out of Nova Scotia's justice system for including blatant fraudulent information in their 'Book of Authorities'. If necessary, the B.C. Employer may hire NS legal representation (such as they did in ON and QC) which is bound by NS regulations which B.C.'s Harris & Co. is not. That problem arose in SK where Harris & Co. acted for the Employer.

9) Two court hearings were unilaterally selected by the Employer to which I objected as I first wished their factum to be evaluated for containing alleged fraudulent materials. The Employer appears to be abusing the processes of the court by once again failing to consult with me for new dates; April 6, 2017 at 2:00 P.M. (Security for Costs) and April 19 for want of jurisdiction.

The filed EXHIBIT A & B deal extensively with the weakness of both requests but, as noted earlier, my arguments are ignored by the courts. The voir dire must precede the above dates.

10) Harris & Co. is not aware of my letter dated MARCH 08-2017 to Premier McNeil with copies to the court (458698) which I now include to the WVST. In that letter, I reprimand the NS Barrister's Society for ducking out of examining the Defendant's factum for fraud leaving me with a request to the court to arrange a voir dire hearing to examine this question with an eye to throwing B.C.'s Harris & Co out of the province and continuing with the constitutional question. A major part of that voir dire hearing is to now demand that the Employer produce disclosure; something they have successfully avoided for 32 years.

 

ACTION REQUESTED BY THE COURT 458698

11) As copies of this letter go to both Premier McNeil (plus P.M. Trudeau) and the court for 458698, I request that the court set a separate date before the two selected for a voir dire hearing as I do not accept the Employer once again unilaterally setting the two dates with a clear desire to have this case be still-born. Further, the intervening time set by the court would permit the Employer to acquire NS legal representation. Unlike all courts in this matter, this would require the judge to do the necessary pre-reading (EXHIBIT A & B) which I had hoped the NS Barrister's Society would do. (SEE MARCH 08 -2017 letter to Premier McNeil with a copy to the court now included with this letter to the WV School Trustees.)

 

Yours truly, (Roger Callow) Plaintiff

 

March 08-2017

Mailing Address                                            Email Address premier@gov.ns.ca
 The Honourable Stephen McNeil                  2 pages sent by fax.

Premier of Nova Scotia
One Government Place, 7th Floor                  Phone Number
1700 Granville St                                            (902) 424-6600
PO Box 726                                                    Fax Number
Halifax, NS                                                     (902) 424-7648
Canada B3J 2T3

Reference: (TOPIC: 458698)  March 1,2017 letter from Kristine Handley received on Mar.08-2017  NS Barrister's Society which reads in part:

'...The NS Barristers' Society's Professional Responsibility Department investigates concerns which reveal allegations of conduct unbecoming a lawyer, incompetence or professional misconduct with respect to a lawyer's practice of law.

The Professional Responsibility Department is focused on protection of the public, and excellence in regulation. Our role is to enhance the competence of members and assist them in adhering to the rules of professional conduct....'

 

RESPONSE:

1) As I have similar letters from other Canadian legal societies, my reaction is to say 'So when can the public expect you to fulfill your mandate?'

2)' It is not clear in your correspondence what you are asking of us'. This obtuse statement characterizes all those Legal Societies seeking to evade their responsibilities. That collective failure is why the executive powers of the P.M. are being called into play if only to send in the RCMP (Montreal fraud department has a record) to do what the institutions of the Justice System appear to be incapable of doing; namely, accept their mandates as outlined above.

3) The question posed to the NS Barristers Society was to block the B.C. firm of Harris & Co. of abusing court processes by including obviously fraudulent material which I included to the NS Barrister's Society and court as Exhibits A & B. Their factum is most complete in this regard, I submit, so that they will never be held liable on this account as the Justice System will have appeared to have given due process to all materials in their judgment through a process I label reverse osmosis. The courts never conduct a proper examination of such misleading materials which, again, is why the P.M. is directly involved. It is this very act of omission which the Justice System - in this case at any rate - believes that ignorance by the court may be an excuse before the law. That charge brings the practice of law into disrepute in NS.

4) I have told the B.C. Employer that if they do wish to participate (and there is no real need in this 'case-neutral' matter regarding a constitutional question regarding the all-important matter of the relationship between the oversight powers of the court and imposed legislation),  then they should hire NS legal personnel which are legally bound by NS laws where the alleged fraud is taking place. The Employer in this matter would make no contribution to the constitutional question depending, as they do, on specious technicalities to have the matter thrown out of court. Over 50 judges and 12 separate courts to date have acted in unison in this unresolved senior teacher lay-off where no compensation has been paid in 32 years (includes pension rights) due to court evasion in a matter where 'justice delayed is justice denied'.

5) Similar to other Legal Societies in Canada, the NS Barrister's Society would evade their responsibilities explaining why I keep such as Premier McNeil and NS professional teachers cognizant of this case. Teachers must MAKE NOISE now if they do not wish to see the Justice System of Premier McNeil disappear down a black hole making any future legal case held in that province to be of dubious stature. (Teachers awaiting for approval from Union leaders is a mistake as those leaders are not inclined to permit anything that they cannot control.)

6) So I do not accept the self-serving letter of the NS Barrister's Society as it merely passes the buck to the courts. As for my part, I do not have any choice but to call for a NS voir dire hearing (in writing) doing the job that the NS Barrister's Society has failed to do and in that failure becoming an embarrassment to the government of Premier McNeil as now the P.M. has more work to do on a matter which is more appropriately the concern of the Justice System. That voir dire hearing must precede any hearing called by the Defendant Employer to thwart the holding of this case through nefarious technical features. The Justice System as a whole and the citizens of NS deserve much better in a province where 'due process' is fast becoming 'duly processed'.

 

Yours truly (Roger Callow) Appellant 

 

 

cc West Vancouver School Trustees-defendant

NS Court #458698

P.M.O. / RCMP

NS Barristers Society

 

ADDENDUM: The court in this matter (458698) should consider this letter as a request to conduct the necessary evaluation of the B.C.'s Harris & Co. factum on the same basis as the Barrister's Society (SEE letter to NS Barristers Society dated March 05-2017 earlier sent plus Exhibit A & B already filed with the court in answer to the B.C. Harris & Co. factum. This voir dire hearing in writing must precede any further legal action by the court.

 

January 16, 2017

 

TO: Board of School Trustees                                         FROM: Roger Callow 

(S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)                                   1285 Cahill Drive West #2001

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9    Ottawa ON K1V 9A7

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                        tel/fax: 613-521-1739                 

SENT BY FAX  (2 pages)             

                                                                                                                                   

REFERENCE: Hfx 458698 EXHIBIT 'B' employescasecanada.ca  'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance'

 

MESSAGE:

1) The focus of the constitutional question in the above case is limited to government

legislation and its relation to the courts of law making this legal matter the single most important court challenge in Canadian civil jurisprudence. The litigants are incidental to that cause although for the sake of form, they are listed.

