TO: Victoria Supreme Court / 2nd floor 850 Burdett Avenue / P.O. Box 9248 / Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, B.C. V8W 9J2
fax:250-387-3061 4 pages including this one sent by fax
FROM: Roger Callow
1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001
Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7
t/f: 613-521-1739 e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com Plaintiff 19 0903 Victoria Registry (civil)
1) Letter from Deputy District Registrar Rebecca Chappell dated March 01-2019 and received by regular mail on March 08-2019 is acknowledged. Presumably your Registrar is aware of this unusual case as is A.G. David Levy whom is kept apprised of developments although it is noted he was MIA regarding the Vancouver Supreme Court leading to the inclusion of the Chief Justice in a civil fraud action in Alberta.
2) Thank-you for your prompt attention to the above matter in which you provide a file number plus two requirements to make this case court ready.
General observations on Registry requirements.
3) On the positive side, the rules have been updated to take advantage of modern communications such as teleconferencing which I have used a number of times across Canada in this unresolved B.C. labour case. Including, for example, contact information at the bottom of your page is greatly appreciated and in contrast to such as Quebec in which contact is lacking on their forms. I unsuccessfully recommended that a contract be given to such as Durham and Dye to create standard forms with standard fonts across Canada. Oh well, maybe another day.
4) On the negative side is your reference to Rule 4-3 (1) which is a lengthy hodge-podge of seemingly contradictory regulations. I have included as a separate entry more commonsense regulations such as 4-2 to fulfill requirements to your satisfaction. Surely the whole goal of 'Service' is to ensure that the appropriate documents are delivered.
5) I am puzzled by your restriction regarding 'registered mail' as there has never been a challenge on this level in B.C. or elsewhere on this level. Indeed, court responses such as your own are delivered by regular post.
6) On one occasion, to make my case court ready, I purchased a Fedex box to accommodate the 30 mile rule which was used only once before the court and the litigants decided to communicate directly. Perhaps the Office of the Attorney General can assist you in this regard.
7) Regarding your second requirement, I have never had proof of registered mail delivery (Post Office receipt) ever rejected. Please re-consider.
The case proper
8) This is a most unusual case fraught with judicial interference making the SNC Lavalin matter look like a kindergarten caper.
9) This is the first time a civil fraud case for $20 million has been registered solely against the Union in which disclosure is paramount. Over 50 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada on four unsuccessful occasions have failed to provide disclosure from the Employer. Indeed, the case in Quebec focused solely on this topic. The courts do not reject my request on this level; they omit any reference to that request.
10) This is the first time that the Union is the sole target of producing the selfsame disclosure (minute notes of the West Vancouver School Board in June of 1985 regarding my 'illicit' lay-off from my senior teaching post which Justice Southin returned in 1986 'because she did not use them'. Regrettably, the Union purloined my copy from the lawyer I hired to replace the Union lawyer and refuse to divulge that information in this apparent 'sweetheart deal'.
11) As you may read in the letter to the Defendant dated March 08-2019; should they volunteer to provide me with that information, I will probably drop this case for a subsequent criminal case would make everything flowing from the lay-off to be 'null and void'. In the event they don't provide same, the default claim is for $20 million dollars.
12) Hence should the case proceed - and I herein ask for a one hour set aside by teleconferencing in April-2019 for the purpose -, then the Union has refused my request. In that regard, I invited them to skip the usual 500 word 'billable time factum' commonly instituted where one is lucky to see more than 2% used. Instead, I requested that they present to the court a rebuttal up to 10 pages devoted solely to the disclosure question.
13) In the absence of any rebuttal or Appearance, The presiding Justice must acquire those documents; either as a court Order or to order the RCMP to seize them. (A file is kept at the Montreal RCMP fraud division). The presiding Justice may even order me back to work with all provisions of the contract to apply until a resolution is found. Doing nothing, however, is not an option.
14) Hence the trial is to be very short; possibly under 5 minutes in which I respond to any question raised by the court. Either the presiding justice is going to grant my disclosure request or he is not. Written legal reasons are expected if the latter course is selected. To date I have never had written reasons denying me one of the most basic rights of a litigant; namely, disclosure.
cc A.G. David Edy / PMO
Addendum Copy of Post Office Receipt accompanying original Civil Claim follows: