JUMP TO HOME PAGE

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND - SIGS

(FORM 37A)

 

BETWEEN:

ROGER CALLOW

PLAINTIFF

self-represented

AND:

WEST VANCOUVER TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

DEFENDANT

 

ORIGINATING DOCUMENT (ACTION)

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive

Ottawa, Ontario

K1V 9A7

tel/fax:  613-521-1739

e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com                                                             PLAINTIFF

 

West Vancouver Teacher Association School District #45

ATTN: Renee Willock - President

4915 Marine Drive

West Vancouver, B.C. V7W 2P5

tel: 604-926-1617   fax: 604-926-1119                                              DEFENDANT

 

The enclosed material is sworn to as to its accuracy as an affidavit of the Plaintiff, Roger Callow,  dated this 15 th day of JUNE, 2019.

___________________

(signed) Roger Callow

 

N.B. COURT FILING OF ACTION (11 pages) FAXED TO DEFENDANT AND MAILED TO COURT (including $100 fee ).

 

THE Plaintiff, Roger Callow will make a written motion to a judge on requesting the invocation of RULE 21.01 in which the production of the long sought-after disclosure would see an end to this unresolved  24 year B.C. labour case in P.E.I.

 

Davies Law Courts SIGS

General Civil Proceedings

PO BOX 2000  42 Water Street

Charlottetown, PE C1A 7N8

tel: (902)368-6000  fax: (902) 888-8222

 

N.B. Preference, should the presiding Justice agree, would be given to a 'party by party' written argument although teleconferencing is a viable alternative all of which is permitted under the rules after  disclosure is produced as it defines all future action. Indeed, once I have disclosure, I will depart P.E.I.  Based on past experience, the Union never appears bowing to the Employer (sweetheart deal) to fight against disclosure which functions under different rules for a Union than an Employer. For that reason, the Employer is not included in this action here nor should the court make any attempt to divert this course by calling on them without insisting on their copy of the disclosure. Further, the two accounts may not be the same.

 

To any Party on a Question of Law 21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge, (a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or (2) No evidence is admissible on a motion, (a) under clause (1)(a), except with leave of a judge or on consent of the parties.

 

THE MOTION IS FOR: For the Union to produce 'disclosure'; a copy of the minutes of the June 1985 West Vancouver School Board meetings regarding the 'apparent' lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow, returned by Justice Mary Southin in the Appeal in 1986 because 'she did not use them'. The word 'apparent' is used because this lay-off remains untested in law hence for 34 years, the plaintiff has received no compensation including ongoing salary which belongs to him apart from judicial findings. Pension rights are also affected for 13 years now as the Employer refused to accept the plaintiff's retirement notice.

 

THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE that there must be finality in law otherwise why have a justice system?  Hence the residual powers of the court are called into play. This action in P.E.I. is limited to disclosure after which I will have finished with P.E.I. courts.

 

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be used at the written  (every oral hearing has been referred to oversight bodies which never respond) hearing of the motion: Copious material in that regard is available on the plaintiff's web site employeescasecanada.ca. As to disclosure, the defendant Union is steadfast in refusing to produce these vital documents. Enclosures at this time are limited until I respond to the Union's factum should one appear.

 

FORM 14A

STATEMENT OF CLAIM (GENERAL)

BETWEEN:

ROGER CALLOW

PLAINTIFF 

AND: 

 

WEST VANCOUVER TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

DEFENDANT

 

(4.05.1) Originating Process

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

tel/fax: 613-521-1739

e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com             Plaintiff (self represented)

 

West Vancouver Teachers Association (Local #45)

ATTN: Renee Willock - President

4915 Marine Drive

West Vancouver, B.C. V7W 2P5

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

 

 

(Court seal)

 

 

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

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 lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, WITHIN FORTY DAYS (total) after this statement of claim is served on you, and filing your statement of defence in FORM 18B  prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

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

TO West Vancouver Teachers Association (Local #45)

ATTN: Renee Willock - President

4915 Marine Drive

West Vancouver, B.C. V7W 2P5

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

 

CLAIM

1. The plaintiff claims: (State here the precise relief claimed.)

(Then set out in separate, consecutively numbered paragraphs each allegation of material fact relied on to substantiate the claim.)

(Where the statement of claim is to be served outside Prince Edward Island without a court order, set out the facts and the specific provisions of Rule 17 relied on in support of such service.)

 

2.The plaintiff proposes that this action be tried at Charlottetown, P.E.I.

