JUMP TO HOME PAGE

 

Form 37A - Page 1                                                               File No.

                                           

THE QUEEN'S BENCH

WINNIPEG Centre

BETWEEN:

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739 

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

            Plaintiff                                                                                                                                                            plaintiff/applicant

- and -

1)Board of School Trustees

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

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

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Defendant #1

and

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

ATTN: Renee Willock - President

4915 Marine Drive

West Vancouver, B.C. V7W 2P5

tel: 604-926-1617  fax: 604-926-1119                                              Defendant #2                                                                                                                                                      Defendant #2

defendant/respondent

INDEX

PAGE NUMBER

1) Notice of Motion 37A & INDEX                                                      01-05

2) Hearing Date 62B                                                                                03

3) Taking Evidence Before Trial Rule 36                                           04

4) Sworn Affidavit                                                                                                05

5) Affidavit of Facts                                                                                  05 - 06

6) Statement of Claim 14A requesting disclosure                         07 - 08

7) Special Case Form 40                                                                          09 - 10

8) Delivery Notice 16B (to follow on file number-not included here)

9) Correspondence #1

(Letter to Premier Pallister May 01-2019)                                      11 - 17

10) Correspondence #2 relating to alleged fraud of Saskatoon

Courts and B.C.'s Harris & Co. JUNE 01-2019 plus addendum        17 - 19

                                               

    

NOTICE OF MOTION

(CIVIL FRAUD) 39.01(4)

The plaintiff's claim

This order alleges that Harris & Co. 'may have ignored, covered up, attempted to cover-up, allowed, tolerated, encouraged, participated in or were willfully blind to criminal conduct and/or serious misconduct in their bid to deny this plaintiff of his livelihood as a senior teacher in West Vancouver, B.C. dating from 1985. The operant word here is 'may' as the refusal of the Defendant with court support in many provinces has thwarted the attempt of this plaintiff to obtain disclosure: namely, the meeting notes of the West Vancouver School Trustees in June of 1985 which Justice Southin of B.C. Supreme Court called for and then returned them 'because she did not use them'. She quashed the arbitration favouring the Trustees for failing to show a causal factor. The arbitrator was ruled patently unreasonable. I was left in limbo. As one in attendance at that arbitration, conspicuous by its absence from his Report was the evidence of Assistant Superintendent, Bill May, whom was responsible for staffing, testifying that there was no need to lay off any teacher in June of 1985 under the imposed conditions of BILL 35 (B.C. 1985) or any other means. The arbitrator converted 16 new hires into 16 lay-offs adding my name as the necessary 17th. In short, the arbitration failed the 'threshold test'; namely, was there a need to lay off any staff under any

conditions in June of 1985? It appears that Justice Southin opened herself to 

blackmail by the Employer and the next 34 years has been spent by the courts of law across Canada 'covering the cover-up'.

 

 

Roger Callow - self-represented plaintiff

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

 

(Name, address and telephone number of party filing)

 

 

Form 37A - Page 2                                               File No.

THE QUEEN'S BENCH

WINNIPEG Centre

BETWEEN:

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739 

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

                                                                                                                                           Plaintiff

                                                                                                                                                                                       plaintiff/applicant

- and -

1)Board of School Trustees

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

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

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Defendant #1

and

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

ATTN: Renee Willock - President

4915 Marine Drive

West Vancouver, B.C. V7W 2P5

tel: 604-926-1617  fax: 604-926-1119                                                                  Defendant #2                                 

defendant/respondent

 

HEARING DATE: (FORM 62B)

The Plaintiff  ROGER CALLOW  will make a motion before the presiding judge 

            (moving party)

on ________Thursday_______ the __26___ day of  SEPTEMBER  20 19

                             (day)                           (date)                       (month)          (year)                   

 

at  10 A.M., or as soon after that time as the motion can be heard,  at:

Law Courts Building Main Floor

408 York Avenue

Winnipeg, MB R3C 0P9

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

 

THE   MOTION IS FOR: (State the precise relief sought) disclosure on which all else depends hence this information must be provided before any oral hearing. That material is limited to the meeting notes of the West Vancouver School Trustees in June of 1985 which B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Southin called for in 1986 and then returned to the Employer and Union 'because she did not use them'. Respective copies from both Defendants are required. As matters stand, the Employer has refused compensation for 34 years as they do not have a court Order to that effect although there have been many trials centered on that question. Even here, the Employer denies the oversight powers for imposed legislation. To date, the courts, and there have been many, fail to evaluate that constitutional challenge.

