PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND (GREENS) (GREEN PARTY only)
MAY 01- 2019
TO: Peter Bevan-Baker - Opposition Leader PEI by e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
FROM: Roger Callow self-represented Plaintiff e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com
Ottawa K1V 9A7 web: employeescasecanada.ca MAY 2019 PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
1) Being the first significant Green Party in Canada awaits the passing of the litmus test in the following legal case challenge. Regrettably, Green's Elizabeth May and B.C.'s MPP Andrew Weaver would be known by their silence on an unresolved 34 year labour case which has torn Canada's judiciary apart although a media boycott keeps that eerie truth from the public at large. The story is well known across Canada in legal and professional teacher circles including PEI under the former defeated government of Wade MacLauchlan (lost even his own seat!)
2) Wade read too much on the Kennedy's where papa Joe Kennedy ordered U.S. President John Kennedy to appoint brother Robert Kennedy as Attorney General ... no nepotism here!! In similar fashion, Wade held the posts of both Premier and Attorney General beating out even the Kennedys for nepotism.
3) The Employee's Case has been starred in the majority of Canadian provinces but due to capricious judicial action including PEI in 2016, no disclosure which is bound to illustrate criminality has been produced in 34 years. In such an event, everything flowing from such disclosure would make everything flowing from it 'null and void' which is what I require to collect compensation which now includes 12 years of pension. No compensation has been paid to date with the West Vancouver School Trustees no doubt being the model for all future far right employers.
4) The case in PEI is limited to the Union; the West Vancouver Teachers Association, which purloined my copy of the disclosure in this 'sweetheart deal' (minute notes of WV Trustees of June 1985 returned by B.C. Supreme Court Justice, Mary Southin after quashing the Arbitration in 1986, because 'she did not use them') which as a Union client is my right to receive a copy. That is the thrust of this renewed action in PEI.
5) No copy of this account goes to the ruling Conservative Party in PEI as the established Parties have been challenged without result clear across Canada. I will, however, keep the Green Party of PEI conversant with court actions as they unfold. Publicity in the PEI Legislature is paramount for Green Party success.
6) The PEI challenge to the imposed Carbon Tax makes this imposed BILL 35 (B.C.-1985) particularly relevant. SEE PREMIER PALLISTER MAY 2019 Sub-heading for that legal argument.
THE FOLLOWING MAY BE FOUND AT employeescasecanada.ca 2016 PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Subheading
TO: Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island
ATTN: Chief Justice Hon. J.R. Matheson
PO Box 2000 42 Water Street
Charlottetown, PE C1A 7N8
tel: (902) 368-6000 fax: (902) 368-6123 sent by fax (1 page)
FROM: Roger Callow
1285 Cahill Drive #2001
Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
tel./fax: 613-521-1739 e-mail: email@example.com
1) If history is of any account in this 30 year unresolved labour case with its genesis in British Columbia; court systems are ruing the day that I file in their courts as I did in PEI in February 2016.
2) Currently there are two Supreme Court of Canada challenges (36883-QC and 36993-SK) against the Employer in this case focusing on disclosure
3) The challenge in PEI relates solely for disclosure as it relates to the Union's copy of that pertinent material.
4) My 'incomplete' factum was returned from the PEI court in March and with the assistance of the Registry, I refiled a corrected copy. From there, I heard nothing.
5) On May 02-2016, I wrote the Office of the Premier voicing my concerns about apparent procrastination.
6) Would you fax me the docket number or, alternatively, any revisions necessary for such an assignment. In short, don't let this factum disappear down a 'black hole' for, if past experience in that regard is pertinent, I chase right down that black hole for the purpose.
7) The courts mission is twofold:
a) jurisdiction The key here is an evaluation of the 'Cullen Creed' of July 2013 by which I was expelled from the B.C. Justice System in this unresolved legal matter 'for reasons best known to a judge'. No court to date - and there have been many - will approach that topic and hence, is a basis for the SCofC hearings.
b) disclosure The minutes of the June 1985 School Board meetings where the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow, was discussed under the neophyte BILL 35. These are germane particularly as the arbitration favouring the employer was quashed by the courts with the arbitrator being ruled patently unreasonable. As the targeted individual, I was left in limbo with no compensation (for 30 years) having been paid.
Roger Callow Appellant
cc Office of Premier PEI / PMO
TO: Premier Wade MacLauchlan P.E.I.
Fifth Floor South-Shaw Bdlg.
95 Rochford St. P.O. Box 2000
Charlottetown, PE C1A 7N8
FROM: Roger Callow- Appellant (no docket number)
2001-1285 Cahill Drive
Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
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.
4) A copy of this letter is included to Federal Justice Minister 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.
Roger Callow employescasecanada.ca
cc Justice Minister Hon. J.Wilson-Raybould plus A) SCofC (36883) letter & my response - 3p. B) May 01-2016 Newsletter-'Oversight Bodies'-3 pages C) Letters to Harris& Co. re SCofC Appeal of SK (i) March 02-16-3p. (ii) Apr.20-16-10p.