(Date of issue) 'written response please' after disclosure is produced

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive #2001 Ottawa,

Ontario K1V 9A7  tel/fax: 613-521-1739

e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com    Plaintiff (self represented)

 

 

(signed) Roger Callow _________________ - JUNE 15-2019

 

 AFFIDAVIT attesting to validity of documents herein enclosed

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

AFFIRM:

That the material in this factum signed by the Plaintiff dated JUNE 15, 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:

West Vancouver Teacher Association School District #45

ATTN: Renee Willock - President

4915 Marine Drive

West Vancouver, B.C. V7W 2P5

tel: 604-926-1617   fax: 604-926-1119        DEFENDANT

 

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   e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com 

3. Where the Statement of Claim is to be served out of Prince Edward Island 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 School 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 15, 2019

 

 

Roger Callow (signed) Plaintiff

 

BACKGROUND (A)

1) When Justice Mary Southin quashed the arbitration favouring the West Vancouver School Board in 1986 labeling , as she did, the arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable', I was left in limbo when the School Board did not return employment as she recommended. Nor did the Board return to re-arbitration as she subsequently ordered. Nor did she order me back on salary until a resolution was found.

 

2) In her enquiry, Southin j. called for all meeting notes from the Board in the month of May-June 1985 dealing with my lay-off and BILL 35. She later returned these notes to the Employer and Union 'because she did not use them'. That is what is described here as the 'secret missing memo notes' which were conspicuous by their absence in 2004 when I requested such material under the 'access' laws from the School Board.

 

3) What is submitted here is that the major reason as to why Southin j. quashed the arbitration is that Board personnel and their lawyer committed perjury. For example, she noted that 'nowhere did the Board show an intention to lay-off a teacher in June of 1985' thus putting the lie to the Superintendent's lay-off letter quoting that authority. At this point, it appears that the Board Motion sanctioning the lay-off in evidence at the arbitration was written by the Harris & Co. lawyer  'after the fact' when it was realized a challenge was to be made against this precipitate action. In short, with this allegation, Justice Southin (r. 2004) would be guilty of cover-up if not something far more serious.

 

4) The many attempts by this plaintiff  to acquire this disclosure has led to a cover-up of the cover-up where the very essence of the credibility of the justice system is at stake explaining currently why Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been called on to exert executive action including an RCMP seizure of these records. (N.B. Dec. 27-2016; no subsequent action to date June 15-2019)

 

5) Of course it would be much easier if the B.C. teachers at large directed their Union leaders to divulge this disclosure making such as this legal proceeding unnecessary.

 

BACKGROUND (B)  focus: Bruce Laughton QC legal counsel for the Union since 1986

6) When the original lawyer , Allan Black, appointed by the Union with my agreement lost the arbitration, I switched lawyers to Harry Rankin (d.) who was unsuccessful in getting Southin j. to either return my teaching career or place me back on salary until this legal matter was resolved. He failed on both accounts.

 

7) I next obtained the services of Labour specialist, Leo McGrady who also failed to get Southin j. to change her mind specifically into appointing a new arbitrator. The Union paid for all legal services to that point. In the interim, the arbitrator died creating a 'frustrated' situation; a legal term in which litigants are not to be held responsible for  'glitches' in the law.

 

8) Black, the original Union lawyer for the arbitration made a pre-announcement that in the event of any conflict between myself and the Union; he would drop out and not represent either side. As McGrady was hired by me, his loyalty should have been to me in providing disclosure which he did not do before he dropped out on a technicality.

 

9) Unfortunately, Mr. Laughton  claimed to solely represent the Union against my wishes after he had been dismissed; a position he has maintained up to the current time. Over the years, he has even seen fit to join with the Employer to frustrate my legal attempts to get justice being abetted by the legal department of the B.C. Teachers Federation in that regard. That collaboration led to a charge of fraudulent activities (Federal Court T-2360-14 which was refiled in Quebec  and was part of a Supreme Court of Canada 'unheard' challenge 36883 QC). To the best of my knowledge, he never met with his purported representative, the West Vancouver Teachers Association preferring to deal solely with the BCTF legal department.

 

10) Part of the conspiracy charge against Mr. Laughton is that he handled the Appeal of Justice Southin after I had dismissed Rankin & Co. and hired Leo McGrady. If the Employer is to be believed, the Union had no role in this hearing hence their presence was gratuitous and dependent on my personal agreement which they never had. Indeed, if I was part of the Appeal Court process, I would have been privy to the disclosure that I am now seeking and hence the 34 year kafkaesque search including this one in P.E.I. would be redundant.

