JUMP TO HOME PAGE

CORRESPONDENCE - Saskatoon QBG 52 of 2019

                                                                                                                                    -  Edmonton - awaiting file #

(The following will be included under REPLY to the court in response to

the factums of the Defendants for both provinces) 2 pages

 

February 11, 2019

TO:

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 

FROM:

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E #2001

Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

t./f. 613-521-1739

e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com                                                         Plaintiff

 

MESSAGE:

1) No response has been received from either of the Defendants as to the appointment of their respective legal counsel nor their attendance at the Saskatoon hearing tentatively set for 10 A.M. Tuesday February 19, 2019. (one hour teleconferencing)

2) While not accepting the Employer's assertion that the use of imposed legislation (BILL 35) exempts them from court oversight, over 50 judges have apparently condoned that position by refusing disclosure (meeting notes of School Trustees of June 1985)

3) The same position does not apply to the Union for as a client, I have a right to a copy of that disclosure returned by Justice Southin in 1986 'because she did not use them'. The Defendants have been using that foolish manoevre to blackmail the courts as it is clear that Justice Southin covered up a massive fraud with every succeeding justice covering up the cover-up.

4) I don't believe that the Defendants can get lawyers but that should not stop them from producing a 10 page rebuttal explaining why disclosure from both defendants is being refused.

5) While promising the Union that I would drop the case in Saskatoon should they volunteer the so-named disclosure, that case does not apply in Edmonton (nor for that matter, Ontario in CV 18000 76950 0000 where the case is MIA. The default payment in all courts is for $20 m.

6) If the Saskatoon Court or this plaintiff does not hear from the Defendant by Thursday, Feb. 14, I ask that they postpone the hearing for one week to the same time on Tuesday Feb. 26,2019 and notify me accordingly. This is to avoid the caper played a number of times by the Employer not filing anything until they arrive at court. That way, it appears that I was in receipt of their case but chose not to provide a written rebuttal. Conscientious judges would not accept that stunt but that is the point; no conscientious judge is ever assigned to this case.

7) Further, should I not receive disclosure, a case solely against the Union will be laid in a venue yet to be announced for the full $20 million. I earlier advised WVTA President Willock to advise her membership accordingly. Granted that the said disclosure is in the hands of the parent Union and the WVTA legal counsel, Bruce Laughton, whom only deals with the legal department of the BCTF; nonetheless, it is the WVTA which is the Defendant. They may have to call in the RCMP to seize these documents. The major point here is that doing nothing is no longer an option for the WVTA and its President, Renee Willock. The question to be asked here is why the tax payers at large should pay for the perfidy of the Teacher's Union?

 

Yours truly, (Roger Callow)

 

cc Premier Moe and Premier Notley both of whom have been asked to assign special counsel to judge this issue.

cc PMO including A.G. 'Professor Dave'

 

Sent by fax to the two Defendants and the two Premiers. It is noted here that special judicial appointment time is running out for Premier Moe.

 

ADDENDUM  The legal buzz world around Ottawa in many cases is disclosure which Justice Canada withholds until the day before the trial as they do not want to see witnesses charged with perjury. And that's the entire point regarding disclosure in the employeescasecanada.ca as the perjury was already committed in the quashed arbitration. That also explains why the Justice System fell on its own sword and sacrificed the Justice System of Canada to protect themselves. For example, as no oversight body will deal with judicial malfeasance such as the 2014 Ontario McKinnon-Scott j. tag team match, I have included their names in actions in Ontario and Saskatoon. In April 2014, McKinnon wrote the first Decision which was delivered to me. I learned later from the internet that a different Decision was filed. In September 2014, I appeared before Justice Scott with a complete rebuttal to the Decision which I had received. What was Scott to do? The answer was to create a third McKinnon Decision in September. The Employer's lawyer, Ottawa's Hicks, Morley et al did not file an appearance but strode right in and handed the third Decision to the eagerly outstretched hands of Scott j. amid my strenuous objections. Scott j. would only consider that last document making a nullity of my case. Scott never filed a Decision so that the Appeal Court rejected my Appeal. Both judges should have been removed from the bench. Indeed, both have been publicly exposed for ensuing activities on the bench. (Both were originally Federal Court appointees hence the Canadian Council of Judges under the aegis of the Supreme Court of Canada is the oversight body concerned.)

 

 

 

October 18-2018

TO:

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 

FROM:

Roger Calllow

1285 Cahill Drive E #2001

Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

t. 613-521-1739

e-mail: thecallows@gmail.com                                                          Plaintiff

MESSAGE:

1) As you can see by the SK filing, production of the necessary disclosure by both parties above makes this case redundant.

