JUMP TO HOME PAGE

 

 

FORM 16A (revised JUNE 14-2019)

 

FILE NUMBER _______________

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH - SAINT JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK

STYLE OF PROCEEDING - IN WRITING ON A PARTY BY PARTY BASIS

 

NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIM ATTACHED

 

TO: Harris  and Company LLP                            

(representing the Board of School Trustees West Vancouver, B.C.)          

ATTN: Geoff Litherland                                                      

14th Floor  550 Burrard Street                                                     

Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2B5

tel: 604-684-6633  fax: 604-684-6632     8 pages including this one SENT BY FAX

 

     LEGAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU BY FILING THIS NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIM ATTACHED.

 

     If you wish to defend these proceedings, either you or a New Brunswick lawyer acting on your behalf must prepare your Statement of Defence in the form prescribed by the Rules of Court and serve it on the self-represented plaintiff at the address shown below, and with proof of such service, file it in this Court Office together with the filing fee of $50.

 

FROM: Roger Callow  self-represented Plaintiff

1285 Cahill Drive  East #2001 

Ottawa, Ontario  K1V 9A7

tel/fax: 613-521-1739    FILING FEE $100 included

 

(b) If you are served elsewhere in Canada...,WITHIN 40 DAYS after such service.

 

     If you fail to do so, you may be deemed to have admitted any claim made against you, and without further notice to you, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE.

You are advised that:

(a) you are entitled to issue documents and present evidence in the proceeding in English....(as per past hearings on this matter)  (b) & (c) language concerns: see a)

     If you pay to the plaintiff...the amount of the plaintiff's claim ($20 million in lieu of providing disclosure), together with the sum of $100 for the plaintiff's costs, within the time you are required to serve and file your Statement of Defence, further proceedings will be stayed or you may apply to the court to have the action dismissed. Should disclosure be voluntarily provided prior to the court intervention, this action will be dropped by the plaintiff.

 

THIS NOTICE is signed and sealed for the Court of Queen's Bench by ____________

Clerk of the Court at Saint John, on the____ day of ____________, 2019

 

Court

Seal        __________________________(clerk)

 

Address of Court Office: 10 Peel Plaza, Saint John, NB E2L 3G6

 

 

 AFFIDAVIT attesting to validity of documents herein enclosed

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

AFFIRM:

That the material in this factum signed by the Plaintiff dated JUNE 14, 2019 is an accurate account of the material facts included.

 

Signed (Roger Callow)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Set out in separate, numbered paragraphs the following:

1. The capacity of all persons who are parties to the proceeding:

Harris  and Company LLP                        

(representing the Board of School Trustees West Vancouver, B.C.)          

ATTN: Geoff Litherland                                                      

14th Floor  550 Burrard Street                                                     

Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2B5

tel: 604-684-6633  fax: 604-684-6632         

 

2. The place of residence of the plaintiff:

 Roger Callow  self-represented Plaintiff

1285 Cahill Drive  East #2001 / Ottawa, Ontario  K1V 9A7 / tel/fax: 613-521-1739 

3. Where the Statement of Claim is to be served out of New Brunswick without leave, the facts upon which it is alleged that such service is permitted.

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 14, 2019

 

Roger Callow (signed) Plaintiff

 

4. Each allegation of a material fact relied upon to substantiate the claim.

The fact of the criminality of the Saskatoon Court QGB 52 0f 2019 and the Defendant in April and May of 2019 is not included here as EXHIBIT A but can be accessed by the court on request. (An earlier version includes this 5 page Exhibit and may be found on employeescasecanada.ca 2019 JUNE NEW BRUNSWICK Subtitle. This current action is filed under NEW BRUNSWICK (refiled) ) Due to the history of 34 years in which the court oversight bodies refuse to acknowledge let alone investigate serious judicial malfeasance, this plaintiff is forced to open in other courts as evidenced on the web site: employeescasecanada.ca More recently, a compendium of that abuse has been packaged under the heading 2019 JUNE GOVERNOR GENERAL PAYETTE . Material fact related to this fraud is being withheld until I have a response from the Defendant which is unlikely to be forthcoming considering my threat to sue them or anyone representing them for fraud. (The recent case in Saskatoon appears to be an anomaly where a tacit agreement was broken with the appearance of Harris & Co. )The truth of the matter is that none of the three litigants - the Employer, the Union (not represented here) nor myself as Plaintiff, can obtain legal representation.

 

5. 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'.

     The reason that New Brunswick has been selected to hear this case is that it is one of the few provinces in which this case has not been heard previously and therefore not tainted with corruption.