 

11) I believe that it is important for the court to be aware of this background with Mr.Laughton as there is a good chance he will seek to represent the Union from B.C. in my request for solely a written response. Ideally speaking, local P.E.I. representation would be preferred as they are bound by P.E.I. legal practices and not B.C.

 

ACTION REQUESTED

12) That this court order the Union to produce the above mentioned disclosure making use of the RCMP if required as no hearing on any level can make legal sense without this necessary acquisition.

 

COURTS AUTHORITY TO ACT

13) In September of 2010, I laid CA038538 in B.C. Appeal Court requesting the courts permission to proceed due to earlier prohibition orders. In October, 2010, Deputy Justice A. McKenzie, on her own volition and for reasons best known to herself, without taking legal argument, nor quoting pertinent laws, dropped this case from the docket. I could only continue with the 'permission of a judge' which I claimed I had already done in this contradictory order.

 

14) It was clear that I was faced with a 'sweetheart deal' between Union and Employer as supported by the courts with their claim that only the Union could represent me in legalities. My reaction was to say, fine, let the courts battle things out with the other two while I am placed back on salary until a judicial resolution was found. After all, this salary was 'deferred earnings' as I should never have been cut from salary until this matter was resolved in the first place. No doubt fearing a potential third trip to the Supreme Court of Canada, it is submitted here, is what produced this spurious 'McKenzie Creed'.

 

15) By the summer of 2013, the B.C. Appeal Court was obviously fed up with my attempts to get judicial approval to proceed, so Deputy Chief Justice Cullen ('Cullen Creed') expelled me from B.C. Courts 'for reasons best known to himself' with no such permission to proceed under any circumstances. That Creed can be found on the web site employeescasecanada.ca and can be included here should the court deem this information pertinent.

 

16) The mammoth failure of all courts outside B.C. - Federal Court, Ontario Courts, Quebec Courts, Saskatchewan Courts, Nova Scotia Courts - and hopefully not P.E.I. courts to acknowledge that simple fact reflected in the 'Cullen Creed' makes a dead-end argument of any legal point related to such as Inherent jurisdiction, natural justice, transference, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, habeas corpus. Filibustering on that point alone has drawn the very efficacy of the credibility of the Canadian Justice System into question without which there can be no democracy.

 

17) Underlying the jurisdictional disputes is the disclosure requested above as, it is submitted here, those records introduce an entirely new phase to this case by initiating criminal fraud charges (outside of P.E. I. Courts).

 

8) The nature of this case vis a vis imposed legislation (Carbon Tax) which the Green Party and Premier King decided to apparently 'pass on' in receiving my assistance is noted here. (SK Premier Moe also ignored similar warnings ... I was laid off under the imposed BILL 35 -1985 B.C.)

 

ADDENDUM

 

19) Premier King and the courts should be on the lookout for specious 'Motions to Dismiss' ; false surety bids and 'stay of proceedings'; fraudulent 'frivolous & vexatious' material; copious precedent cases none of which deal with an unresolved legal issue from a court outside of such as PEI; and perverted Registry actions. All these stunts are reflective of the penetration of the back door of the Chief Justice in courts across Canada by the 'grey eminence'. The presence of Bruce Laughton QC, should the Union retain his services in PEI, is highly suspicious as noted elsewhere.

 

20) Due to the collapse of Justice Canada under the subterfuge of the Employee's Case, Governor General Payette is the stand-in for all referencing in this case in which she is invited to keep the U.S. President cognizant of the above threat as it relates to commercial and diplomatic dealings for international interests.

 

(signed) Roger Callow  Plaintiff

 

_____________________ JUNE 15-2019

 

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

 

JUNE 15-2015 NEVER ANY RESPONSE FROM ANY SOURCE.

DECEMBER 05-2016  SECOND REQUEST  Fax: 902-368-4416

JANUARY 02-2017     THIRD REQUEST

MARCH 22-2017        FOURTH REQUEST

 

May 02-2016 & June 15-2019

 

TO: Premier D. King P.E.I (incumbent Premier)

Fifth Floor South-Shaw Bdlg.

95 Rochford St. P.O. Box 2000

Charlottetown, PE  C1A 7N8

 

FROM: Roger Callow- Plaintiff (no docket number)

              2001-1285 Cahill Drive

              Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

              tel./fax: 613-521-1739

 

COMPLAINT:

1) As the Appellant in a legal matter focused on disclosure, I appear to be filibustered by the Charlottetown Superior Court in receiving a docket number.

2) If this filibustering parallels events in other provinces in this highly contentious labour case with its genesis in British Columbia, credibility of the PEI courts may be at stake.  Some Chief Justices in other venues seek to hide behind Registry clerks in order to obviate the assignment of a docket number in order that a legal matter may not be given 'due process'. Judges, not clerks - it is submitted here - should run the court system. As such, your office is negatively affected with any such judicial malfeasance.