2) Once again, I must issue the warning that any legal representative representing the above defendants will likely find themselves the target of a separate charge for fraud.

3) If, as was previously the case in B.C. and ON , you do not wish to contest this SK filing, please notify me by October 31 so that I may inform the court to proceed with a written judgment noting your absence.

 

Yours truly, Roger Callow

 

JANUARY 21-2019

1) The Saskatoon file number for a factum sent to you on Dec.17-2018 is QBG 52 of 2019. There is no other change in the 10 page factum

2) Please note the pencil addition of K. Brower Deputy Local Registrar at the bottom of page 1 (included) This notice is issued at the above judicial centre on the 10th day of January 2019.

3) In agreement with the court, a one hour teleconferencing hearing on a Tuesday or Thursday at 10 o'clock will be scheduled in February. Please notify me soonest for the date suited to both Defendants so that I may notify the court.

4) Please note p.4 FOR THIS SINGLE OCCASION, IWILL NOT PURSUE LEGAL COUNSEL SEPARATELY as I do not wish to see a repetition of the recent complete debacle under B.C. Chief Justice Hinckson (SEE employeescasecanada.ca)  Hinckson cj Fraud sub-heading in 2018) where the Defendants did not put in an appearance. The WVTA must put in a separate appearance if they choose to go to court otherwise I will ask the court to assign the full $20 million forfeiture amount solely against them.

5) Please note the importance of disclosure on p. 6 Indeed, with the presentation of disclosure; I will drop this case. Hence if the case proceeds, that is because the Defendants refuse disclosure leaving the judge with three choices:

(SEE p.6 Form 5-11A)

a) Court Order to provide said disclosure

b) Order the RCMP to seize said documents

c) Order the Defendants to cover the full cost of settlement covering the Employer, the Union and court judicial malfeasance in a number of provinces. That sum is $20 million. It does not include legal representatives in the event that  they may choose to pursue this plaintiff after settlement. (While being dunned for all court costs to date, I have never received an invoice. The North Shore News failed to investigate at my request.)

6) In short, should this teleconferencing proceed, it will be over in 5 minutes. Save us from 500 word billable time Book of Authorities as you can address the matter in terms of disclosure and why you are refusing to produce it inside of 10 pages (if destroyed, the full brunt of the $20 million default settlement is to apply).

7) The other two factors in declining order of importance to this plaintiff relates to:  a) the significance of imposed legislation (BILL 35) B.C. 1985  b) the malfeasance of various judges which are included in actions across Canada due solely to the failure of the oversight bodies to even acknowledge the very serious allegations which I have made.

8) Due to SK's upcoming battle regarding imposed legislation (government by fiat making Parliament and the courts redundant) with the Carbon Tax, a copy of this entire case is being supplied to SK Premier Moe.

9) Correspondence has already been made with the new Minister of Justice, David Lametti, whom has the Herculean task resolving this unresolved case where no compensation has been paid in 34 years (includes pension rights) due to the hapless inaction of his predecessor.

 

Yours truly, (Roger Callow) Plaintiff

 

January 21, 2019

                                                POST IN STAFFROOM

N.B. Address of Saskatoon Court is on page 9 of the plaintiff's factum

TO:

West Vancouver Teachers Association (S.D. #45)

ATTN: Renee Willock - President

4915 Marine Drive

West Vancouver, British Columbia V7W 2P5

tel: 604-926-1617  fax: 604-926-1119                                          Defendant  (in Saskatoon

                                                                                    QBG 52 of 2019 where disclosure is sought

FROM:                                                                                                

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t: 613-521-1739

e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com                                                                  Plaintiff

 

Dear Ms. Willock

1) Please note that it is the WVTA and not the parent Union which is the Defendant in Saskatoon. Based on past experiences in this long drawn out unresolved labour matter regarding an illicit senior teacher lay-off in 1985, I may be re-directing action solely against the WVTA

2) The Justice System has made it eminently clear that over 50 judges will protect the Employer in having to produce disclosure. Indeed, the Employer, The West Vancouver School Trustees, refuse to recognize any body as having oversight powers (courts / B.C. Labour Board) over imposed Legislation (BILL 35) 1985 under which I was laid off in June of 1985. Legalities in this case do not explain, however, how I might access the compensation features of Bill 35.

3) That I was the target of a 'sweetheart deal' in 1985  seems eminently clear. (SEE web)

DISCLOSURE

4) Both the Employer and the Union have copies of the requested disclosure (School Board memo notes from June of 1985) returned by Justice Southin in 1986 'because she did not use them'. The Union repeatedly refuses to provide me with a copy.

