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) 5 pages
February 15, 2019
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
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
1285 Cahill Drive E #2001
Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
e-mail: email@example.com Plaintiff
In a letter to the above dated February 11 in which there was no response from the Defendants; this plaintiff wrote:
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?
cc Premier Moe (plus Court) and Premier Notley both of whom have been asked to assign special counsel to judge this issue.
cc PMO including A.G. 'Professor Dave'
MESSAGE: (Feb. 15-2019)
1) As neither Defendant replied to the above, I request that a new court date of Tuesday Feb. 26,2019 at 10 A.M. (teleconferencing) be set aside for this plaintiff to answer any questions posed by the court. The question of disclosure is paramount as it appears that the RCMP must be called in. Please notify accordingly stating whether Special Counsel has been assigned.
2) Time is fast running out for Premier Moe to call for Special Counsel as two Ontario judges are named in this fraud action. Their inclusion is a result of the oversight bodies failure to act as to judicial malfeasance. The Minister of Justice, David Lametti , is guilty of the charge of omission in that regard hence the need of Special Counsel. Are you listening, Premier Moe, as I give little chance to your success in the Carbon Tax challenge if you do not support a bid here for a constitutional challenge of the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985): 'traditional laws vs evolving society' is the SK carbon tax theme. The point of my constitutional challenge is that either way, surely Parliament should enact any changes which are overseen by the courts. With imposed legislation, government rules by fiat apart from Parliament and the courts.
3) In addition, SK courts (Regina) are compromised by earlier actions on this issue leading to the SCC. The lower court failed to examine the allegedly fraudulent actions of two Ontario judges with the Appeal Court holding a private voir dire with the Employers Counsel in which it was agreed that they would not appear (and have to answer as to fraudulent material along with their failure to provide disclosure). An earlier surety which I was forced to post was distributed by the court without an order. To be sure, the Employer's Counsel was unwilling to go to court to collect fearing a charge of fraud on their part. The last contact with SK in this matter was with the SK Law Society which has gone mute on these serious questions.
3) Premier Notley in Alberta and the Edmonton Court (copy of this correspondence included to them) is also taxed with appointing Special Counsel with the failure of B.C. NDP A.G. David Edy to review the preposterous actions of Chief Justice Hinckley (see web: employeescasecanada.ca 2018 Hinckley cj -Fraud sub-heading).
4) Earlier letters make much of the allegation that in covering up a fraud in 1986, B.C. Justice Mary Southin left herself open to blackmail which has been compounded by over 50 judges 'covering up the cover-up'. Interestingly, the School Board meeting notes of June 1985 dealing with my senior teacher lay-off for economic reasons ('whistleblowing'), did not include the later testimony in arbitration of Assistant Superintendent, Bill May, responsible for staffing, stating under oath that he did not recommend the need to lay-off any teacher in June of 1985 nor did the School Trustees do so. 'Then where did the request come from?' he was asked. From Superintendent, Ed Carlin. As no School Trustee took the stand to testify as to lay-off numbers (16 new hires were translated into 16 lay-offs by Arbitrator Lindholm (d)) The assertion here, is that two former Local Union Presidents and close colleagues of Principal John Williams of whom I had written evidence of fraud regarding my Professional Report on Teacher joined with Carlin and approached Board Chairperson Margo Furk and her successor, Mike Smith (the only two out of five to support the lay-off) although the document was in all likelihood falsified by their lawyer, Stuart Clyne QC. In brief, in trying to protect people who should not have been protected, she risked the entire Justice System which does not excuse the latter for systemic malfeasance. These conspirators all depend heavily on the media boycott of this national story even to the present day.
5) Presuming the Saskatoon one-hour hearing goes ahead with only myself in attendance (I refuse to have the Defendants appearing in court without the necessary notice.), the focus will be on disclosure on which all else depends. In absence of Premier Moe seeing to the appointment of Special Counsel, it will be left to the court as to how to proceed on the fraud charges against two Ontario judges and the constitutional question regarding imposed legislation. The real trial, in so many words, is of Premier Moe. All SK will be affected by his action/inaction. Premier Notley, are you watching?
6) As this is probably the only opportunity which I will have to address the legal nature of disclosure or habeas corpus which applies in all courts witnessing this case including AB; I offer the following case study:
S.C.C. Court File No. 38463
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN: 'Contractor' -and- 'Condominium'
Bhasin v. Hrynew,  3 SCR 494, 2014 SCC 71 (CanLII)
30. Bhasin provides that a failure to disclose material information does not constitute active deception. In order to constitute active deception, the withholding of information must be coupled with an outright lie or with the selective disclosure of partial information which, coupled with the withholding of important information, renders the statement a lie. It is the lie that triggers the duty to disclose information. Absent the lie, Bhasin provides, and the courts have consistently held, that there is no such duty.