3) I have revised my factum as recommended by the Charlottetown Court. Should further revision be requested, tell me what to do and I will do it but don't just ignore this legal matter. A reply is requested. N.B. factum plus fee sent to Premier MacLauchlan some time ago. There has been no reply. RC (Dec.5 & 27-2016 additions) plus June 15-2019

4) A copy of this letter is included to Federal Justice Minister J. Wilson-Raybould whom should have assigned an official to examine all aspects of this case by now. Currently in P.E.I., my hope is that Chief Justice J.R. Matheson will assign a 'Vaillancourt' (Duffy Trial reference) to hear this submission and not a 'B' level justice such as I have been receiving with over 40 justices in other venues.

 

Yours truly,Roger Callow  employeescasecanada.ca

 

cc GG Payette/ Premier King

 

 

 

CORRESPONDENCE June 15-2019

 

PEI (Re-issue JUNE 15-2019) 2 pages

 

STATEMENT OF CLAIM - P.E.I. (re-submission) Dec. 27-2016 & June 15-2019

 

1) This statement of claim against the B.C. Teachers Union and their representative, Bruce Laughton Q.C. by this plaintiff, former West Vancouver senior teacher, Roger Callow, laid-off in June of 1985 in an unresolved legal matter under the imposed B.C. BILL 35 (SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT)  is being re-entered into the  P.E. Supreme Court - General division, in order to obtain a docket number before proceeding as no action emanated from the Office of Prime Minister Wade MacLauchlan regarding an earlier submission to the court (nor was the fee returned). No compensation has been paid in this case.

 

2) The WV School Trustees refused to recognize court oversight which quashed the arbitration in 1986 favouring the School Board ruling, as it did - and was supported on Appeal - that the arbitrator had been patently unreasonable.  According to the Trustees the collective bargaining rules including the Union had no application to this case. The arbitrator's decision under BILL 35 was final and binding.(A similar stunt was enacted by the CBC in their dismissal of employee Jian Ghomeshi  'for no given reason' thus obviating the Union's role and the collective bargaining rules although the Union financed his case as happened here. The question in both cases is whether the Union action is 'gratuitous' or under the collective bargaining rules.)

 

3) It should be noted here that while fraud was apparent, Justice Mary Southin in 1986 and the Appeal court in 1997 fell short of declaring the matter fraudulent thus ensuring court oversight. That is the point of demanding disclosure: the meeting notes of the School Trustees in June of 1985 where there was extensive discussion of BILL 35 and the Callow matter. Southin j. called for these memo notes which she later returned 'because she did not use them'. Thus began the biggest cover-up in Canadian Judicial history. (No mention is made in either court of the Employer's contention that the court had no overview powers.)

 

4) For 30 years court challenges were made including this current submission for the Union's copy of disclosure by this plaintiff before over 50 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) which refused to hear this highly contentious case on four occasions: a) 1997 - 'universality of unions'  b) 2004 'ultimate remedy'  c) 2016 - two actions: disclosure QC and ultra vires nature of BILL 35 SK. The last two matters now rest in the hands of the executive powers of a future Prime Minister as it is apparent that the anti-employee Justin Trudeau would ignore his responsibilities in this legal matter.

 

5) The 2004 SCofC was the most significant rejection as while there is some debate about whether the Union controls the matter of the propriety of the dismissal (of which control the School Trustees would reject), there is no question that no matter which scheme is followed, this plaintiff may pursue the Board directly for compensation as even BILL 35 includes that feature.

 

6) In 1995, this plaintiff returned to B.C. Supreme court before Justice Spencer requesting that he change the should of Justice Southin to must return employment with all of the contractual  terms to apply due to the Employer's failure to return to arbitration as so ordered by the court in 1986. In brief, the Employer had abandoned the claim.(In law a judicial recommendation carries weight.) His choice was clear; either to grant my petition or, as he proposed, send the matter back to arbitration. No Union was present at this hearing. Spencer j. did neither.

 

7) Justice Spencer created a 'nightmare' which was quoted chapter and verse by every succeeding B.C. Justice hearing this case; that this was a Union matter and, as such, could be contested only by the Union. No doubt he was painfully aware that this plaintiff was faced with a sweetheart deal in which the Union undermined the arbitration of this plaintiff by failing to place the School Trustees on the stand to testify to lay-off figures which showed an actual increase rather than decrease in teacher enrolment; any number of positions which Callow was qualified to hold.