2) As matters now stand, individuals and organizations must individually protest against capricious government action leading to street demonstrations in many locales across Canada.

3) In brief, do courts have oversight powers in matters related to imposed legislation? The 32 year unresolved labour matter relating to the lay-off of senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985 under the auspices of the imposed B.C. BILL 35 is now a standing case setting the precedent for all other cases of this type in Canada today. No compensation has been paid (including pension rights).

4) The Employee's Case is only mentioned tangentially in this Nova Scotia challenge as further court challenges will be lodged elsewhere. In brief, considering the background to this case, the trial is really about the efficacy of the Nova Scotia courts and the government of Stephen McNeil. Will they join a coterie of alleged judicial conspirators in other provinces plus the Supreme Court of Canada (4 occasions to date) to obviate any hearing designed to move closer to a resolution in this long drawn-out case?

5) If so, the government of Stephen McNeil and his courts will join the experience of its citizens to those of Quebec and Saskatchewan with nowhere to turn for justice.

WVST

6) As of the above date, I do not have a 'Notice of Appearance' for my factum in which I have called for a written decision through 'Referencing' as this would permit the court to delve into the intricacies of the constitutional argument without being bound down by case specifics. That non-attendance of the WVST was a recommendation on my part as our roles as plaintiff and defendant are extraneous to the conduct of this all-important constitutional question.

7) With that much said, this case illustrates the legal conundrum represented by imposed legislation if the court lacks the necessary oversight (fraud exempted) powers to evaluate such as arbitrations.

8) The Employer recognizes only the conditions of BILL 35 as applicable to this case while the courts, from 1995 onward at any rate, consider the matter to be solely one of Union jurisdiction under the collective bargaining rules. The courts know full well that the Union is involved in a sweetheart deal reducing this litigant to no status before the courts of law in B.C. 9) Whichever model is the correct one above, compensation must be paid accordingly in any event.

10) It is most regrettable that the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 (Chief Justice Lamers (d.), B. McLachlin - the incumbent chief justice, Cory) failed to address this all-important question under the concept of 'universality of unions'. In short, compensation is due. How will that be paid? As I am estopped from appearing in B.C. courts since July 23,2013 for 'reasons best known to a judge' (Cullen Creed'), I have been left with a kafkaesque search for a remedy in other courts in Canada as I now have to approach matters in a piece-meal fashion due to judicial corruption. I await the actions of a future P.M. considering the indifference of the incumbent Justin Trudeau to the single most important legal matter  in Canada's civil jurisprudence.

11) It is not in the interests of either the Employer or this employee to derail the N.S. challenge of which action would not benefit either their individual cause or that of all of Canada. Hence neither party needs make a needless appearance. Let the courts do their job through 'Referencing' on a written basis. (Should the courts duck out in N.S. as has been the case for 32 years now in other courts, all of Canada is the poorer not knowing whether our courts of law have oversight powers with imposed legislation which affects not only individuals but corporations and provincial & municipal governments as well.)

12) As matters now stand, Employers everywhere may quote the precedent of the Employee's Case to ignore the rights and compensation claims of any individual if the imposed legislation ignores them in any judicial decision.

13) That is the essence of the case filed in N.S. Is anarchy to be the answer? It certainly will be if the court fobs off this constitutional challenge.

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow   self-represented plaintiff

 

cc EXHIBIT 'B'  N.S. court #458698

     Premier S. McNeil

     RCMP

NOVA SCOTIA LEGAL ACTION

Form 4.02A

                                                                                                                        No. 458698 (Dec. 16-2016)

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Between:

Roger Callow

                                                                                                                                    Plaintiff

and

 

The Board of School Trustees (#45 West Vancouver, B.C.)

                                                                                                                                       Defendant

Notice of Action

To:

1) The Board of School Trustees                                 

(West Vancouver, B.C.) S.D. #45

1075-21st Street

West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9

tel: 604-981-1000

fax:604-981-1001

 

2) Deputy Attorney General for Nova Scotia / Court Services / PO Box 7 Halifax,  NS B3J 2L6

 

3) Deputy Attorney General for B.C. / PO Box 9280 Stn. Prov. Govt. Victoria, B.C. V8W 9J7

 

4)Deputy Attorney General for Canada / 284 Wellington St. Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8

 

Action has been started against you

The plaintiff takes action against you.

 

The plaintiff started the action by filing this notice with the court on the date certified by the prothonotary.

 

The plaintiff claims the relief described in the attached statement of claim

(Form 4.02B) The claim is based on the grounds stated in the statement of claim.

1.

Deadline for defending the action

To defend the action, you or your counsel must file a notice of defence with the court no more than the following number of days after the day this notice of action is delivered to you:

- 15 days if delivery is made in Nova Scotia

- 30 days if delivery is made elsewhere in Canada

-45 days if delivery is made elsewhere in Canada

 

Judgment against you if you do not defend

The court may grant an order for the relief claimed without further notice, unless you file the notice of defence before the deadline.

 

You may demand notice of steps in the action

If you do not have a defence to the claim or you do not choose to defend it you may, if you wish to have further notice, file a demand for notice.

 

If you file a demand for notice, the plaintiff must notify you before obtaining an order for relief claimed and, unless the court orders otherwise, you will be entitled to notice of each other step in the action.

 

Rule 57 - Civil Procedure Rule 57 limits pretrial and trial procedures in a defended action so it will be more economical. The Rule applies if the plaintiff states the action is within the Rule. Otherwise, the Rule does not apply, except as a possible basis for costs against the plaintiff. This action is within Rule 57. (State "within" if the action is for an order for judgment under $100,000, no other order (e.g. injunction, declaration) is claimed, and the claim is based on debt, injury to property, injury to person, supply of goods or services, breach of contract, breach of trust,, or dismissal from employment.)

 

Filing and delivering documents

Any documents you file with the court must be filed at the office of the prothonotary  in Halifax, Nova Scotia

The Law Courts

1815 Upper Water St.

Halifax, N.S. B3J 1S7

tel:  902-424-4900

fax: 902-424-0524

2.

When you file a document you must immediately deliver a copy of it to each party entitled to notice, unless the document is part of an ex parte motion, the parties agree delivery is not required or a judge orders it is not required.

 

Contact information

The plaintiff designates the following address. Documents delivered to this address are considered received by the plaintiff on delivery

 

Roger Callow

#2001 - 1285 Cahill Drive E.

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

tel/fax: 613-521-1739

 

Further contact information is available from the prothonotary.

 

Proposed place of trial

The plaintiff proposes that, if you defend this action, the trial will be held in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

 

Signature  (Roger Callow) 

 

____________________________ December 14-2016

 

 

Prothonotary's certificate

I certify that this notice of action, including the attached statement of claim, was filed with the court on ____________________

 

                                                                                    _______________________

                                                                                                Prothonotary

 

3.