     To that end, as is the case with all other provinces, Premier Higgs is being kept fully apprised of activity in this case. Due to the connections with the imposed Carbon Tax which New Brunswick has given notice that they will contest, I have offered to include a constitutional challenge which, it is submitted here, is vital to their success. THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN June 14-2019

 

To that end, a justice with constitutional background should be appointed. I am prepared to accept intervener status from the province in order that their concerns may be  filed as well. Whatever option Premier Higgs chooses, disclosure is necessitated for both our concerns.

     It is to be noted that I am including the face page of the 500 word factum of Harris & Co. in the EXHIBIT A illustrating that there is no connection with the Saskatoon Court illustrating the full impact of this fraud.

 

     Until I learn the intentions of the Defendant, this is a 'bare bones' presentation. Not included here is BILL 35, Justice Southin's Report (or the Appeal which the Employer lost) or the compendium of wrongdoing (Governor General Payette) and other material pertinent to this case.

 

ACTION REQUESTED

1) For disclosure to be produced on pain of the Defendant paying the sum of $20 million non-negotiable without prejudice forfeiture fee.

2) Alternatively, the court should order the RCMP to seize these documents and possibly fine the Defendant for each day of delay.

 

CIVIL vs CRIMINAL LAW

     The Canadian Justice System in its cleverness has permitted large interests to exploit the dichotomy between civil law (a personal matter between litigants with a dollar value attached) and criminal law (controlled by the state and barred to litigants such as myself involved clearly in a criminal matter on both the part of Harris & Co. and the Saskatoon Court (QGB 52 of 2019) ).

     The point here is that if the disclosure called for shows a criminal intent, then everything flowing from it is 'null and void'. That is the calamity facing the Employer in this case. That is the calamity facing Justice Canada by refusing to date to call for disclosure with over 50 judges.

     The employeescasecanada.ca has shown systemic abuse on the part of Justice Canada which goes without investigation negatively impacting all contracts - both private and diplomatic in Canada e.g. NAFTA(2). President Trump has been advised to warn all foreign interests in this regard to boycott Canadian courts until this matter is resolved.

 

DATED at Ottawa, Ontario this 14 day of June, 2019

 

Roger Callow (signed) self-represented plaintiff

1285 Cahill Drive  East #2001 / Ottawa, Ontario  K1V 9A7 / tel/fax: 613-521-1739 

 

Name of firm

Harris  and Company LLP (Defendant)                                   

(representing the Board of School Trustees West Vancouver, B.C.)          

ATTN: Geoff Litherland                                                      

14th Floor  550 Burrard Street                                                     

Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2B5

tel: 604-684-6633  fax: 604-684-6632 

 

Address for service within New Brunswick: All other Registries forego this provision for the litigants herein. This is where Premier Higgs may assist if the Registry sets up a bulwark. He is also vital in providing a hearing judge with background in constitutional matters as well as filing intervener status. New Brunswick and its inhabitants are owed as much.

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow  Plaintiff  June 14-2019       

ADDENDUM

In the event that Premier Higgs does not arrange for Special Counsel, this matter will devolve into requesting disclosure. In that regard, the court should consider RULE 23.01

(1) The plaintiff or defendant may, at any time before the action is set down for trial, apply to the court

(a) for the determination prior to trial, of any question of law raised by a pleading in the action where the determination of that question may dispose of the action, shorten the trial, or result in a substantial savings of costs,

Yours truly, Roger Callow  Plaintiff  June 01-2019

 

CORRESPONDENCE:2 page rejection of original action by the Registrar(Saint John)

cc Premier Higgs / GG Payette / U.S. Interests

 

June 14-2019

APPEARS IN N.B. (RE-FILED) CASE UNDER 'CORRESPONDENCE'

TO: Court of Queen's Bench                               FROM: Roger Callow  plaintiff

Trial Div. P.O. Box 5001                                                      #2001-1285 Cahill Dr. West

Saint John, N.B. E2L 4Y9                                                     Ottawa, ON  K1V 9A7

ATTN: Amanda Evans Q.C. Court clerk              2 pages    employeescasecanada.ca 2019 JUNE sub-title

 

MESSAGE:                                                                           

1) Acknowledgement of your letter dated June 6-2019 received June 13-2019 is made which reads in its entirety:

'This purported Notice of Action Statement of Claim is being returned to you unfiled. It does not comply with the basic jurisdiction of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench under the Judicature Act, nor with the New Brunswick Rules of Court. It is highly recommended you seek legal advice.'