 

8) I had earlier replaced the Union arbitration lawyer with the arbitration loss when it was clear that the Union had no intention of appealing. Harry Rankin (d.) and his junior acolyte, Bruce Laughton, promised that in any re-arbitration as so ordered by the court, School Trustees would be placed on the stand to testify as to lay-off numbers which the earlier Union lawyer had refused to do.

 

9) When Rankin & Co. later reneged on that promise noted above, I dismissed his Company and  hired labour specialist, Leo McGrady, whom sought to have a new arbitrator assigned if the court were reluctant to order the return of employment to Callow as it recommended. He did not succeed on either point.

 

10) In the interim, unfortunately, the Union - in terms of Bruce Laughton whom I had earlier dismissed, presented himself representing my position before the B.C. Appeal Court. Mr. Laughton, contrary to good ethical legal behaviour, told me that he now solely represented the Union, a position he maintains to the current day much to my chagrin and personal suffering. The point here is that he had no standing in that Appeal Court to represent my position.

 

11) That latter point is important as it appears that Mr. Laughton had no standing before the Appeal Court as Union jurisdiction had not been discussed until 1995. Further, if I had had control of the Appeal, I would be in possession of the disclosure in 1986 and there would be no need for this current case in P.E.I.

 

12) In the latter 1990's, armed with the Spencer decision, Mr. Laughton informed me that the Union was going to make a settlement with the Employer whether I agreed or not 'under the best terms available'.

 

13) In that settlement process, my Ottawa lawyer, Paul Conlin, wrote him an alternative strategy which Laughton had not considered.

 

14) Immediately, Laughton reversed his position and stated that the Union would not settle without first acquiring my support for the proposed settlement leaving me essentially in a state of permanent limbo if I disagreed. As Mr. Conlin asserted, the effect of Laughton's position was that I could disagree if I wanted to, but then I would get no settlement; an unconscionable  position as it reduced my protest to  mere tokenism.

 

15) Conlin replied that the Union had either to return to arbitration as so ordered by the court or sign an agreement with the Board, whether I agreed or not. In the event of the failure to do either, the matter (including disclosure) should be turned over to Callow for his offer to continue legal action at his own expense. There was no response.

 

16)The Union knew that if they unilaterally signed with the Board that the Board would no longer be liable to future claims so that if I subsequently successfully sued the Union for fraud, the whole conspiracy would come out leaving the Union to be solely responsible for 90% of the claim which now reached past the million dollar mark.

 

17) The only legal recourse now open to Callow was a Section 12 Appeal to the B.C. Labour Board which refused such a hearing on more than one occasion considering that the Union 'had done nothing wrong' which invites the question 'did they do anything right?' A letter from the Employer dated Feb. 07-1996 to the Labour Board appears to have intimidated the Labour Board into not holding an oral meeting by stating that the Employer strenuously rejected Labour Board jurisdiction on the grounds that only the conditions of BILL 35 applied as the Employer continued to 'game the system'. Thus the cover-up initiated by Justice Southin was compounded by Laughton's appearance in the B.C. Appeal Court, which was added to by the deviousness of Justice Spencer and the B.C. Labour Board. Over 50 judges to date have committed to that conspiracy. Will P.E.I. add their name to that ill-omened list?

 

18) Subsequent to Labour Board inaction, all B.C. courts ducked their responsibilities until in July of 2013, Deputy Associate Supreme Court Justice, A. Cullen (Cullen Creed), expelled this plaintiff from B.C. Courts 'for reasons best known to himself' in this unresolved legal matter leaving me on a kafkaesque search for justice in courts outside of B.C., including now, P.E.I.

 

19) As the Union joined with the Employer in opposing me in B.C. courts, I  divested myself of naming them in court cases outside of B.C. with the exception of P.E.I. where I now seek to gain the Union's copy of the disclosure material. Once I have that, I dispense with the P.E.I. courts.

 

20) As a Union member, I believe that I have access to all legal material held by the Union which affects my personal welfare. If the court has a conscience - something certainly lacking regarding actions against the Employer to date - it will order the B.C. Teachers Union to produce that disclosure. Any excuse to obviate that request will undermine the course of justice in Canada as court inaction on this request would be a de facto judicial acceptance of the sweetheart deal and thus the demise of the Union movement in the entire country of Canada. It goes without saying that such a court denial would leave P.E.I. firmly in the hands of the conspirators.

 

ACTION

21) This plaintiff calls for the court to order the Union to produce the disclosure material noted above in the Statement of Claim.

 

 

(signed) Roger Callow  JUNE 15-2019