JUMP TO HOME PAGE

NOTICE OF CLAIM  

VANCOUVER SUPREME COURT (AUG.04-2018)

 

AFFIDAVIT

Between:

 

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

/fax: 613-521-1739

                                                                                                PLAINTIFF (self represented)

 

and:

 

The Board of Trustees (#45 West Vancouver)        DEFENDANT #1

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

 

The B.C. Teachers Federation / WVTA                      DEFENDANT #2 & #3

100-550 West 6th Avenue, 

 

AFFIDAVIT attesting to validity of documents herein enclosed

 

I, (full name of deponent) of  Roger Callow in the Province of Ontario (Ottawa)

AFFIRM:

1. That the material in this factum signed by the Plaintiff dated August 04-2018 is an accurate account of the material facts including Exhibit A.

 

AFFIDAVIT of FACTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.I require that a proper termination date be determined, or a settlement be achieved providing me compensation which would include pensionable service benefits;

7. The recent pension inquiries caused me to examine how I could get compensation or a termination date determined. There is no other remedy I can pursue other than as requested in this petition.

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

                                                                                                                                   

(signed) Roger Callow - deponent August 04-2018

 

Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS

[Using numbered paragraphs, set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the plaintiff's(s') claim.]

1) The propriety of the lay-off of senior high school teacher, Roger Callow, under the imposed conditions of BILL 35 (1985),has never been established in law despite many, many court hearings in British Columbia and elsewhere including the Supreme Court of Canada on four occasions.

                        2) Without a proper determination, the Employer refuses to pay any compensation.

If any party sues or is sued in a representative capacity, identify the party and describe the representative capacity.]

 

All legalities relating to the Union have transpired through the parent Union. Although the lawyer listed in this matter claims local affiliation, to the best of my knowledge, he has never met with any figures in the WVTA preferring to conduct all business with the legal department of the BCTF explaining why a copy of this action is being supplied only to the BCTF.

 

Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT

[Using numbered paragraphs, set out the relief sought and indicate against which defendant(s) that relief is sought. Relief may be sought in the alternative.]

1) The relief sought in this most unusual of cases before over 50 judges is unique and formed the basis of the case in 2012 (CA038538) which was not heard due to the interference of the 'MacKenzie Creed' whom, of her own volition, not quoting any laws nor taking argument and for reasons best known to herself, delisted the case. (The 'Cullen Creed' of 2013 did essentially the same thing forcing this plaintiff into venues outside of British Columbia).

 

2) Currently, a $20 million dollar civil fraud charge has been launched in Ontario against the Employer (CV 18000 769 0000 Ottawa) to obtain disclosure to reinforce my claim that the RCMP (Montreal Fraud Division)should file a criminal charge against this Employer

 

3) The essence of CA037538 is to request that this petitioner be returned to salary with all back pay plus interest appropriately compounded until the three forces; namely, the Employer, the Union, and the Courts deal with this unresolved legal matter.

 

4) EXHIBIT A is a necessary inclusion as it deals with all matters, both issues and applicable law, up to 2015. The Ontario Fraud Charge continues that story from that time period and is not a topic here unless the Defendants wish to include that aspect.

 

5) At root of all actions described here is a refusal of both the Employer and Union to provide disclosure in a denial which has been supported by every court hearing this matter.

 

6) cc B.C. Attorney General Hon. D. Edy

 

EXHIBIT  A

INDEX

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    PAGE  NUMBER

A) Res ipsa loquitur  (SEE below)                                                                                                                                                                       01

 

B) Importance of 'access' to the laws                                                                                                                                                               02

 

C) Review of a Surety Payment CA038538  Jan. 16-2013                                                                                                             03 - 09

 

D) Questions at Law - Which courts does 'MacKenzie Creed' apply?                                                                                                    09 - 10

 

E) Remedy Sought  Return to employment with all conditions to apply                                                                                   10

 

F) Supreme Court of Canada (2004) 'Mackenzie Creed' reduces

     Canada to that of a 'failed state'

     a) 33) lack of key disclosure                                                                                                                                                                           11 - 17

 

G) PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE   'grievance process'                                                                                                                              18

 

H) PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

     a) Role of inherent jurisdiction                                                                                                                                                                      19 - 20

     b) Weber v. Ontario Hydro (1995)             'ultimate remedy'                                                                                                              21

 

I) Jurisdiction of B.C. Courts  Mill v. London Life Insurance (2000)                                                                                                     22 - 23

 

J) CONCLUDING REMARKS Correctness of lay-off never established                                                                                                    23 - 26

 

                                               

“Res ipsa loquituris Latin. It means ‘the thing speaks for itself’… In malpractice lawsuits, prosecuting attorneys who successfully argue res… are guaranteed a significant payday. You see, our court of law is based upon the premise that we’re innocent until proven guilty. Res… turns that premise on its head. It says, because something happened and normally that something shouldn’t have happened, you, the accused, are guilty of causing it to happen. Therefore you are guilty of malpractice…That’s the given, just like the attorney can argue that the patient entered the operating room for a toe operation and left with one leg missing….”

 A Heartbeat Away Michael Palmer

 

SEE web: EVENTS UP TO 2015 / CA038538 SURETY.APPEAL  for complete 26 page account