5) The position of the local Union is not the same as the Employer as I claim to have a right as a client to have a copy of that disclosure (minute notes of the June-1985 School Board meeting regarding the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow). A corollary question is whether or not the Union had powers to represent me under the collective bargaining process under imposed legislation? The courts all ignore these central questions bringing into disrepute the law of the land.

ACTION

6) If I do not receive a copy of the aforesaid disclosure, the WVTA will be sued for the entire amount of $20 million compensation. Is that what you want? Is that what the WV teachers at large want? You may wish to have a vote on that matter within the next 15 day DEADLINE.

7) Why, it needs be asked, is the WVTA with its limited membership willing to risk millions for a matter relating to 1985 where all personnel are either dead or in retirement?

8) Ignoring this letter is done to your personal detriment plus that of the WVTA at large (not so for the BCTF).

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow  employeescasecanada.ca  N.B. new venue to be selected if necessary . Please note strict adherence to the 15 day time limit.

 

JANUARY 21, 2019

TO: President Trump                     FROM: Roger Callow aka 'The Outlawed Canadian'

c/o U.S. Embassy (Ottawa)                       employeescasecanada.ca

Dear Mr. Trump

1) 'Sly' indeed are those Canadians which form the northern flank of U.S. Defenses.

2) Far be it for me to label the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military to be a coward; but there are others whom are not quite so sanguinary.

3) The challenge is a legal one as it relates to Ontario Superior Court action

CV 18000 76950 0000 (Ottawa Supreme Court) laid on June 30-2018 in which the court refuses to call a hearing with Premier Ford refusing, as he wrote me, to intervene in this matter. To be sure, if B.C. Chief Justice Hinckson S 188996 Sept. 2018 believed that he had that option; he would have used it rather than creating the crisis outlined below: But the point here is that this option does not exist.

 

October 01-2018

BY: Roger Callow Plaintiff  File S-188996 September 20-2018

N.B. (from website)

         Complaints must be submitted in writing by mail, addressed to:

           The Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia

           Suite 337 - 800 Hornby Street

           Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6Z 2C5

MESSAGE:

1) So to whom does a litigant make a claim of judicial malfeasance when the targeted judge is the Chief Judge himself? Is this the Justice System being clever?...or too clever by half?

2) Hinckson j. handled medical malpractice suits for a legal firm for 31 years without being made a partner; not even the obligatory QC after his name. To some that would make him ideal Chief Justice material.

3) I have called on the B.C. Attorney General D Edy to suspend Hinckson j. until his alleged malfeasance in this case may be examined. It is not only the Attorney General's Office which is at question  here but, considering Premier Horgan's position vis a vis the Office of the B.C. Lieutenant Governor which ducked their responsibility in dealing with this thorny unresolved legal case where no compensation as per the laws has been paid; but the entire NDP Party in Canada.

4) An allied action in Ontario for civil fraud including the names of two justices and the Employer's legal Counsel from 2014 (CV 18000 769 0000) extant before the court currently is intertwined with this case; particularly as it relates in a 33 year search for disclosure revealing a conspiracy in a sweetheart deal. Hinckson cj. was also taxed with disclosure if he did not wish to give the $20 million forfeiture fee requested.

5) Until Hinckson's Order, all judges ducked out for jurisdictional reasons...frivolous and vexatious claim, matters already settled, etc.

6) For a first time in 33 years, Hinckson cj has unequivocally directly linked the courts with the conspiracy known as the employeescasecanad.ca. As long as he remains on the bench, there can be no justice in Canadian courts.

7) Unlike some European courts, a Canadian Justice may not fulfill an advocate's role. He must adjudicate the claims set before him or her and rule according to law. That is our legal system which Hinckson cj. would usurp.

8) For reasons best known to themselves (and perhaps me as well); the defendant Employer and Union did not oppose my petition. In law, that means that my argument must stand as fact and the asserted fact was that I was the victim of a conspiracy to defraud me of my compensation due to an illicit senior teacher lay-off in 1985 under the conditions of the imposed BILL 35. Justice Southin quashed that arbitration ruling the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. I was, as events turned out due to judicial cupidity, left in a 33 year state of limbo.

9) While the 26 page account included to Hinckson cj details events up to the current time; I include here a 9 page definition of events more closely aligned to the MacKenzie Creed of 2010 which is Hinckson's starting point as he quotes verbatim from that Order and then signs it as his own in a bid to authenticate this obviously ultra vires action by the court setting a very dangerous precedent. Why bother with courts of law at all under these circumstances?

10) The proper course for Hinckson cj if he were to use the faulty MacKenzie Creed was to invite me to provide argument before he reached his Decision. That is primarily why he should be removed from the bench.

11) The only other recourse for Hinckson cj. was to request that the RCMP seize the necessary disclosure documents as I requested along with placing me back on salary (I should never have been removed until this legal matter was resolved.) He did neither.