 

THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE: SEE 7 page letter to Premier Pallister included here as CORRESPONDENCE #1 (Specify the grounds to be argued, including a reference to any statutory provision or rule to be relied on)

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be used at the hearing of the motion:  (List the affidavits or other documentary evidence to be relied on) see affidavit enclosed below

RULE 36   TAKING EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIAL

By consent (unlikely) or by order (court Order or RCMP seizure)

36.01(1)    A party who intends to introduce the evidence of a person at trial may, with leave of the court or the consent of the parties, examine the person on oath or affirmation before trial for the purpose of having the person's testimony available to be tendered as evidence at the trial.

 

Form 37A - Page 3                                                    File No.

 

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY  EVIDENCE will be used at the hearing of the  motion: (List the affidavits or other documentary evidence to be relied on)

 

AFFIDAVIT OF ROGER CALLOW

                                   (name of party)

Roger Callow - self-represented plaintiff

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

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

 

I, ROGER CALLOW, of the PROVINCE of OTTAWA, ONTARIO, in the Province of ONTARIO, MAKE OATH AND SAY (OR AFFIRM):

 

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

 

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

 

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

see MOTION IS FOR DISCLOSURE relating to CORRESPONDENCE#1 & #2  included in this factum below

AFFIDAVIT of FACTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

AFFIRMED : in the Province of Ontario (Ottawa) on  JULY 02, 2019

 

Roger Callow (signed) self-represented Plaintiff

 

To:  (Name  and address of responding party and/or lawyer)

 

1)Board of School Trustees

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

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

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Defendant #1

and

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

ATTN: Renee Willock - President

4915 Marine Drive

West Vancouver, B.C. V7W 2P5

tel: 604-926-1617  fax: 604-926-1119                                               Defendant #2         

 

 

Form 14A - page 1                                                        File No.

THE QUEEN'S BENCH

WINNIPEG Centre

BETWEEN:

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739 

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

             Plaintiff                                                                                                                                                           plaintiff/applicant

- and -

1)Board of School Trustees

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

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

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Defendant #1

and

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

ATTN: Renee Willock - President

4915 Marine Drive

West Vancouver, B.C. V7W 2P5

tel: 604-926-1617  fax: 604-926-1119                                                             Defendant #2                                                   

defendant/respondent

 

Form 14A - page 2                                          File No.

 

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

 

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739 

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

                                                                                                                         Plaintiff

 

                                  (Name, address, and telephone number of party filing)

 

Form  14A - page 3                                                           File  No.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM (14A)

 

TO THE DEFENDANT:

 

A  LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff.  The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.

 

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or a Manitoba lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Queen's Bench Rules, serve it on the plaintiff's lawyer or where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Manitoba.

 

If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is FORTY days.  If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.

 

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGEMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.

 

(Where the claim made is for a stated amount of money only, include the following:)

 

IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM, and $750.00 for costs, within the time for serving and filing your statement of defence, you may move to have this proceeding dismissed by the court.  If you believe the amount claimed for costs is excessive, you may pay the plaintiff's claim and $750.00 for costs and have the costs assessed by the court. Once discovery has been produced, in all likelihood there will be no further need of Manitoba courts as far as the interests of this plaintiff are concerned.

 

(signed) Roger Callow Plaintiff  JULY 02-2019  $325 (MOTION plus CLAIM COURT FEE included)           

 

Issued                                                                                                                Deputy Registrar

 

 

 

To:  (Name and address of each defendant)

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

1075-21st Street,

West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9   

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                                                                   Defendant #1

and

 

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

British Columbia Teachers Federation (parent union)

ATTN: Renee Willock - President

4915 Marine Drive

West Vancouver, B.C. V7W 2P5

tel: 604-926-1617  fax: 604-926-1119                                                      Defendant #2  

 

Form 40 - page 1                          SPECIAL CASE                                   File no:

BETWEEN:

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739 

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com                                                                            Plaintiff,

                                                                           ‑ and ‑

1)Board of School Trustees

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

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

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                                                              Defendant #1

                                                                                    and

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

ATTN: Renee Willock - President

4915 Marine Drive  West Vancouver, B.C. V7W 2P5  

tel: 604-926-1617  fax: 604-926-1119                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Defendant #2

           

SPECIAL CASE

 

THE FOLLOWING CASE is stated for the opinion of the court:

1.       (Set out, in consecutively numbered paragraphs, the material facts of the case, as agreed on by the parties, that are necessary to enable the court to determine the questions stated.  Refer to and include a copy of any relevant documents).