 

INDEX

                                                                                                Exhibits                                                                                                   PAGES                                                                                                               

A) Notice of Action (filed apart)                                                                                                                                                                                               01 - 03         

 

B) Notice of Claim   (filed apart)                                                                                                                                                                                               04 - 07         

 

C) ex Parte Motion                                                                                                                                                                                                                       08 - 09

                                   

D) Constitutional Question                                                                                                                                                                                                       10 - 11

                                                                                     

E) Letter to the Defendant Employer from the Plaintiff                                         

     November 10-2016                                                                                                                                                                                                                 12 - 13

 

F) 2004 Preamble to the Supreme Court of Canada under                              

     'inherent jurisdiction'                                                                                                                                                                                                                14

 

D) Newspaper clippings   September 1986                                                                                                                                                                             15 - 16

                               

E) Southin Order A860607 January 21, 1987                 not on web                                                                                                                                 17 - 19                 

 

F) Court of Appeal (3 judges) January 21,1988    not on web                                                                                                                                           20 - 24

                                                       

G) GAMING THE SYSTEM            December-2016                                                                                                                                                                 25 - 27                                                                                                                                                                     

H) 'CULLEN CREED' plus Reply which expelled the plaintiff from B.C.                                                                                                                             28 - 29

     courts in July of 2013                                                                                     

 

I) CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS excerpts  August 04-2015                                                                                                                                              30 - 32                  

 

J)   BILL 35 - SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985      not on web                                                                                                                                        33 - 36                              

Signature (Roger Callow)

 

_________________________  December 14-2016                                                                                                                                                     

 

 

 

Form 4.02B                                                                                                             Statement of Claim

 

Between:

Roger Callow

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Plaintiff

and

 

The Board of School Trustees (#45 West Vancouver, B.C.)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Defendant

BACKGROUND

 

1) I, Roger Callow, assert that in regarding my senior teacher lay-off for economic reasons in 1985 under the conditions of BILL 35, compensation is due whether it is under the terms of BILL 35, the collective bargaining arrangement or some other form of contract related to labour matters. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid.

 

2) The position of the Employer, the Board of School Trustees S.D. #45 (West Vancouver, B.C.) is that court overview of the quashed arbitration with regards to the lay-off of senior teacher Roger Callow in June of 1985 under BILL 35 is not valid as the BILL and the arbitration is the only legitimate decision.

 

3) This precedent-setting case has an unusual history rooted in a B.C. labour case where senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, was laid-off under the neophyte imposed legislation of B.C.'s BILL 35 in June of 1985.

 

4) The subsequent arbitration favouring the School Board was quashed by the courts with the gerrymandered government arbitrator ruled as being patently unreasonable.

 

5) No compensation has been paid leaving this employee in a perpetual state of limbo in contradiction of the most basic tenets of the law.

 

6) The Employer appealed Justice Mary Southin's Order but was defeated. Regrettably she did not point out obvious fraud which would have ensured court jurisdiction. No mention is made in either of these two judgments as to the Employer's assertion that only BILL 35 applies to this case obviating court overview.

4.

7) The following 30 years has seen a litany of unsuccessful actions laid by this plaintiff designed to produce disclosure (or habeas corpus) for the purpose of establishing fraud. That disclosure consists of the minute notes of the School Trustees in June of 1985 where BILL 35 and the Callow matter were discussed at length.

 

8) This factum makes a different Appeal limited to the constitutional question at the heart of this dismissal which has application across Canada for employees and employers alike. For example, SK Premier Brad Wall is ironically treated with the same contumely under imposed legislation in the carbon tax which his courts would visit on me in the SK version of this case later rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) for a hearing (36993-2016).

 

9) The basis for this appeal by the plaintiff employee is limited to the constitutional question in which the Employer only accepts the arbitration hearing to be valid while this plaintiff claims that whether it is under BILL 35 conditions, collective bargaining terms or some other legal scheme, compensation must be paid.

 

10) It is important to stress what this factum does not ask for as added material is provided only as periphery background to this issue.

a) It does not ask for the court to assign a monetary value as the outcome of this enquiry should suffice for the litigants to arrange an out of court settlement based on this courts finding on the constitutional question. Should further litigation be required, action could be taken in B.C. based on the Nova Scotia precedent to displace any prohibitory B.C. court ruling (Cullen Creed).

 

b) It does not ask the court for a finding as to the ultra vires action of the Cullen Creed nor BILL 35 (SCofC 36993 SK) which this plaintiff claims they are but should the court choose under the rules of transference to direct this matter to B.C. courts, a direct indictment of the 'Cullen Creed' which forced this case into courts outside of B.C. is first required.

5.

c) It does not ask the court for a finding as to fraud which permeates hearings in many other courts which, due to the failure of oversight bodies, now rests in the executive powers of the Office of the Prime Minister.

 

11) As the Employer and this employee are in basic agreement with the constitutional question to be asked, it is unlikely the Employer will even bother filing a case as long as the court limits the hearing to the constitutional question. The employer launched a similar constitutional challenge in Ontario (13-59060 McKinnon j. Decision April 23-2014) which was marred by a second Decision on September 15 which made no mention of the first Order. As the Respondent I was in complete agreement with the question which, regrettably, Justice McKinnon failed to address. Every oral hearing, and there have been many, has been marked by a judicial system which evades the issues presented under highly specious circumstances.

 

12) In reviewing the plethora of material by the Employer in many court filings, conspicuous by its absence is the Judgment by Southin j and the Appeal by Taggart/Hinkson/Anderson which is included here under the Exhibits.

N.B. Nowhere is there any evidence that the Employer questioned the jurisdiction of the court not to have oversight capabilities. It would appear that fiction is a central part of the cover-up.

 

ACTION REQUESTED

 

13) With the approval of the court, it would appear the nature of this constitutional question requires 'Referencing' by which a specialist could be called on to write the decision thus obviating the troublesome oral hearings plaguing this case, largely, it is submitted here, by interference through the office of the Chief Justice.

 

14) With a judicial decision on the constitutional question, the hope is that the plaintiff and defendant can reach an outside settlement and barring that, the plaintiff may re-enter the B.C. courts on the grounds that a judicial decision elsewhere obviates any prohibitory measure ('Cullen Creed') against the plaintiff.

 

15) It goes without saying that, similar to other provinces, the Premier, Nova Scotia teachers and their Union, will be kept fully apprised of this case.

6.

16) This copy is being faxed to the court in order to get a docket number after which the B.C. Attorney General and the Respondent Employer can be officially notified.

 

(signed) Roger Callow  self-represented plaintiff   

 

________________________  December 14, 2016

7.

