JUMP TO HOME PAGE

 

Form 14A                                                                             File No. ______________

 

WINNIPEG QUEEN'S BENCH COURT

 

(CIVIL FRAUD) JUNE 18-2019

 

 

 

 

(Where the document is an affidavit, the title shall include the deponent's name and the date the affidavit was sworn or affirmed).

 

(Where the document is a notice of motion, notice of application or notice of appeal, the title shall include the hearing date). September 26, 2019  10:00 a.m.

 

 (Name, address and telephone number of the lawyer who has conduct of the proceeding or, where the party acts in person, the party's name and address of service including postal code and telephone number)

 

                                                            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)

 

                  INDEX

                        PAGE NUMBER

1) FORM 14A & INDEX                                                                                  01

2) Notice of Motion 37A                                                                                          02 - 03

3) Hearing Date 62B                                                                                      04

4) Statement of Claim 14A                                                                          05 - 11

5) Special Case 22A                                                                                        12 - 13

6) Concise Statement of Claim                                                                   14 - 15

7) Sworn Affidavit                                                                                                      16

8) Affidavit of Facts                                                                                        17

9) Delivery Notice 16B (to follow on file number)                                          18

10

) Correspondence (Letter to Premier Pallister)                                    7 pages

    (vital constitutional information)

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/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

 

NOTICE OF MOTION (37A)

 

 

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

                        (address of court house)

 

THE MOTION IS FOR: (State the precise relief sought) Disclosure

THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE: SEE 6 page letter to Premier Pallister included here as CORRESPONDENCE (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

 

JUNE 18-2019  (Date)                   Signature of Lawyer or Applicant

                                                                               

 

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

 

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

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 62B

 

                                                       NOTICE OF HEARING DATE

 

 

Upon the request of the appellant ROGER CALLOW, the registrar has set    THURSDAY [day]              , the  26   day of    SEPTEMBER                     , 2019     , at 10:00  a.m./p.m., at WINNIPEG QUEEN'S BENCH COURT / LAW COURTS / 408 YORK AVENUE / WINNIPEG,  / R3C 0P9 [address]               , Manitoba as the time and place for the hearing of the appeal from the order (or decision or certificate) of judge (date). JUNE 18-2019 application date

 

 

(Date) JUNE 18-2019

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739 

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

                       plaintiff/applicant

- and -

1)Board of School Trustees

(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

 

(Name, address and telephone number of appellant or appellant's lawyer)

 

TO:    (name and address of respondent or respondent's lawyer)

         SEE above

      

THE QUEEN’S BENCH - 14A

WINNIPEG Centre

 

BETWEEN:

ROGER CALLOW

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Plaintiff

and

 

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

                                                                                                                                                                                    Defendant #1

and

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

 

 

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.

 

(signed) Roger Callow Plaintiff

 

JUNE 18-2019  $135 COURT FEE included       Issued

Date                                                                                          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

 

CLAIM (14A)

 

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

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

b) Hence the question of jurisdiction in Manitoba is to be evaluated.

c) By failing to call for disclosure, B.C. Justice Hinckson cj has abetted a fraud reflected in the failure of over 50 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada over a period of 33 years to call for the all important disclosure which, it is alleged here, would demonstrate fraud.  

d) The nature of the Hinckson's cj 'oblique' action has impaired continuing in B.C. Courts by this appellant.

e) Currently this matter regarding Hinckson cj has been relegated to the New Democratic Party government in British Columbia for adjudication. There has been no response to date. SEE employeescasecanada.ca 2018 HINCKSON cj

FRAUD

f) It is due to the failure of the oversight bodies in both the Justice System and Government to acknowledge serious malfeasance by specific judges which explains why their names are being included in this filing.

(i) Ottawa Supreme Court Justices C. McKinnon and R. Scott whom, it is alleged here, conspired with the Employer's Ontario lawyer, Hicks, Morley et al to pervert the course of Justice in this case in 2014. The latter has since dropped representing  the Employer. It is this fraud which permeates cases in all other venues.