           THE QUESTIONS for  the opinion of the court are: disclosure as outlined in The Motion is For noted above

                                                                            

1.       (Set out the questions in consecutively numbered paragraphs).

           THE RELIEF SOUGHT on the determination of the questions stated is: disclosure

 

1.       (Set out the relief sought, as agreed on by the parties, in respect of each possible answer to each of the questions stated, in a form that could readily be incorporated into an order).

           see above

 

(Date) JULY 02-2019                                                                 

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739 

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

            Plaintiff                                                                                                                                                            plaintiff/applicant

(signed)

 

I MAKE THIS AFFIDAVIT BONA FIDE AND IN SUPPORT OF MY NOTICE OF

MOTION/ APPLICATION.

Sworn   (or Affirmed) before me at the

          of

in the Province of Manitoba,

this  02   day of  JULY of  the year 2019   (see sworn Affidavit page 5)                                                           

 

Signature  of   Deponent

Deputy  Registrar for Queen's Bench or A  Commissioner for Oaths in and for

The Province of Manitoba

My   Commission expires:

 

 

CORRESPONDENCE #1

May 01-2019 - 7 pages

 

TO: Brian Pallister Premier MB               FROM: Roger Callow self-represented plaintiff

450 Broadway Ave.                                   1285 Cahill Dr. #2001 Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

Winnipeg MB R3C 0V8                             t/f: (613) 521-1739

t.(204)945-3714  f.(204)949-1484      e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

e-mail: info@brianpallister.com            web: employeescasecanada.ca  MAY 2019                                                                                     Sub-heading: PREMIER PALLISTER

 

MESSAGE:

1) As you may read from the website (APRIL 2019); I was unsuccessful in getting the Premiers of SK and AB to appoint Special Counsel in a 34 year bid to obtain a (well defined) disclosure from the B.C. Employer/Union conspiracy augmented by over 50 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada on four unsuccessful Appeals in this unresolved labour matter regarding a senior West Vancouver, B.C. teacher fired (oops, laid off for economic reasons) under the neophyte imposed BILL 35 which was rescinded after its sole use in this case in typical banana republic fashion. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid.

2) When I was expelled from B.C. in 2013 for 'reasons best known to a judge'; I turned to other Canadian venues including the Federal Court, ON courts, QC courts, PEI courts, NS courts and more recently B.C. again (new gov't.) AB and SK courts. Due to judicial malfeasance which no oversight body would even acknowledge, let alone examine, this plaintiff has been left with little other choice than to include judges as part of the civil fraud cases which I currently launch as a means of protection against wild assertions by judges appointed to this case registered in a corrupted judicial Registry. No recognition therefore exists of allegations of judicial malfeasance as oversight bodies collectively bow out. In Manitoba, I add the B.C. legal outfit of Harris and Company to the fraud accusations which has been associated with this case on the behalf of the Employer for many years. The Union never appears.

3) Manitoba is coming up against the Federal Government regarding the imposed carbon tax which, similar to SK and ON, they can expect to lose although their case is stronger. Rather than depending on Section 91 and 92 of the BNA ACT, as was the case of the first two, MB presented a carbon tax proposal to the Federal Government to which the latter did not respond. No doubt Manitoba's plan did not include the 20% fee applied by the Federal government; a distinctive downer for the Feds.

4) Providing me with Special Counsel would enable MB to challenge the Federal government on 4 levels: a) disclosure on which all else depends and is the focus of my case b) the constitutional question regarding imposed legislation  c) the named judges which I include only to protect myself from outside assertions from the unexamined judicial record. d) the addition of Vancouver's Harris & Co. for fraud as they are too cosy with the courts.

5) The insidious feature of imposed legislation is that the government level concerned may change the parameters after the initial court sanction. For example, BILL 35 was for the purpose of teacher lay-off for economic reasons (which was not a problem in 1985). As it was in addition to the Schools Act, it did not displace any of the other features related to teacher employment as it stated in the BILL. Compensation features were included for affected teachers (paralleling compensation features under the collective bargaining rules and such as the B.C. Labour Board).

6) In ON (12-54944 Ottawa Registry 2014 Mackenzie j ), the Employer as Plaintiff sought to extinguish all rights of this Defendant for compensation on the grounds that the courts had no oversight powers over an arbitration which the court in 1986 quashed ruling the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. I was left in limbo where I remain to this day. MacKenzie j merely ruled that, as the Defendant, I was being frivolous & vexatious. Three different accounts of his Decision exist with each not referencing the other. That's fraud at the highest level.