2) For your edification, I have included a second account from another Registry where the Deputy Register does not have a Q.C. (usually given to lawyers that are not going to be assigned a judgeship):

'As per your fax request, please find attached a copy of Rule 22-2, which governs affidavits. This rule, among others pertaining to the Supreme Court Rules of British Columbia, may also be found on our website at www.courts.gov.bc.ca. Furthermore, please note that pursuant to Rule 22-2(9), any documentary exhibit which does not exceed 10 pages-such as the Notice of Civil Claim filed in this matter, which is only 9 pages-must be attached to the affidavit and to all copies of that affidavit that are served.

With regard to your query as to how you are to produce copies of the affidavit plus any exhibits, generally these copies are made after this document is affirmed or sworn by a notary. The originally signed document by both yourself and the notary is then provided to the court, and the copies produced from this original served upon the other parties.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact us at 604-660-2845.

3) The above is the best written account although over the years I have received support at the Ottawa and Gatineau Registry desks. No action can succeed without that support.

4) The above is a long way around claiming that your letter should never have been sent. Did your Chief Justice review it? No province has quoted the Judicature Act; presumably that is the prerogative of Q.C.'s? The Act which I read, is about judges for judges and does not in any way impinge on my case as plaintiff. At any rate, I rate your letter as a one out of ten ...to be charitable. I am re-filing a revised copy plus the $100 filing fee. This 2-page letter is to be included as noted above in that action under CORRESPONDENCE.

 

REVISION:

5) The initial entry was incomplete and had to be revised according to two key points:

a) Premier Higgs had to view the legal arguments as they referred to imposed legislation (B.C.'s BILL 35 - 1985 under which I was laid off as a senior teacher in a yet unresolved legal matter before over 50 judges which refused to  provide me with the all important disclosure without which the Employer has refused to pay any compensation to this targeted employee. No compensation has been paid even under the conditions of BILL 35 due to the machinations of the above judges writing the matter off as being frivolous & vexatious on matters 'already decided' without stating what those matters are. If Higgs had agreed to intervener status, I believe this case could be instrumental in the upcoming imposed Carbon Tax challenge to N.B. However, for better or worse, he has made his position known and N.B. is now on their own. P.S. SK Premier Moe didn't listen to my warning either.

6) The revision is now limited to the fraud charge relating to B.C.'s Harris & Co. plus related court malfeasance in SK and AB. Due to the vagaries of the law, only civil actions may be laid even though it is obvious criminal activity has taken place. Please note that this case differs from all other Employee's Cases  to date as those others were limited to questions of compensation which is mine whether it be under the collective bargaining process, BILL 35, or any other statute regarding employment. My lawyer at that time in 1999, labeled the B.C. Labour Board as being patently unreasonable for failing to call a hearing (where the necessary disclosure would be made) See the web for that legal argument.

7) There are no time limits on fraud which is the highest level of judicial action; particularly when it relates to the nefarious actions of the court in the conduct of that fraud. SK Konkin j. has been referenced to the Judicial Council of Judges as recommended by the SK oversight body. The second hearing judge whom substituted for Konkin j. did not even write a judgment.

 

HABEAS CORPUS

8) All law is based on habeas corpus (produce the 'body'...of evidence) which in law is called disclosure. The 34 year employeescasecanada.ca  is the worst example of judicial abuse in that regard. The public had some insight into the problem with the failure of the judge to order disclosure in the highly publicized Vice-Admiral Mark Norman trial where a 'stay of proceedings' was used to derail that enquiry. In brief, our highly secretive court and government systems are counter-productive to a well operating democracy. That is why a copy of all these proceedings go to the Governor General of Canada. Perhaps she should take advice on this matter from the U.S. President as international interests are negatively impacted as well on both a commercial and diplomatic level due to this high level of secrecy.

9) My personal interest lies in obtaining the long denied disclosure. Once I receive that either voluntarily from Harris & Co. or alternatively, by a court order prior to any hearing (see RULE 23.01) with possible RCMP intervention) and I depart N.B. Courts as I will pursue the matter elsewhere. What the N.B. court and government plus the Governor General after that wish to do will be of their concern. I have given the court the option of holding Harris & Co. fully responsible for the total cost of settlement in a one-time without prejudice offer for a non-negotiable $20 million settlement. That option expires if this court case is obviated once again. Disclosure lies at the heart of my compensation appeal as well as the case against Harris & Co. along with the courts and associated government bodies.

 

Yours truly, (Roger Callow) Plaintiff

           

cc GG Payette/Premier Higgs /U.S. interests