In a matter of civil fraud against the West Vancouver Teachers Association regarding the topic solely of disclosure in order that compensation may be paid in this 34 year unresolved B.C. Labour Matter.


August 08-2019 -2 pages


TO: Supreme Court of PEI / Davies Law Courts / PO Box 2000 / Charlottetown, PE / C1A 7N8

ATTN: Prothonotary Krista MacKay 

sent by mail (no other communication listed on letter head of The Supreme Court of PEI letter of July 31, 2019 = sub-standard court system) At one time, I tried to generate interest in such as form makers, Durham & Dye, to standardize the civil court forms and rules across Canada as such a complete over-haul is long over-due.


cc PEI Premier Dennis King / GG J. Payette


FROM: Roger Callow self-represented Plaintiff /1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001 / Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739   e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com


To whom it may concern:

1) A 3-page letter from Prothonotary MacKay dated July 31-2019 included here (reduced to 2 pages) and received on August 07-2019 in a timely manner is acknowledged. While the most 'copious' rejection letter which I have received from a Provincial Registry, it rates at the bottom of the list largely because it reflects a court system which positively creaks.

2) Let me begin with 6) Correspondence and this statement: ...You have been advised on numerous occasions by this office that any documents submitted for filing must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, and in the correct form of payment ('The Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island'). A cheque for $100 is included (Application)

3) Some mistakes are obvious on my part and will be corrected in this revised form including the entry of this case as an APPLICATION based solely on providing disclosure from the B.C. Union as Defendant (Form 4E REQUISITION consistent with RULE 21.01 a). The matter of providing separate pages for each Rule quoted will be followed.

4) In that regard FORM 4E (REQUISITION) is included as it forms the basis of all else. Once I have that form of habeas corpus which is the basis of all law, I depart the province. A copy of this revised factum is provided Premier Dennis King to mediate on your Point 4) as being more the task of judges as opposed to Registries: 4) Requisition: Requisitions are used when the Registrar is required to do something that it is authorized to do. Please see Rule 4.08. This document does not meet this criteria and therefore will not be accepted for filing.... Please reconsider with reference to the Premier's Office if necessary.

5) This case has undergone many changes from other provincial courts since I first approached the court in PEI in 2016 hence frustration at the Registry level is understandable. The major difference between PEI Registry and other Registries lies in the fact that I can talk to Registry individuals over the telephone. Hopefully the office of Premier King can assist the Registry in this matter if this new factum is to be rejected.

6) I have no argument with points 1), 2), and 6).


7) Point 3) is a mishmash and quite unworkable although my new format as an Application may circumvent difficulties. Again, I call on Premier King to intervene if necessary. Court dates are assigned after a file number is assigned; how else can they list the case for a hearing?  The 'Affidavit of Service specifying that this document has been served' leads to further confusion. I did do that with postal proof of service noting, as I do with all previous actions in this matter, that the file number will follow once assigned. At that point with other provinces, I make arrangements with the court for teleconferencing and the agreed on dates to be confirmed by the Defendants (if they choose to appear; the Union never does explaining why the current action is solely against the Union and to be preferably in writing).

8) SWORN TESTIMONY: 3). In filing 4 different challenges to the Supreme Court of Canada over the years; a filing number was provided based solely on my signature attesting to the validity of the documents including Affidavits.  This form used successfully in all other courts under my own signature was produced by my legal Counsel in 2003 for the Supreme Court of Canada. While all other provinces have a similar wording to PEI, no province other than PEI has insisted on a separate notarization. Why does the smallest province in Canada still maintain this obsolete custom in this matter?

9) To be sure all PEI Union clients have a vested interest in the fundamental relationship that they hold with their respective Union. In this case, due to a constitutional question, we do not know the status of the Union under the imposed BILL 35 B.C. 1985) and this plaintiff teacher lay-off for economic reasons in this legal case. Does the court have jurisdiction over such matters; a central question with the imposed Carbon Tax which I had earlier believed that PEI was contesting? At any rate, the Defendant Union's position is all important should they file a Defense. If not, the court can fine them for each day that they refuse to provide disclosure and after perhaps 30 days, order in the RCMP to seize the documents in this 34 year unresolved legal matter. In the event that the courts decide that the collective bargaining arrangement does not apply, the RCMP should lay a charge of theft. Should the court decide that B.C. should handle the matter, they may make reference to the legal process known in law as 'Referencing' which means challenging the 'Cullen Creed' by which I was expelled in 2013 'for reasons best known to a judge'.