 

Ex Parte Motion

Motion The plaintiff, Roger Callow, in this proceeding, moves for an order

 

for the court to determine the constitutional question regarding 'imposed' legislation as the resolution of this 1985 B.C. senior teacher lay-off remains 'unresolved' (hence no compensation has been paid which includes pension rights) due to the Employer refusing to recognize the oversight bodies of the courts of law which quashed the arbitration ruling the arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable'. Their argument, which they launched in Ontario Superior court, was that the 'imposed' BILL 35 (1985) negated any overview (13-59060 McKinnon j. Decision April 23-2014 although there was a second 'bastardized' version on September 15-2014 which made no recognition of the first Order). The court ignored that issue although I was in complete agreement with the Respondent's request to discuss 'all issues'. This action in Nova Scotia raises the same question although this time it is the plaintiff making the claim.

 

Evidence in support of motion The evidence in support of the motion is as follows

 

The fact of an unresolved labour matter where compensation has not been paid but which BILL 35, the collective bargaining agreement, or the general terms of contract, all provide for merits court attention in this national cause. As this case is limited to the constitutional question where no money is to change hands, this question is of vital importance to the relationship of the government to the courts of law in Canada not only for employees as in this case but for employers as well i.e. SK Premier Brad Wall and the Federal government's  'imposed' carbon tax.

 

References  The moving party relies on the following legislation, Rules, or points of law

Pertinent case law would depend on what 'Referencing' would produce as this plaintiff is prepared to bow to any decision as a means to finalize this 31 year labour case.

 

Reason is ex parte This motion is made without notice to any other person because

while the employer is not expected to object to the constitutional question asked, previous hearings have been characterized by a high level of fraud by both Employer legal counsel and the courts to obviate issues. Reference to oversight bodies, up to and including the executive powers of the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, receive no response.

8.

Hearing The party making this motion will appear before the judge in chambers ...

 

Due to the nature of this case, an oral presentation does not suit the needs of this case. In the past, such oral meetings before a judge merely affords the court an opportunity to duck all responsibility by labeling this plaintiff as 'frivolous and vexacious'; a badly abused and over-used term in Canada's courts of law it is submitted here.

 

Signature (Roger Callow - moving party)

 

 

_____________________________  December 14-2016

 

9.

Form 31.19

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    No.

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Between:

Roger Callow

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Plaintiff

and

 

The Board of School Trustees (#45 West Vancouver, B.C.)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Defendant

(name) title in proceeding

Notice of Action and Notice of Claim and Ex Parte Motion

 

NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE

Notice to Crown

This notice is delivered to the office of (the Attorney General of Nova Scotia at the Attorney's main office / the Attorney General of British Columbia at the Attorney's main Office / the Federal Minister of Justice at the Minister's main Office) to notify the Attorney General that Roger Callow assertsw in this proceeding that a statute of the legislative Assemby in B.C. or a regulation under such a statute, is unconstitutional. ('Imposed' B.C. BILL 35 used only against this individual teacher before it was withdrawn in the 1990's before this case was resolved = banana republic justice)

 

Legislation in issue The legislation asserted to be unconstitutional is BILL 35 (B.C.  1985)

The legislation may be constitutional; but it requires interpretation vis a vis government-courts of law relationship which is the sole purpose of laying this case in Nova Scotia. QUESTION: Does 'imposed' legislation supplant statute law where there is no provision in the Act to do so  i.e. the legislation is in 'addition to'

(One direct challenge to the constitutionality of BILL 35 regarding the undefined term 'current demonstrated ability' in either the statute or law in general was snuffed out when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear this matter in 2016 (36993 SK).

10.

Reason for assertion The grounds for asserting the legislation is unconstitutional are as follows:

To place it in the vernacular of the Union's legal representative: 'BILL 35 was the Roger Callow Act'. In brief, the B.C. Legislature was hi-jacked and the judiciary co-opted to sanction a 'sweetheart deal' between Employer and Union in order to fire a whistle blower (I presented the Ministry of Education in Victoria, B.C. in 1985 with evidence of fraud on the behalf of an administrator responsible for my professional Report.)

 

 

Copy of pleading

Attached is a copy of the entire case including forms in which the assertion is made (about 40 pages)

 

Further notice to Crown

An attorney general may file a demand for notice and be entitled to further notice of all steps in this proceeding. The Crown may be joined as a party if it wishes to participate in the proceeding. This notice is additional to the provisions of the Constitutional Questions Act and the requirement to give notice to the Attorney General under that statute.

 

Signature (Roger Callow - moving party)

 

_________________________  December 14,2016

 

(list all parties entitled to notice and their addresses for delivery)

 

1) Deputy Attorney General for Nova Scotia / Court Services / PO Box 7 Halifax,            NS B3J 2L6

 

2) Deputy Attorney General for B.C. / PO Box 9280 Stn. Prov. Govt. Victoria, B.C. V8W 9J7

 

3)Deputy Attorney General for Canada / 284 Wellington St. Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8

 

4) While this is an ex parte submission, the Respondent- Board of School Trustees West Vancouver, B.C. (#45) 1075-21st St. West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9 - is being kept fully informed of this action.

11.

 

November 10-2015

 

TO: Board of School Trustees                                           FROM: Roger Callow 

(S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)                                     1285 Cahill Drive West #2001

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9    Ottawa ON K1V 9A7

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                      tel/fax: 613-521-1739                   

SENT BY FAX  (3 pages)             

                                                                                                                                   

REFERENCE: employescasecanada.ca  'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance'

 

QUOTE: 'What needst we fear it for none can call us to account.'  Lady MacBeth

 

INCLUSION: To the Prime Minister for executive action in face of the aberrant behaviour of the authorities and the complete collapse of oversight bodies  in the Employees Case plus others listed below.

 

MESSAGE: (From the letter to the WVST dated Oct. 17-2016)

 

1) As you know, this 31 year unresolved labour matter regarding my 'illicit' senior teacher lay-off in June of 1985 under the neophyte imposed BILL 35 is mired in the judicial gutter which includes accusations of fraud by this writer against various judges and legal personnel hired by you as the Employer.

2) No compensation has been paid which is included as a condition in BILL 35 as well as in other contractual relationships such as the collective bargaining process.

3) The nub of the disagreement between ourselves lies in the fact that the Employer in this case refuses to recognize court oversight of the arbitration; an oversight power under B.C. Superior Court Justice, Mary Southin whom, in 1986, quashed the arbitration ruling, in that process, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. I was left in limbo when the Board refused to return employment as Southin j. recommended (not ordered).

4) The Employer viewed that decision as 'an opinion' (WV School Trustee Margo Furk) and appealed the matter presumably under the constitutionality of Southin's action. They lost. I have never seen those legal arguments as Union legal counsel kept them from me.