 

Roger Callow (signed)

cc  RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki

 

NOVEMBER 10-2018

 

TO: Kazim Mohammed - Deputy Registrar Vancouver Supreme Court

 

FROM:  Roger Callow Plaintiff  employeescasecanada.ca  2018  Hinckson cj 'fraud'

 

MESSAGE:

1) Acknowledgment of your letter dated Nov.01-2018 and received Nov.09-2018 is made which states in part: We received the following document  in the mail and it cannot be filed for the following reason: 1. We cannot file the Notice of Civil Claim (fraud Action against Hinckson cj) as you have been deemed a vexatious litigant; therefore, you cannot initiate any proceedings in any registry of the Supreme Court without prior leave of the court....

RESPONSE: Whom do you think you are giving the above judicial finding...a judge? I think not. Hence I have directed a copy of this account to A.G. David Edy calling for your immediate dismissal for usurping the judicial process. cc D. Edy A.G.

 

 

2) Space limits a telling of the factum but the web site listed above: Concluding Remarks #49-#52 and the Letter to D. Edy also included dated Sept.27-2018 B.C. Justice System Crashes and Burns - NDP Future at Stake are pertinent here.

 

3) This account focuses on Res Ipso Loquitor for which neither MacKenzie (2010) nor Hinckson cj which repeats her error of not calling for argument nor quoting pertinent laws, chose to expel me from the courts 'for reasons best known to themselves' in an unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation has been paid. In brief, neither judge gave me the opportunity to address the court on this point of law explaining why I requested A.G. Edy to immediately suspend Hinckson cj. Edy's silence (plus Premier Horgan) speaks legions on this point.

 

Res Ipso Loquitor Latin for "the thing speaks for itself."

Overview In tort law, a principle that allows plaintiffs burden of proof with what is, in effect, circumstantial evidence. The plaintiff can create a rebuttable presumption of negligence by the defendant by proving that the harm would not ordinarily have occurred without negligence, that the object that caused the harm was under the defendant's control, and that there are no other plausible explanations. In the vernacular, this term is likened to the patient whom goes for a hospital arm operation and comes away without his foot instead.

 

Prima Facie Case To prove res ipsa loquitor negligence, the plaintiff must prove 3 things:

1. The incident was of a type that does not generally happen without negligence The court noted negligence when they quashed the arbitration in 1986 for failing to show a causal factor.

2. It was caused by an instrumentality solely in defendant's control. As the senior teacher laid off under the imposed conditions of BILL 35 (lay-off for economic reasons only); I had no say in that process

3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the cause. If I did, then disclosure is called for which over 50 judges including Hinckson cj. should have called for or ordered the RCMP to act. He ignored all issues limiting his response to a 'bastardized' interpretation of the 'MacKenzie Creed'.

 

4) A.G. Edy's inaction is the sole source of this judicial malfeasance. Premier Horgan should replace him and order this matter back to the court with a special investigator.  cc Premier Horgan / media

 

Why the U.S. should be very concerned about the non-action in Ontario

4) As noted in 3); the option of doing nothing with a duly registered legal case is not an option. It is the proverbial 'bridge too far' and it negatively impacts the U.S. in its commercial and trade dealings with Ontario; the 'northern flank' of U.S. defense.

5) In absence of action within the next 15 days from Canada on the Employee's Case, the U.S. might consider;

a) invoking the Magnitsky Act against Ontario which can only be done by a fellow signatory. Canada does not permit an internal application of this Act.

b) setting up a legal alternative in the U.S. (to be paid by Canada of course) for a tribunal with any U.S. interest seeking legal redress in Ontario Courts until the Employee's Case is resolved.

c) whatever else the U.S. contemplates, it must be publicized within the next 15 days for the Commander-in-Chief to retain credibility.

 

cc 1) a copy of all legal and pertinent materials is provided to SK Premier Moe.

2) The new Justice Minister of Canada, D. Lametti (c/o PMO) is receiving the above material with the same 15 day allowance otherwise this action will be posed to Tory leader, Andrew Scheer. PLACARD: GHOST OF J. EDGAR HOOVER RUNS JUSTICE CANADA (SEE 2019 web site under this sub-heading)

3) No copy to the NDP. PLACARD: NO EMPLOYEE WILL VOTE NDP

4) Considering the failure of the anti-employee media to break their national boycott by the end of 2018; this matter has been relegated to international  exposure. In that regard, the OTTAWA SUN international columnists - Farzana Hassan and Tarek Fatah - focusing on Islamic topics have the same 15 day window to publicize this story.

 

Yours truly, Roger Callow plaintiff in SK QBG 52 of 2019