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

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

 

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

       NI  Gmail                                                              Roger Callow <rcallow770@gmail.com>

     Your  case  in Alberta Courts    -    important

   2 messages

   26 May 2019 at 12:43

   To: rcallow770@gmail.com

 

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

 

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

 

     I can see from Canlii that Justice Thomas made an order against you on

     the inherent jurisdiction of the court Callow v West Vancouver

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

     (CanLII)

     Justice Thomas copied this directly from the order of Justice Corbett

     in Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2019 ONCA  359(CanLII) and Peoples

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

 

     The Alberta Court of Appeal recently granted leave to appeal in Vuong

     Van Tai Holding Inc v Alberta (Minister of Justice and Solicitor

     General), 2019 ABCA 165 (CanLII) and suggested that Makis v Alberta

     Health Services, 2019 ABCA 23 (CanLII), and Lymer (Re), 2018 ABCA 368

     (CanLII) be heard together. The NSRLP obtained leave to intervene in

     Jonsson  v Lymer, 2019 ABCA 113 (CanLII)

 

     I spoke with one of the lawyers and they have agreed to have appeals

     heard together and the main issue will be the court making vexatious

     litigant order on the inherent jurisdiction of the court

.

     The order that was made against you was also made on the inherent

     jurisdiction and without the attorney general

 

     Please email me to discuss

 

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

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

REMEDY SOUGHT

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

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

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

4) The disclosure sought is for the minutes of the School Board Trustees in West Vancouver of June 1985 which Justice Mary Southin called for and then returned to the Employer and the lawyer I hired to replace lawyers favouring the Union case. If the latter had turned my copy over to me rather than to the Union, we would not be here today. Under a Freedom of Information Request in 2004, I learned that two out of the five trustees had approved the lay-off under Bill 35; namely, Chairperson, Margo Furk, and her successor, Mike Smith. Other material supplied in the Arbitration but conspicuous by its absence from his Decision illustrate most clearly, it is alleged here, that a fraud had indeed taken place. For example, there is no mention of the testimony of Deputy Superintendent Bill May responsible for staffing whom claimed that there was no need to lay off a teacher in West Vancouver in June of 1985. 

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

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

DUE TO THE LINK WITH THE IMPOSED CARBON TAX, A COPY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING PROVIDED TO PREMIER PALLISTER. OF INTEREST TO THE COURT SHOULD BE THE 6-PAGE LETTER INCLUDED HERE AS CORRESPONDENCE  WHICH DETAILS  A LEGAL RESPONSE IN THE TERMS OF ANOTHER SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CHALLENGE.

FOR THIS SINGLE OCCASION, I WILL NOT PURSUE LEGAL COUNSEL SEPARATELY FOR APPEARING. (THEY HAVE NOT APPEARED IN RECENT HEARINGS BUT I ASK FOR A 20 PAGE LIMITED RESPONSE TO PERTINENT MATERIAL IN THIS CASE i.e. NO 500 WORD 'BILLABLE TIME' FACTUMS. TO DATE, THEIR POSITION, UNCHALLENGED BY THE COURT, IS TO CLAIM THAT THIS LITIGANT IS MERELY RE-ARGUING MATTERS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN SETTLED WITHOUT DETAILING WHICH MATTERS HAVE BEEN SETTLED AND HOW THEY HAVE BEEN SETTLED. HENCE THE CHARGE OF BEING 'FRIVOLOUS AND VEXATIOUS' AS A MEANS OF DISPOSING OF THIS UNRESOLVED ISSUE IS PRIMARILY A FAILURE OF THE MANY COURTS ASSIGNED THIS CASE TO DATE TO PURSUE THOSE ANSWERS. THAT HAS TO CHANGE. PROVIDING DISCLOSURE IS THE FIRST STEP FOR REMEDIATION.

CONSIDERING THAT HARRIS & COMPANY HAVE BEEN NAMED IN THIS ACTION, IT SHOULD BE NOTICED THAT AN ACTION FOR FRAUD AGAINST THEM HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO IN NEW BRUNSWICK (SEE web).  THE UNION HAS NEVER APPEARED PREFERRING TO HIDE BEHIND THE EMPLOYER IN THIS OBVIOUS 'SWEETHEART DEAL'. AS SUCH, THE ONE HOUR TELECONFERENCING SHOULD BE OVER INSIDE OF ONE MINUTE; EITHER I AM GETTING SAID DISCLOSURE OR I AM NOT.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS SIGNIFICANT AS THIS IS THE ONLY EXTANT CASE IN WHICH TIME HAS SHOWN HOW ONE LITIGANT (THE EMPLOYER)HAS MANIPULATED THE IMPOSED LEGISLATION TO MAKE IT MEAN SOMETHING IT IS NOT WITHOUT FEAR OF PARLIAMENTARY OR COURT OVERSIGHT. IN BRIEF, THEY DENY THAT THE COURT HAS OVERSIGHT POWERS FOR IMPOSED LEGISLATION.