5) Many, many court cases in B.C. and elsewhere in Canada launched by myself as the targeted individual seeking compensation sought to reconcile the above; particularly in the recent bid in Alberta devoted solely to asking the constitutional question as to whether imposed government legislation supplants statute law (such as the collective bargaining process if it is indeed the one to be applied in this case) where no explicit exemption is made in the imposed legislation. The key argument is whether BILL 35 was 'in addition to' (an argument raised in the arbitration but ignored by the arbitrator) any other statute provisions or was it a stand-alone document with its own provisions for teacher lay-off not subject to judicial overview (employer position). Regrettably, the arbitrator did not deal with the question of compensation explaining why the past 30 years in 12 separate courts and over 40 judges has been devoted to that end amid much judicial corruption.

6) Of interest here, and why I write is that in Ontario (13-59060 McKinnon j. Decisions April 23-2014 and strangely, a second decision (September 15-2014)which makes no reference to the first decision, the Employer as Plaintiff raised the constitutional question mentioned above by requesting a discussion of 'all issues' to which I was in complete agreement. McKinnon j. ignored that request preferring to indict this Respondent for being frivolous and vexatious which made for salacious reporting on page 1 of the Ottawa Citizen (April 29-2014).

12.

7) It is that self-same constitutional question which I seek to raise in Alberta as Plaintiff under the reluctant Premier Notley government requesting the assistance of an even more reluctant Trudeau government to expedite matters. The P.M. appears to have made a big mistake appointing Wilson-Raybould as Justice Minister.

 

PROPOSAL

8) Considering the legal obfuscation that both parties are experiencing with Canada's judicial system, I propose a combined approach by the Employer and myself as the targeted employee as joint Plaintiffs in launching the above constitutional question in B.C. Courts against the Crown.

9) As I am prohibited by the 'Cullen Creed' of July 2013 of access to B.C. courts 'for reasons best known to a judge' and which all judges outside B.C. - and there were many - would not touch that decision with the 'proverbial 10 foot pole', this action would have to be filed by the Employer.

10) I trust this proposal meets with your approval as a legal decision above would go a long way to finalizing this long torturous legal matter without equal in any civil court of law.

11) I will await a reasonable length of time for your decision after which I will turn to other alternatives although I firmly believe that it is in the interests of both parties here to force the Justice System to stand up to their responsibilities.

Yours truly,

13.

CURRENT MESSAGE:

1) Right church, wrong pew. As I did not hear back from the Employer regarding the above joint approach, I initiated an action for fraud with a $20m sticker price in Toronto Superior Court (claims in excess of $50,000).  Unfortunately, the address I gave was for the Divisional and Appeal Courts with the Superior Court lodged at a separate address hence I must re-issue the claim with the correct address.

2) I have taken the liberty to add the full forms for 76B and 14D which I only mention in passing in the original document. This is done to assist Registry clerks in understanding this complex case and to assign a docket number. All else in the factum remains the same. Included in this fax are these completed forms.

3) Due to the failure of the various oversight bodies to date including Attorney Generals and the Minister of Justice, I request direct assistance from the Prime Minister to assign an officer to guide this matter through the courts. If not the incumbent than a future P.M. as the Canadian Justice System is without credibility until proper executive action is taken. That could even come with SCofC's Chief Justice B. McLaughlin's successor as early as her retirement in 2017. His first task would be to investigate the conflict of interest by the Hon. Coté & Wagner (a third judge is retired) whom recently sat on both QC 36883 and SK 36993. Their rejection for a hearing not only left this case in limbo; it left the chore of investigating extensive fraudulent action by the Quebec and Saskatchewan courts to that of the Prime Minister. Until that is done, no-one can trust to the judiciary of Canada and all SCofC judges operate under a cloud.

 

RAMIFICATIONS:

4) The Employee`s Case did not create the aberrant conditions noted above; rather it revealed the soft underbelly of a justice system gone bad some time ago. In the U.S., Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, acknowledges this problem when he states that the U.S. Justice System is the `laughingstock of the world`. `Dirty Hillary` is merely doing what the Employer is doing in this case; denying disclosure which is the basis of habeas corpus and therefore all law. In Canada, that state of Third World status was reached in 2004 with the second rejection by the SCofC to hear this unresolved labour matter under the terms of ultimate remedy. Under BILL 35 conditions (which the Employer advocates as being the sole authority and therefore refuses to recognize court decisions rejecting the arbitrator`s findings), the collective bargaining system or any other contractual relationship; all declare that compensation in some amount must be paid. In the words of my legal Counsel in 2004; `You have exhausted all remedy under the law with that basic feature ending the credibility of the Canadian justice system leading to my charge of systematic judicial malfeasance.

5) The anti-employee media maintain a boycott on this issue  as do the Opposition leaders from the Tory and NDP Parties federally and provincially and yet all individual Canadians are severely compromised by this judicial chicanery. If the authorities can chain outspoken AB's Ezra Levant (The Rebel), they can chain anyone.

 

THE FUTURE

6) The Employee`s Case has been widely promulgated among professional teachers in Canada and will be of significant interest in the coming lay-offs slated for financially-strapped governments.

7)First of all, no-one will trust to imposed legislation which will not permit any overview of an arbitrator`s decision as the Employer insists be the case here. For that matter, no arbitrator nor judge will be deemed to have credibility based on this case.

8) While it is not ideal, `last on, first laid-off in employment is, under the circumstances, still the fairest of an unfair system for teachers: e.g. Teachers of French are in short supply while English teachers are in excess which requires adjustments in the lay-off legislation.

9) There has been no increase in student numbers in Ontario since 1995 and yet costs (largely teacher salaries) have increased by 40% creating the typical bureaucratic conundrum. Due to senior teachers receiving twice the salary of beginners; the Education Department cannot balance the books unless they lay-off senior teachers (whom cannot get another teaching position anywhere in Canada as I can vouch for). ; it's a two for one proposition.

10) Hence, for many reasons, Canada cannot go forward until the matters mentioned above are settled in an equitable manner. Only the Prime Minister of Canada can now do that. Doing nothing is not an option.

 

Yours truly  (Roger Callow)

 

RCMP / Tories-Ambrose/Brown(ON) / NDP-Notley(AB)/ Horwath (ON)/ Mulcair / Liberal -Naqvi  (A.G. ON) / SCofC  M. Rowe

 

13. b)

 

Supreme Court of Canada -2004  (excerpt)

...in June of 1985 where the additions were noted in arbitration. No mention is made of any lay-off

     Considering that Justice Southin in 1986 ordered that all material pertaining to the lay-off of Mr. Callow be made available to the court and no doubt serves as the basis of her conclusion, then we submit such information would be the property of the Union and therefore should be made available to Mr. Callow even though the court has decreed that the Union has full control of this matter as far as questioning the matter of his lay-off. Both the Union and School Board steadfastly refuse to hand over this vital information. Indeed, it would appear that it was the laying of the conspiracy charge against the two parties which prompted the current frivolous and vexatious charge by which those two have successfully evaded having to produce the vital 'missing link' information. The failure of two Appeal Court decisions of the B.C. Supreme Court to address that concern is at the heart of this appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

     Simply put, how can the justice system of Canada in all good conscience deny Mr. Callow access to the court to resolve an unresolved legal matter which even the court has declared should have been re-arbitrated. The fact that the original arbitrator passed away under a law which would not see the appointment of any other arbitrator calls into play the courts role of inherent jurisdiction in order to finalize this case. Failure to do so up to and including one appeal already to the Supreme Court of Canada is a denial of the letter and spirit of the law in Canada.