7) In brief, Justice Southin covered up a fraud and all succeeding courts are guilty of covering a cover-up.

8) Should you choose not to assign Special Counsel, I will be left with the basic disclosure features of my civil fraud case. Who knows, I might find an ethical judge in MB; I certainly have not anywhere else.

9) Due to the history of this case, all materials are now focused through the Office of Governor General Julie Payette to make direct contact with the incumbent Prime Minister on a matter of national importance for a country without an efficacious legal system cannot be a democracy. Both you and the GG will be kept aware of events of this MB action as it unfolds. Events are also posted on my web site: SEE 2019 RECENT 5

 

THE PERSONAL CHALLENGE TO PREMIER PALLISTER

10) France collaborated with the Nazis in WWII with the British Parliament about to concede as well if it had not been for Winston Churchill whom talked them into resisting. (Canada would have been invaded by the U.S. if the Brits had collaborated as protection of their northern flank. Would they have gone home after the war? We will never know.) The point here is that Churchill stood up to the bully boys so that even if Britain had lost WWII, they remained with their heads held high. Is that 'Churchill' in Canada to be MB Premier Pallister against a capricious Justice System?

11) If so, all I ask is the appointment of Special Counsel leaving me to do the heavy lifting by myself at insignificant cost to the MB government. Of course disclosure which underlies the other two points regarding misbehaving judges and the Harris & Co. connection can easily be disposed of as Harris & Co. cannot represent themselves with no legal Company in its right mind representing them. A brief written Decision would suffice here covering the disposition of both the judges and Harris & Co.. All I need is protection from Justice Canada which the naming of Special Counsel by you should do.

12) While my goal is solely disclosure; I am prepared to fight against imposed legislation as the only case on record entitled to do so due to its unfinished nature. Your government lawyers may wish intervener status on this case for the purpose.

13) I will keep you apprised as Premier (as per all other provinces) of legal events as they unfold with this admonition: do not expose Manitoba residents to being deprived of having individual recourse before the civil law courts impaired as happened across Canada wherever this case has been held. You can do it. Now will you do it?

 

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

14) Unfortunately, other than the Employee's Case (imposed BILL 35 B.C. 1985), there is no extant case as to what can happen when a government seeks to circumvent Parliament and the Courts with imposed  legislation: Consider the following argument;

   

(SEE employeescasecanada.ca Sub-heading  APRIL  2019 / PREMIER MOE for this account and more related material

by: Plaintiff  Roger Callow Saskatoon SK QBG 512 of 2019)

 

The Supreme Court  of Canada never heard a number of my appeals including  the  malfeasance of judges and the failure thereto of  the oversight bodies such as (Justice Canada)  to even acknowledge the existence of these complaints let alone dealing with these matters of national concern. To the best of my knowledge,  the SCofC has  never heard an Appeal from a self-represented individual  with his 'Model T' form of action (no money to  be made for the court). Below is one such SCofC case and my interpretation as it relates to the employeescasecanada.ca  Ref: pp.  462-3 of Harris &  Co.   paralegal material

 

B.   Supreme Court of Canada Authority 

 

  20.  In its recent decision in British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the finality principle and, in particular, the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process, as follows:

 

           [27] The three preconditions of issue estoppel are whether the same question has been decided; whether the earlier decision was final; and whether the parties, or their privies, were the same in both proceedings (Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, 1974 CanLII 168 (SCC), [1975] 2 .C.R. 248, at p. 254). These concepts were most recently examined by this Court in Danyluk, where Binnie J. emphasized the importance of finality in litigation: "A litigant ... is only entitled to one bite at the cherry.... Duplicative litigation, potential inconsistent results, undue costs, and  inconclusive proceedings are to be avoided" (para. 18). Parties should be able to rely particularly on the conclusive nature of administrative decisions, he noted, since administrative regimes are designed to facilitate the expeditious resolution of disputes (para. 50). All of this is guided by the theory that "estoppel is a doctrine of public policy that is             designed to advance the interests of justice" (para. 19).

 Response   (R.)

(27) The  Employee's  Case remains unresolved with no compensation having been paid in 34 years of litigation due to judicial chicanery. What a boone  for Employer's  seeking  to avoid their fiduciary obligations! No administrative body (e.g. Canadian Council of Judges) has even acknowledged serious judicial malfeasance let alone dealt with the matter unless, of course, the  Employer is able to claim that the court quashed arbitration in which the arbitrator was labeled patently unreasonable for failing to show a causal  factor is ultra vires. The Employer launched a case in 2014  before ON MacKenzie  j. to justify their action on this level which was ignored by him, rather turning everything  on its head blaming this Defendant  for being  frivolous & vexatious.