Yours truly,



Roger Callow


cc 3 page PEI Registry letter from K. McKay (reduced to 2 pages)

encl. revised APPLICATION; fee to be confirmed by court (telephone please)





                                                                                                                                                                                                (Court file no.) __________










APPLICATION  UNDER  (statutory provision or rule under which the application is made) APPLICATION UNDER  REQUISITION 4E TO PROVIDE DISCLOSURE 

consistent with rule 21.01) in a matter of fraud      

(Title of document)



Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive

Ottawa, Ontario

K1V 9A7

tel/fax:  613-521-1739

e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com                                                             APPLICANT


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                                              RESPONDENT


The enclosed material is sworn to as to its accuracy as an affidavit of the Plaintiff, Roger Callow,  dated this 08 th day of AUGUST of 2019.



(signed) Roger Callow


(Text of document)


THE Plaintiff, Roger Callow will make a written Application 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  34 year B.C. labour case as far as P.E.I. courts are concerned.


The plaintiff requests that this matter be held at:

Davies Law Courts SIGS 16000

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 (Rule 38) is a viable alternative should the Respondent file for an Appearance; all of which is permitted under the rules after disclosure is produced (REQUISITION 4E) as it defines all concurrent 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 first 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


THE APPLICATION 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 whether it be under the collective bargaining rules, the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985)or any other legal provisions related to employment. Pension rights are also affected for 13 years now as the Employer refused to accept the plaintiff's retirement notice.


THE GROUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION 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 due to malfeasance which never respond) hearing of the Application: Copious material in that regard is available on the plaintiff's web site employeescasecanada.ca. or from the plaintiff directly. 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 or at the request of the court. N.B. No written judgment should include any other related topic other than the above information without prior knowledge of the Plaintiff for a possible response.


AFFIDAVIT of FACTS consistent with FORM 4D


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 AUGUST 08, 2019



Roger Callow (signed) Applicant



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. It would appear that Southin j. covered up a matter of fraud which has been reinforced by over 50 subsequent judges failing to call for the necessary disclosure; namely, that the 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.


2) In her enquiry, Southin j. called for all meeting notes from the Board in the month of May-June 1985 dealing with the plaintiff's 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 regarding the Board Motion sanctioning the lay-off in evidence at the arbitration, was indeed 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 after sitting as an Appeal Court judge on this matter in 2003) 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 AUGUST  08-2019)


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


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 requested that Southin j. 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.


12) Further information to the court on the above matter is available on request.




13) 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.




14) In September of 2010, this plaintiff 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.


15) 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'.


16) 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.


17) 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 piece of malfeasance 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.


18) 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).




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, it is submitted here, 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


cc GG J. Payette



Jurisdiction of a Judge

37.02 (1) A judge of the court has jurisdiction to hear any motion (presumably applies to Applications 'by analogy' as well) in the proceeding .The possible reference to matters of constitutional concern require a judge 37.04 & 37.14 although the reference is only used incidentally here.



37.05 (1) Where a motion is to be heard by a judge, a hearing date shall be obtained from the registrar before the notice of motion is served. (C) Late September or early October -2019 if the court requires it. However, I would prefer everything to be conducted in writing with the said disclosure to be available beforehand as all else flows from that action. Indeed, in all likelihood under those circumstances, this plaintiff would depart from PE making a hearing date superfluous



37.07 (1) The notice of motion and a copy of all material to be used on the motion shall be served on any party or other person who will be affected by the order sought unless the rules provide otherwise.

 As this action is confined to fraud on the part of the British Columbia Union concerned, there is to be no third party reference. The civil fraud charge laid against the Employer is being done in another venue  and entails an entirely different set of circumstances.



37.06  Every notice of motion (Form 37A) shall,

(a) state the precise relief sought; (C) disclosure of a specific document; namely, the meeting notes of West Vancouver School Trustees in June of 1985 where the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow, was discussed. Those meeting notes were called by Justice Mary Southin in 1986 when she quashed the arbitration for failing to show a causal factor but later returned to the Employer and Union 'because she did not use them'. This party has been left in limbo as a consequence.