 

"The curse of the world is not decisions taken, Blake reflected, it's the decisions shelved, bought off, sidestepped." War Dance  Tim Sebastian

 

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. Pierre Elliot Trudeau (1919-2000) '...Every government must accept responsibility for the rights of the citizens within its own jurisdiction. Canada as a whole suffers when any of her citizens is denied his rights, for that injustice places the rights of all of us in jeopardy.' Someone should tell that to the boos who now run this country but the idea of any entity being more than the mere sum of its parts would escape them.

 

'The Outlawed Canadian'

14.

 

 

September 05-1986  Vancouver Sun Carol Volkart

School board urged to reinstate teacher

          The West Vancouver school board should reinstate dismissed teacher Roger Callow in light of a B.C. Supreme Court decision earlier this week, B.C. Teachers Federation president Elsie McMurphy  said Thursday.

            But West Vancouver school board chairman Mike Smith noted the court didn't order Callow's reinstatement and said the board will wait for further developments before taking action.

            "Until we study the ruling and formulate a position, we don't have a position," he said, adding the matter will be discussed at the next board meeting Sept. 15.

            Smith and McMurphy were commenting after Justice Mary Southin disagreed with an arbitrator's  decision upholding Callow's dismissal.

            In a judicial review of the decision by arbitrator Louis Lindholm, the judge said Lindholm should have concluded the school board used its dismissal powers for an improper purposwe when it terminated Callow, a 17-year district employee.

            "There was evidence upon which the arbitrator could reasonably have concluded that the board used the (School Amendment Act) to rid itself of a troublesome pedant," she said.

            "Mr. Callow, despite his long years of service, has been a thorn in the side of the West Vancouver school board."

            The judge said the act's only purpose is controlling expenditure, not to enable school boards to terminate incompetent teachers, "although that may be an incidental effect."

            She noted that statutory requirements make it difficult for a school Board to fire a teacher, and the board "must have been painfully aware of the difficulties it would face if it attempted to use those powers in Mr. Callow's case."

            Stressing the act aqllows dismissal for economic reasons, the judge noted Callow was the "one and only" teacher laid off in West Vancouver.

            She noted Callow's termination notice said he was being dismissed because of a reduction in the level of service caused by declining enrolment and a decrease in operating funds. The West Vancouver Teachers Association took the dismissal to arbitration and lost, sparking the BCTF appeal to the Supreme Court.

            McMurphy noted that Justice Southin proposed sending the matter back to the arbitrator, but left it open for counsel to suggest other courses of action.

            She said she doesn't like sending it back to the arbitrator, because it would be difficult for him to admit he's wrong.

            "He (Callow) should be simply reinstated by the board," McMurphy said. If West Vancouver continues to dragf it out rather than reinstating him, we will probably ask her (the judge) to resolve the matter."

            She said the West Vancouver Teachers Association will ask the board to reinstate Callow, and the BCTF will hold off further action until the board responds.

            Smith said he thinks Justice Southin's decision is incorrect, and denied the board did anything wrong. "We are still of the opinion that we have done everything we should have done."

15.

 

September 17-1986  Vancouver Sun  Douglas Todd - Sun Education Reporter

Board won't back off

 Teacher firing case to be appealed

            The West Vancouver school board is ready to spend another $10,000 to appeal a B.C. Supreme Court decision that calls into question its firing of a long-time teacher, chairman Mike Smith said Tuesday.

            "West Vancouver taxpayers will happily pay whatever cost is necessary to ensure the teachers standing in front of their children have current demonstrated ability," Smith said after the board voted this week to take the matter to the B.C. Court of Appeal.

            Justice Mary Southin ruled two weeks ago that arbitrator Louis Lindholm should not have approved the firing of Roger Callow - a 44-year-old social studies teacher - but should have concluded the West Vancouver board used its dismissal powers for an improper purpose.

            The B.C. Teachers Federation took the West Vancouver board to court early this year after expressing fears that Callow's firing was precedent setting because it opened up the possibility teachers could be fired on the basis of flimsy evidence, possibly for political activities.

            Smith acknowledged the board has already spent more than $15,000 in its battle to get the courts to uphold the termination of Callow under Bill 35, the School Amendment Act, introduced last year.

            But Smith said the board is going ahead with an appeal, which he estimated could cost at least $10,000, "because we believe the judge erred. According to Bill 35, the decision of the arbitrator is binding. There is no right of appeal."

            In her ruling, the judge said: "There was evidence upon which the arbitrator could be reasonably have concluded the board used the act to rid itself of a troublesome pedant. Mr. Callow...has been a thorn in the side of the West Vancouver school board."

16.

 

 

NOVA SCOTIA TEACHERS AND THEIR UNION ARE INVITED TO GIVE PUBLIC SUPPORT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION (IMPOSED LEGISLATION) BEING LODGED IN NS SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE

 

                                                                                                            GAMING THE SYSTEM employescasecanada.ca

 

MESSAGE:                           

1) 'That's only her opinion' sniffed West Vancouver School Trustee, Margo Furk, regarding B.C. Supreme Court's Justice Mary Southin's action of quashing the 1985 arbitration favouring the School Board ruling, as she did, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. He had converted 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs  with senior high school teacher, Roger Callow, being the necessary 17th knowing full well that Callow was the only lay-off victim in June of 1985. She fell short of labeling this matter a fraud of which it most assuredly was. 30 years of trying to get those June Board meeting notes (disclosure or habeas corpus) has met with stiff resistance from over 12 separate court systems and over 50 judges in this massive government conspiracy without equal in any democracy.

2) The Board's position at both the Southin j. Decision and the subsequent failed Appeal had been that the Court had no jurisdiction over the imposed BILL 35 so the School Trustees felt justified in ignoring the courts; a position they have maintained up to the present time. No compensation has ever been paid which flies in the face of any number of laws and is the bedrock of the law of labour contracts.

3) As the courts failed to label this matter 'fraud' thereby guaranteeing court oversight, this targeted writer has been kept in a state of perpetual limbo which has led to the demise of the Canadian Justice System. That's anarchy.

4) In an act of misfeasance plaguing our justice system in general and this case in particular, no mention is made of the Board's constitutional position in the above hearings.

5) In 1995, without the presence of the Union, I returned to court before B.C. Supreme Court's Justice Spencer against the Employer requesting that Justice Southin's 'should' return employment (in law, a judicial recommendation has weight) to 'must' due to the apparent abandonment of the renewed arbitration so ordered by Southin j. The only alternative that Spencer j. had was to order the matter back to arbitration. He did neither.