 

(33) Even where res judicata is not strictly available, Arbour j. concluded, the doctrine of abuse of process can be triggered where allowing the litigation to proceed would violate principles such as "judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice" (para. 37). She stressed the goals of avoiding inconsistency and wasting judicial and private resources: Even if the same result is reached in the subsequent proceeding, the relitigation will prove to have been a waste of judicial resources as well as an unnecessary expense for the parties and possibly an additional  hardship for some witnesses. Finally, if the result in the subsequent proceeding is different from the conclusion reached in the first on the very same issue, the inconsistency, in and of itself, will undermine the credibility of the entire judicial process, thereby diminishing its authority, its credibility and its aim of finality. [para. 51](See also R.v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63 (CanLII), [2008] 3 S.C.R. 316, at para. 106, per Charron J.)

 

R:   (33)   Arbour SCofC j. has hit the hammer on the nail...the  credibility of over  50 judges is on  the line if disclosure, which underlies this case is produced  hence 'ready, aye, ready' is the response of all courts to date. But that can change. Consider the Pope still trying to pray for the souls of all in the pedophilia scandal when individual victims are saying...forget  the prayers; we want justice against pedophile priests!

 

              [34] At their heart the foregoing doctrines exist to prevent unfairness by preventing "abuse of the decision-making process" (Danyluk, at para. 20; see also Garland, at para.72, and Toronto (City), at para. 37). Their common underlying principles can be summarized as follows:

                  It is in the interests of the public and the parties that the finality of a decision can  be relied on (Danyluk, at para. 18; Boucher, at para. 35).

                  Respect for the finality of a judicial or administrative decision increases fairness and  the integrity of the courts, administrative tribunals and the administration of justice; on the other hand, re-litigation of issues that have been previously decided in an appropriate forum (R.C.) may  undermine confidence in this fairness and integrity by creating  inconsistent results and unnecessarily duplicative proceedings (Toronto (City), at paras. 38 and 51).

                  The  method of challenging the validity or correctness of a judicial or administrative decision should be through the appeal or      judicial review mechanisms  that are intended by the legislature (Boucher, at para. 35;  Danyluk, at para. 74).

                  Parties should not circumvent the appropriate review mechanism by  using other forums to challenge a judicial or administrative decision (TeleZone, at para. 61; Boucher, at para. 35; Garland, at para. 72).

                  Avoiding unnecessary relitigation avoids an unnecessary expenditure of resources (Toronto (City), at paras. 37 and 51).

 

R:   (34) 5  points

a)    see (27) regarding 'finality' in the Employee's Case

b)    The  courts  have bought into the specious Employer's  argument that the

central  issues have been previously decided. Not so. Justice Southin in 1986 ordered the matter back to arbitration when the Employer failed to return employment to this Plaintiff as she recommended (not ordered). The Employer did not return to arbitration even after losing an Appeal on that point of a reconvened arbitration.

c) R: I have had a belly-full of Appeal Courts which in this case and many others provide political answers as opposed to good judicial responses. Ignoring the central issues is key to this cabal of Chief Justices operating under the  protection of Justice Canada where there is no oversight - or alternatively political interference - hence one sees such as the LAVSCAM disaster. In the Employee's Case, every Province this case has been seen (6 );there has been considerable judicial abuse.

d) R:That's exactly what the Employer did in this case by claiming that the courts have no oversight powers of imposed  legislation (BILL 35 -B.C. 1985) of which Appeal they lost as noted above. Even ON Mackenzie j. refused to discuss this issue which was the reason why the Employer launched the case as the Plaintiff.

e) R: If this matter of my senior teacher lay-off had been a playground disagreement; it would have been  resolved inside of 15 minutes and, I dare add, with considerably more justice than 34 years of wasted litigation. If Justice Southin in 1986 had ordered my return as opposed to recommending my return to teaching in West Vancouver, this matter would have ended there. It was a stunt, according to my then legal Counsel, Harry Rankin (d), that she could not get away with. Well, she has to date, as a cover-up of her perfidy has been reinforced by over 50 judges in a 'cover-up of the cover up': Justice Canada, by rights, should pay all bills for this travesty of immense proportions never before encountered in any judicial system.