34. One “type of relationship” that may require, “in certain respects,” candid and forthright performance is an employment relationship.23
4. However, active non-disclosure goes well beyond a simple failure to disclose material facts. It occurs where a party deliberately remains silent because it knows its silence, taken together with its positive statements or conduct, will mislead. There is no equivalence between these two concepts, and Bhasin does not suggest there is. The Anglo-Canadian courts have differentiated between them for over a century.
8. It was precisely to avoid this piecemeal approach that Bhasin recognized a “general doctrine” of honest performance, which applies to all contracts:
… Because the duty of honesty in contractual performance is a general doctrine of contract law that applies to all contracts, like unconscionability, the parties are not free to exclude it….
9. Therefore, it is no answer to suggest, as the Respondents do, that the duty of honest performance may prohibit active non-disclosure in some contexts but not others.
15. Fifth, the Respondents assert that accepting the contractors position would lead to “ad hoc judicial moralism”. 26 But it is not judicial moralism to suggest that “contracting parties must be able to rely on a minimum standard of honesty from their contracting partner”. 27 The Court of Appeal accepted that the Respondents “fail[ed] to act honourably”, and did not set aside the Trial Judge’s findings of active dishonesty, but found they were insufficient to meet the “high level” (weasel word expression used to subvert justice. R.C.) required to breach the duty of honest performance. 28 This approach leaves litigants without a remedy for conduct contrary to the most basic expectations of contractual behaviour. It undermines the significant achievement of this Court in Bhasin, and must be set aside.
1) The SCC is a great burial ground of issues leaving litigants with Appeal Court Decisions from the provinces. (I have had that experience before the SCC four times in 34 years of my unresolved labour case.) It is a matter of 'professional courtesy'; one level of court does not 'dis' another court level although it happens from time to time for if no-one 'wins the lottery'; contestants stop playing. It's a variation on this theme: Why don't sharks (SCC) eat lawyers (Provincial Appeal Courts)? ...Professional courtesy. Hence the Employer has a decided advantage in the above case; case studies and analysis notwithstanding.
2) Note the importance of the courts stating that a witness lied...they never do leaving the observation to a witness. In the Employee's Case the School Trustees did not lie regarding fictitious teacher lay-off figures as they did not take the stand = arbitrator should have thrown the case out if the lawyers refused to call them. (This is why all clients of Unions must have their own private lawyer attend such sessions - $10,000? - for self protection from the sweetheart deal. Most cases qualify.) The Superintendent certainly perjured himself involving Employer Counsel, Stuart Clyne. Rather than letting the cards lie where they fell, Southin j. decided to sacrifice my career to protect them and as noted in that process, subsequently sacrifice the entire Canadian Justice System. Southin j. quashed the arbitration ruling, in that process, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable for failing to show a causal factor. She ordered the matter back to arbitration when the Trustees refused her recommendation that employment be returned to me. B.C. teachers at large remained silent amid all this abuse. They never placed the West Vancouver School District 'in dispute' despite the Union proclaiming this matter in 1985 of the imposed BILL 35 to be 'the battle of all teachers'. One unintended outcome of this trial is the cancellation of School Boards -i.e. Nova Scotia - as no Premier wishes to risk $20 million actions due to actions of a 'whacko School Board'. Another unintended outcome is to ask which ethical principal will write a negative 'Professional Report on teacher' mindful of the Employee's Case? To be sure some negative Reports should be written.
3) The courts have already bought into the Employers arguments that they do not have to produce disclosure hence my primary goal as a Union client is to obtain my copy of those notes returned by Southin j. which the Union purloined and have refused to divulge. My next action after AB is, in all likelihood, one solely against the WVTA local Teachers Union for the full sum of settlement of $20 million. But that comes after the failure of SK and AB courts. The Union would be most unwise to believe that those two cases give them 'breathing space' as the charge could be laid at any time (and in all likelihood, will be).
Yours truly, (signed)
Roger Callow (Plaintiff)
cc Premier Moe (plus Saskatoon Court) and Premier Notley (plus Edmonton Court) whom have been asked to assign Special Counsel to this case.
cc PMO including A.G. 'Professor Dave'