6) While lamenting that I should not be left in limbo, he took actions designed to do just that. He declared this matter a union matter (for a first time), declaring that only the Union could pursue any action on my behalf, knowing full well that I was faced with a 'sweetheart deal'. No one was arguing the point of union jurisdiction in court in this act of judicial misfeasance. In brief, he robbed me of court access with only reference to an ethically challenged Labour Board whom refused a hearing on the grounds that 'the union had done nothing wrong' which does not answer the question as to 'whether they had done anything right'. The letter below, in an act of misfeasance by the Employer, appears to have successfully intimidated the Labour Board into not holding a hearing as I requested. Spencer, in another act of misfeasance paralleled by the original courts in 1985-87 made no mention of the constitutional question on which the Board's case depended.

7) The root cause of the demise of the Canadian Justice System lies with the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC). In 1997, under the question of 'the universality of unions', the SCofC ducked the issue outlined above greatly compromising the value of holding union membership by anyone in Canada. Included on that panel sat SCofC Chief Justice A. Lamers d. (presence of a Chief Justice denotes a 'political trial') and Beverley McLachlin - the incumbent Chief Justice slated for retirement in 2017.

25.

8) Under McLachlin as Chief Justice in 2004 in a second rejected SCofC Appeal for a hearing, the question related to 'ultimate remedy' in which money (or compensation) must change hands in labour matters. Canada was reduced to Third World status with this gross abuse of contract provisions.

9) In 2013, a now terrified B.C. Justice System in an act of malfeasance, expelled me from the Justice System of B.C. for 'reasons best known to a judge' (The Cullen Creed) in this unresolved legal matter setting me on a kafkaesque journey through the courts of other provinces amid much fraudulent activity.

10) President McLachlin of the Canadian Judicial Council has never acknowledged any of the very serious actions of fraud made by me in these other provinces that I made prompting this protest PLACARD: IMPEACH SCofC CHIEF JUSTICE B. MCLACHLIN. Those fraudulent actions were enunciated in two SCofC Appeals in 2016 which were denied a hearing.

11) The final blow to the efficacy of the SCofC came in 2016 when two filed appeals were refused (36883 QC) and 36993 SK) leaving only a 21st century Canadian Prime Minister with his executive powers to address the single most important question of the 21st century; namely, the fractured credibility of the Canadian Justice System for without credibility, a country is a hollow shell be it democratic or otherwise. Read below for an example as to how the Employer is gaming the system in conjunction with corrupt and corruptible judicial organizations.

 

The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance.

WHERE'S DONALD TRUMP ('The U.S. Justice System is the laughing stock of the world') NOW THAT CANADA NEEDS HIM MOST?

 

 

THE LETTER WHICH HANGS THE CANADIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM- JUNE 11-2015

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employeescasecanada.com (30 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems and over 30 judges. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. Below is the significance of government imposed legislation (BILL 35 -1985)

 

HARRIS & COMPANY

 

February 7, 1996                          

Labour Relations Board

1125 Howe Street

Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2K8

Attention: Margaret Arthur

Dear Sirs and Mesdames:

26.

 

Re: Callow v. The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 (West Vancouver) et al

BCCA No. CA020560

 

We are counsel for the Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 (WestVancouver) in the above-noted matter.

We note from Mr. Callow's Complaint (p.3(t)) that he seeks from the Labour Relations Board a direction that the Association "take the necessary action to continue the arbitration within the parameters of the 1988 Court of Appeal decision."

It is the School Board's strongly held view that the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdiction to make any ruling regarding the hearing of a future arbitration hearing due to the fact that the arbitration was not a proceeding under the scheme provided in the Labour Relations Code, the former Industrial Relations Act, or the former Labour Code. Indeed, the arbitration in question was a hearing pursuant to the provisions of the School Amendment Act, 1985 (BILL 35 - RC), which the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdiction  to interpret or apply.

 

We request that the School Board be provided with an opportunity to make further submissions on this point prior to any granting of any remedy.

 

Yours very truly,

Judith C. Anderson

HARRIS & COMPANY

 

N.B. The B.C. Labour Board refused all my requests for a hearing as did successive B.C. Courts. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear this matter hence the jurisdiction question is at the core of this imposed government legislation. That is how I was relegated to a permanent state of limbo where no compensation (includes pension) was paid in defiance of the rules of labour contract. No Canadian media nor Parliamentary source will publish this ugly truth reducing Canada to Third World status.

27.

 

Document received from Hon. Associate Chief Justice Austin Cullen dated July 23-2013:

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Docket S106159 (Vancouver Registry)

Between:  Roger Callow (Plaintiff)

And: The Board of School Trustees of School District No.45 and West Vancouver Teachers Association (Defendants)

ORDER

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE CULLEN    Tuesday, the 23rd of July, 2013

 

THIS COURT, on its own motion and without a hearing, at Vancouver, British Columbia on Tuesday, July, 23, 2013, ORDERS AND DECLARES THAT:

1. Roger Callow shall not initiate any proceedings or seek leave to initiate in any Registry of the Supreme Court pertaining to or in any way connected with the subject matter of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia Vancouver Registry File Nos. S08728, S075775, S022978, A950147, or pertaining to or connected with the subject matter of his allegations against the Defendants in this action or arising from or related to that subject matter.

2. Any document or process filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry is a nullity to which the Defendants will not be obliged to respond.

BY THE COURT  (signed) A. CULLEN

 

RESPONSE OF THE PLAINTIFF:

1) How is the above Order different from the (undocumented) Order of Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie dated October 1, 2010? There are key differences as outlined in CA038538 contesting her Order which the B.C. Registry rejected for reasons best known to itself.

2) Why is this Order and accompanying letter from a second Associate Chief Justice rather than from Chief Justice Robert Baumann of the B.C. Supreme Court?

3) Number 1. is much the same as the earlier order with this clear addition: …or arising from or related to that subject matter.’

4) It would appear in some disingenuous way or other that Cullen’s Order would seek to obliterate any recognition of the challenge to the  MacKenzie Creed’ as seen in the Appeal Court (Supreme Court) of B.C., the Federal Court of Canada, The Superior Court of Ontario (Ottawa) currently under Appeal in the Divisional Court, and entries pending to the Supreme Court of Canada.

28.

5) Justice Cullen, in the above regard, has not only perverted the course of justice in the B.C. Supreme Court, he has usurped the course of Justice in Canada as his Order well exceeds his authority.

6) CA038538 supplants the earlier Orders listed by Cullen and hence his Order is redundant in that regard.

7) How can Cullen expel this plaintiff from an incomplete judicial action which the courts at one time ordered back to further adjudication in line with the legal precept that ‘there can be no process without judgment’. The oft quoted Justice Estey in St. Anne Nackawic pinpoints this difficulty: ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law’. That aberration is what Cullen would sanction in what I submit is ‘patently unreasonable’.  Of course his Order is structured so that no such appeal may be conducted.