THIS CASE HAS GONE ON FOR FAR TOO LONG AND IS TAKING ITS TOLL IN UNEXPECTED DIRECTIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, NOVA SCOTIA HAS CANCELLED THEIR SCHOOL BOARDS AS NO DOUBT FEAR OF A 'WINGNUT' SCHOOL BOARD PROVOKING A $20 MILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT IS SOMETHING THEY WISH TO AVOID AT ALL COSTS. OTHER PROVINCES HAVE TALKED OF ELIMINATING SCHOOL BOARDS AS WELL.

 

FORM 22A

 

SPECIAL CASE

 

(General Heading ‑ Form 4A or 4B)

 

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

                                                                                    Concise Statement

 

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 REMEDY under Concise Statement

 

 

(Date) JUNE 18-2019                                                                

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739 

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

 

 

(signed) plaintiff/applicant

 

 

                                                                                

FILE NO. _______________

 

GENERAL HEADING OF DOCUMENTS ‑ ACTIONS

 

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,

                                                                           ‑ 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       

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                (Title) civil fraud

 

 

                                                               (Text of Document)

 

1) CONCISE  STATEMENT  (see STATEMENT OF CLAIM)

 (Where the document is an affidavit, the title shall include the deponent's name and the date the affidavit was sworn or affirmed). SWORN AFFIDAVIT FOLLOWS

 

(Where the document is a notice of motion, notice of application or notice of appeal, the title shall include the hearing date). SEPTEMBER 26,2019, 10:00 A.M. (OR CLOSE DATE ASSIGNED BY THE COURT)

 

 (Name, address and telephone number of party filing)

 

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739 

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

 

 

 

THE QUEEN'S BENCH

WINNIPEG Centre

 

BETWEEN:

ROGER CALLOW

                                                                                                                           applicant/

petitioner/plaintiff

- and -

 

1)Board of School Trustees

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

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Defendant #1

and

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

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Defendant #2

                                                                                                                           respondent/

                                                                                                                           defendant

 

Roger Callow

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)

 

THE QUEEN'S BENCH

WINNIPEG Centre

 

BETWEEN:

ROGER CALLOW

                                                                                                            applicant/ plaintiff

- and -

1)Board of School Trustees

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

                                                                                                                        Defendant #1

and

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

                                                                                                                        Defendant #2                                                                                                                     respondent/ defendant

 

 

 

AFFIDAVIT OF ROGER CALLOW

                                   (name of party)

 

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

 

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739 

e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

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

 

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

 

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

 

1.       I am the self-represented applicant, and as such have

personal knowledge of the facts and matters hereinafter deposed to by me save and except where same are stated to be based upon information and belief, in which case I verily believe them to be true.

 

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

see CONCISE STATEMENT AND REMEDY ABOVE.

 

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  JUNE 18, 2019

 

Roger Callow (signed) Plaintiff

 

 

 

DELIVERY - 16 B TO BE COMPLETED WITH COPY TO COURT AFTER FILE NO. RECEIVED

 

$135 Filing Fee included

 

 

(CIVIL FRAUD)

 

(Where the document is an affidavit, the title shall include the deponent's name and the date the affidavit was sworn or affirmed).

 

(Where the document is a notice of motion, notice of application or notice of appeal, the title shall include the hearing date). SEPTEMBER 26, 2019  10:00 a.m.

 

(Where there are more than two parties a short title showing the names of the first party on each side followed by the words "and others" may be used).

 

(Name, address and telephone number of the lawyer who has conduct of the proceeding or, where the party acts in person, the party's name and address of service including postal code and telephone number)

 

 

                                                                  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)

 

 

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.