 

Roger Callow Plaintiff (in many forums)  rcallow770@gmail.com

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow cc Governor General Payette

web site: MAY 2019 Sub-heading:  PREMIER PALLISTER

 

ADDENDUM

A parallel action against only the Union is being refiled in PEI from 2016 under the new government with a special challenge to the Opposition Green Party to divorce themselves from the traditional parties by speaking publicly in their legislature to this issue as they too are contesting the imposed carbon tax. SEE employeescasecanada.ca  2019 JUNE  Sub-heading PEI CIVIL CASE JUNE 15-2019 As a side note, there is an interesting observation on the 'principled' Jody Raybould-Wilson in 2016, now the ex-Justice Minister. A second action Sub-title NEW BRUNSWICK (REVISED) -JUNE 14-2019 is found here as well.

 

 

CORRESPONDENCE #2

 

JUNE 01-2019 employeescasecanada.ca 2019 JUNE

 

BY: Roger Callow Plaintiff employeescasecanada.ca  SEE 2019 JUNE  sub-heading NEW BRUNSWICK (34 year unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation has been paid due to the 'intricacies' of the imposed BILL 35 (1985) used only against this senior West Vancouver teacher in an alleged lay-off for economic reasons.  e-mail: rcallow770 @gmail.com

Sun, 26 May, 12:44 (3 days ago)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif

...I am a litigant subject to the vexatious litigant judgment in Ontario. I will be making an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
I can see from Canlii that Justice Thomas made an order against you on the inherent jurisdiction of the court   Callow v West Vancouver Teacher’s Association (Local School District Number 45), 2019 ABQB 353(CanLII)
Justice Thomas copied this directly form (sic) the order of Justice Corbett in Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2019 ONCA 359(CanLII) and Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2018 ONSC 58 (CanLII),
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently granted leave to appeal in  Vuong Van Tai Holding Inc v Alberta (Minister of Justice and Solicitor General), 2019 ABCA 165 (CanLII) and suggested that Makis v Alberta Health Services, 2019 ABCA 23 (CanLII), and Lymer (Re), 2018 ABCA 368 z(CanLII) be heard together.  The NSRLP obtained leave to interven (sic) in Jonsson v Lymer, 2019 ABCA 113 (CanLII)
I spoke with one of the lawyers and they have agreed to have appeals heard together  and the main issue will be the court making vexatious litigant order (sic) on the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
The order that was made against you was also made on the inherent jurisdiction and without the attorney general.

... have attached the decisions to this email in an attachment, Bring an appeal and ask for leave and ask if you can have you (sic) appeal heard together. 

 

1) New Brunswick, due to its challenge to the imposed  Carbon Tax is about to undergo a similar 'whang, bang, thank-you ma'am, performance paralleling other provinces including PEI. In brief, you stand little chance of success if you (Premier Higgs) follow the route of SK which ignored my legal advice and instead brought a knife to a gun fight. No matter which way their appeal goes, they are tarnished with the lower court conviction in perpetuity. (N.B. has been chosen as this is the first foray by this case into this province raising the question as to which interests control your courts...the Premier or the grey eminence?)

2) While it is an uphill battle, giving this plaintiff Special Status in order to function on 3 levels is required in order to make a constitutional challenge. That was Premier King's role after the abject failure of the Green Party. It would seem now that PEI must go it on their own and SK shows the folly of that course (ADDENDUM July 02-2019: Premier Hicks did not support my conjoining of the two cases.)

 

5) I was dumbfounded to find Harris & Co. present on an ad hoc presentation before Konkin j. on April 25 never believing that Konkin j. would ask him to forward his 500 word submission to me for a rebuttal. The material was borrowed from another court and in no way referenced the Saskatoon Court. Konkin j. lied to me on that direct question.

 

(JULY 02-2019 ADDENDUM: In dismissing this issue on a resumed hearing before a second Saskatoon judge on May 25-2019, no written judgment was made as requested by this plaintiff hence the appearance of the Defendant sending me the information as ordered by Konkin j., which he did, would be made to appear that the case was dropped as I had not taken further action. This piece of malfeasance was directed to the Canadian Council of Judges (on SK judicial oversight advice) which never responded. Indeed, I have never had this body acknowledge the many acts of malfeasance on the parts of judges explaining why they are included in my fraud actions. Details are available to this court on request although my primary goal is to obtain disclosure for use in venues other than Manitoba.)

 

 

(signed) Roger Callow  July 02-2019

 

cc Governor General Payette / Premier Pallister