In the event of no response, matters will revert to the PMO. RWC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
WEST VANCOUVER TEACHERS ASSOCIATION / B.C. TEACHERS FEDERATION (parent organization)
NOTICE OF MOTION
Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7
Appellant (self represented)
West Vancouver Teachers Association (Local #45)
ATTN: Robert Millard - President
4915 Marine Drive
West Vancouver, B.C. V7W 2P5
tel: 604-926-1617 fax: 604-926-1119 Respondent
P.E.Island - February-2016
6) When Justice Mary Southin quashed the arbitration favouring the West Vancouver School Board in 1986 labeling, the arbitrator, as she did, to be 'patently unreasonable', I was left in limbo when the School Board did not return employment as she recommended. Nor did the Board returned to re-arbitration as she subsequently ordered.
7) 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.
8) 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.
9) The many attempts by me 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 in to exert executive action including an RCMP seizure of these records.
10) 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 (2) focus: Bruce Laughton QC legal counsel for the Union since 1986
11) 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 in that bid.
12) 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, that arbitrator died creating a 'frustrated' situation; a legal term in which litigants are not to be held responsible for 'glitches' in the law.
13) 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, a similar position also taken by McGrady.
14) Not so Bruce Laughton who claimed to represent the Union against my wishes; 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 abetted by the legal department of the B.C. Teachers Federation. That collaboration led to a charge of fraudulent activities (Federal Court T-2360-14 which was refiled in Quebec recently and is part of a Supreme Court of Canada challenge). To the best of my knowledge, he never met with his purported representative, the West Vancouver Teachers Association.
15) 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 follow in the footsteps of Harris & Co. and seek to represent the Union from B.C. in my request for solely a written decision (no oral hearing necessary although telephone conferencing has been used with the Employer). Ideally speaking, local P.E.I. representation would be preferred as they are bound by P.E.I. legal practices and not B.C. which has been problematic for Harris & Co. in Saskatchewan. Such P.E.I. representation should be aware that two legal firms selected by the Employer have been referred to the oversight bodies for swearing to material which has turned out to be fraudulently inaccurate.
16) That this court order the Union to produce the above mentioned Disclosure making use of the RCMP if required. (The RCMP Montreal Fraud Squad has a dossier supplied by me on this case) as no hearing on any level can make legal sense without this necessary acquisition.
COURTS AUTHORITY TO ACT
17) 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.
18) 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'.
19) 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 with no such permission to proceed under any circumstances. That Creed is included here with my rebuttal.
20) The mammoth failure of all courts outside B.C. - Federal Court, Ontario Courts, Quebec Courts, Saskatchewan Courts - and hopefully not P.E.I. courts to acknowledge that simple fact makes a dead 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. Included in this factum are references to those topics listed above.
21) Underlying the jurisdictional disputes is the Disclosure requested above as, it is submitted here, that with those records an entire new phase to this case would be initiated citing criminal fraud on many different parties including the judiciary....and that would never do....
22) Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has my compromise of an unprejudiced offer of $10 million in exchange for dropping my disclosure request.
23) Due to the nature of this case, P.E.I. Premier Robert Ghiz as well as the RCMP are being kept apprised of all developments as has been the case of premiers in other provinces. I trust he will be more vigilant than those other politicians. His electorate deserve as much. It is a small Island, and I am sure he would be aware of any undue influence being peddled through the back door of the Office of the Chief Justice.
24) Premier Ghiz and the courts should be on the lookout for specious 'Motions to Dismiss' ; false surety and 'stay of proceedings' bids; 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 PEI Court system by the 'grey eminence'. The presence of Bruce Laughton QC, should the Union retain his services, his highly suspicious.
THE LETTER WHICH HANGS THE CANADIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM- JUNE 11-2015
BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employeescasecanada.com (30 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems and over 30 judges. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. Below is the significance of government imposed legislation (BILL 35 -1985) The WV School Board continually thwarts settlement which has been abetted by every BCTF President since 1985.
February 7, 1996
Labour Relations Board
1125 Howe Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2K8
Attention: Margaret Arthur
Dear Sirs and Mesdames:
Re: Callow v. The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 (West Vancouver) et al
BCCA No. CA020560
We are counsel for the Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 (West Vancouver) in the above-noted matter.
We note from Mr. Callow's Complaint (p.3(t)) that he seeks from the Labour Relations Board a direction that the Association "take the necessary action to continue the arbitration within the parameters of the 1988 Court of Appeal decision."
It is the School Board's strongly held view that the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdiction to make any ruling regarding the hearing of a future arbitration hearing due to the fact that the arbitration was not a proceeding under the scheme provided in the Labour Relations Code, the former Industrial Relations Act, or the former Labour Code. Indeed, the arbitration in question was a hearing pursuant to the provisions of the School Amendment Act, 1985 (BILL 35 - RC), which the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdiction to interpret or apply.
We request that the School Board be provided with an opportunity to make further submissions on this point prior to any granting of any remedy.
Yours very truly,
Judith C. Anderson
HARRIS & COMPANY
N.B. The B.C. Labour Board refused all my requests for a hearing as did successive B.C. Courts. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear this matter hence the jurisdiction question is at the core of this imposed government legislation. That is how I was relegated to a permanent state of limbo where no compensation (includes pension) was paid in defiance of the rules of labour contract. No Canadian media nor Parliamentary source will publish this ugly truth reducing Canada to Third World status.