8) What if, at some future date, the Union decides to pursue this case? In an accompanying letter, Cullen adds, ‘No further proceedings arising out of or pertaining to the 1985 termination of your employment with the West Vancouver School District will be permitted to be brought in this Court.

9) For unexplained reasons, Cullen would seek to finalize any future proceedings as the phrase ‘with permission of the court’ (MacKenzie Creed) has been eliminated without a proper hearing. My constitutional rights have been abrogated by this Cullen Order in this unresolved labour case where no compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid.

10) ‘Your prior application before Justice Smith for leave to commence a further proceeding was characterized as futile and vexatious and resulted in an order for special costs being made against you.’ Who wrote this? (The Employer?) Who is Justice Smith? Do you mean Justice Maranger of Ontario Superior Court #12-54944 Nov. 1-2012 whose Decision is under Appeal in

Divisional Court(Ottawa)? That Account was settled for the going rate of 1/6 the Employer’s request which was labeled as being exorbitant by Maranger. Including those facts, it needs no doubt to be noted, would undermine the salacious appeal of your line.

11) The notion that the onus is on this party to show that court actions have been ‘patently unreasonable’ through the judicial review process is exactly what CA08538 was all about but was denied filing by the Vancouver Supreme Court Registry. Why have judges under these circumstances to do anything?

12) ‘You must accept the finality of this outcome’. (Cullen) Does that mean the Minister of Justice, Peter MacKay, must accept your statement?

13) Without media coverage, it would seem that the Judicial System of Canada is getting away with the hoax of the century much to the detriment of Canada and 34 million Canadians.

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow aka ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com

 

cc B.C. Attorney General Suzanne Anton

     SCofC Hon. R. Wagner

     media

29.

 

AUGUST 4-2015

INTRODUCTION

     Assuming Qc Justice Dominique Goulet jcw is acting properly with his interference in Gatineau Court's #550-1700-8208-157 (H.D. June 08-2015)               -  and the assertion to the Qc Judicial Council is that he isn't - he has asked the wrong question which should have referred to my reason for being in a Qc. Court in a case with its genesis in B.C. under the headings of natural justice and inherent jurisdiction: I would have responded accordingly:

1) natural justice: In common parlance, a judge may not pick up the 'judicial ball' and go home without first making a court finding so that a litigant(s) is not left in limbo. (Without that court finding; my compensation -including pension rights- is held up...for 30 years and counting.) The oft-quoted Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawick) is germaine here: 'What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.' That is what is happening here.

2) inherent jurisdiction: A trickier proposition as all provinces are understandably reluctant to deal with matters having their genesis elsewhere. The point here is that the 'Cullen Creed' (July 23-2013) expelled me from the B.C. Justice System for 'reasons best known to the judge' as Deputy Justice A. Cullen acted on his own recognizance; did not take legal argument; and did not quote specific laws. Without including the all-important 'may only proceed with permission of a judge, Cullen j. radically changed a basic tenet of law in this unresolved legal matter. The following excerpt from the Charter would have been my response which now appears to be slated for an Appeal Court hearing if I have second-guessed the courtroom judge, Therrien j. correctly. Unfortunately, he didn't ask any questions on June 8-2015 reflective of a pre-ordained judgment based on 'air' as the Employer appeared bent on throwing their case for unknown reasons thus prompting Goulet's j. interference providing them with a 'second kick at the can'. Running a court within a court is a judicial no-no.

 

CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS  1982 (excerpts)

One of the most notable effects of the adoption of the Charter was to greatly expand the scope of judicial review, because the Charter is more explicit with respect to the guarantee of rights and the role of judges in enforcing them than was the Bill of Rights. The courts, when confronted with violations of Charter rights, have struck down unconstitutional federal and provincial statutes and regulations or parts of statutes and regulations, as they did when Canadian case law was primarily concerned with resolving issues of federalism.

30.

The Charter, however, granted new powers to the courts to enforce remedies that are more creative and to exclude more evidence in trials. These powers are greater than what was typical under the common law and under a system of government that, influenced by Canada's mother country the United Kingdom, was based upon Parliamentary supremacy. As a result, the Charter has attracted both broad support from a majority of the Canadian electorate and criticisms by opponents of increased judicial power. The Charter only applies to government laws and actions (including the laws and actions of federal, provincial, and municipal governments and public school boards), and sometimes to the common law, not to private activity

Equality rights:

Section 15: equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.

 

The notwithstanding clause authorizes governments to temporarily override the rights and freedoms in sections 2 and 7–15 for up to five years, subject to renewal

 

Interpretation and enforcement

The task of interpreting and enforcing the Charter falls to the courts, with the Supreme Court of Canada being the ultimate authority on the matter.

With the Charter's supremacy confirmed by section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the courts continued their practice of striking down unconstitutional statutes or parts of statutes as they had with earlier case law regarding federalism

 

In general, courts have embraced a purposive interpretation of Charter rights...

This is tied to the generous interpretation of rights, as the purpose of the Charter provisions is assumed to be to increase rights and freedoms of people in a variety of circumstances, at the expense of the government powers.

 

The only values mentioned by the Charter's preamble are recognition for the supremacy of God and the rule of law,

 

Most importantly, from a lawyer's perspective, is the fact that the principle of stare decisis does not apply to tribunals. In other words, a tribunal adjudicator could legally make a decision that differs from a past decision, on the same subject and issues, delivered by the highest court in the land. Because a tribunal is not bound by legal precedent, established by itself or by a reviewing court, a tribunal is not a court even though it performs an important adjudicative function and contributes to the development of law like a court would do.

31.

Although stare decisis does not apply to tribunals, their adjudicators will likely nonetheless find a prior court decision on a similar subject to be highly persuasive and will likely follow the courts in order to ensure consistency in the law and to prevent the embarrassment of having their decisions overturned by the courts. The same is true for past decisions of the tribunal.

Among the federal tribunals, there is a small group of tribunals whose decisions must be appealed directly to the Federal Court of Appeal rather than to the Federal Court Trial Division. These so-called "super tribunals" are listed in Subsection 28(1) of the Federal Court Act (R.S.C. 1985, Chapter F-7) and some examples include the National Energy Board, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Competition Tribunal, the Canada Industrial Relations Board (i.e. federal labour board), the Copyright Board, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ("CRTC").

Courts of inherent jurisdiction

The superior courts from the provinces and territories are courts of inherent jurisdiction, which means that the jurisdiction of the superior courts is more than just what is conferred by statute. Following the principles of English common law, because the superior courts derive their authority from the Constitution, they can hear any matter unless there is a federal or provincial statute that says otherwise or that gives exclusive jurisdiction to some other court or tribunal. The doctrine of inherent jurisdiction gives superior courts greater freedom than statutory courts to be flexible and creative in the delivering of legal remedies and relief.

32.