File Number ________
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Roger Callow (self-represented)
West Vancouver Teachers Association
NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM
This action has been started by the plaintiff for the relief set out in Part 2 below.
If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must
(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the plaintiff.
If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must
(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim.
JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the response to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below.
Time for response to civil claim
A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff(s),
(a) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after that service,
(b) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in the United States of America, within 35 days after that service,
(c) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49 days after that service, or
(d) if the time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within that time.
1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001
Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7
t/f: 613-521-1739 e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com Plaintiff
Renee Willock, President, West Vancouver Teachers Association
4915 Marine Drive, West Vancouver, British Columbia V7W 2P5
tel: 604-926-1617 fax: 604-926-1119 Defendant
(signed) Roger Callow
Rule 7-1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states:
(1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period,
(a) prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists
(i) all documents that are or have been in the party's possession or control and that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, and
(ii) all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and
(b) serve the list on all parties of record.
AFFIDAVIT of FACTS
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 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;
7. The recent pension inquiries caused me to examine how I could get compensation or a termination date determined. 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.
Sworn: in the Province of Ontario (Ottawa)
AFFIDAVIT attesting to validity of documents herein enclosed
I, Roger Callow in the Province of Ontario (Ottawa)
1. That the material in this factum signed by the Plaintiff dated MARCH 01, 2019 is an accurate account of the material facts included.
Signed (Roger Callow)
Resource D: Affidavit
This is the .....[FIRST.]..... affidavit of .............[ROGER CALLOW............. in this case and was made on .......[01/03/2019]
IN THE SUPREME COURT (VICTORIA) OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN: Roger Callow PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER
AND: Renee Willock President / West Vancouver Teachers Association
I, , ROGER CALLOW Retired
of 1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001 in the City of Ottawa
in the Province of ONTARIO, SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT :
I am the in this matter and as such have personal [plaintiff/petitioner etc.]
knowledge of the matters herein referred to.
I am in this matter and have personal [plaintiff/petitioner etc.]
knowledge of the facts and matters referred to by me except where indicated to be on information and belief and where so stated I verily believe them to be true.
at the City of OTTAWA, in the Province of ONTARIO on MARCH 01, 2019 )
(signed) Roger Callow
Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING:
[Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case.]
A personal injury arising out of:
[ ] a motor vehicle accident
[ ] medical malpractice
[x] another cause disputed labour matter
A dispute concerning:
[ ] contaminated sites
[ ] construction defects
[ ] real property (real estate)
[ ] personal property
[ ] the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters
[ ] investment losses
[ ] the lending of money
[x] an employment relationship initially
[ ] a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate
[x] a matter not listed here civil fraud
Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES:
[Check all boxes below that apply to this case]
[ ] a class action [ ] maritime law
[ ] aboriginal law
[x] constitutional law not central any longer to current claim
[x] conflict of laws ibid
[ ] none of the above
[ ] do not know
Claim of the Plaintiff
Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS
[Using numbered paragraphs, set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the plaintiff's claim.]
1) The propriety of the lay-off of senior high school teacher, Roger Callow, under the imposed conditions of BILL 35 (1985),has never been established in law despite many, many court hearings in British Columbia and elsewhere including the Supreme Court of Canada on four occasions.
2) Without a proper determination, the Employer refuses to pay any compensation. That situation applies 34 years later.
3) The current action against the West Vancouver Teachers Association is for the Union Copy of disclosure which, it is asserted here, would reveal a fraud of criminal proportions involving this Association. As a Union client, I believe that I have always had a right to that disclosure prohibited by the Union 'for reasons best known to themselves'
4) Recently , the Union has avoided filing a Reply to court challenges. In such an eventuality, the presiding justice has three options: a) order the Union to produce said documents b) order the RCMP to seize said documents c) order the Union to pay the full $20 million cost of settlement for what this plaintiff claims was a Union induced 'sweetheart deal' with the employer to deprive this senior teacher of his livelihood.
If any party sues or is sued in a representative capacity, identify the party and describe the representative capacity.]
Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT
[Using numbered paragraphs, set out the relief sought and indicate against which defendant(s) that relief is sought. Relief may be sought in the alternative.]
1) The relief sought in this most unusual of cases before over 50 judges is unique and formed the basis of the case in 2012 (CA038538) British Columbia which was not heard due to the interference of the 'MacKenzie Creed' whom, of her own volition, not quoting any laws nor taking argument and for reasons best known to herself, delisted the case. (The 'Cullen Creed' of 2013 did essentially the same thing forcing this plaintiff into venues outside of British Columbia).
2) Currently, a $20 million dollar civil fraud charge has been launched in Ontario against the Employer (CV 18000 769 0000 Ottawa) to obtain disclosure to reinforce my claim that the RCMP (Montreal Fraud Division)should file a criminal charge against them. This case is still awaiting judgment as is a parallel case in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. A one-hour teleconferencing call should suffice even if no Appearance is being filed by the Defendant. Further documentation may be supplied to the court by this plaintiff on request.
3) No reference may be made to any extant cases without an appearance of the Defendant in court as the presiding justice must not be seen to be 'running a court within a court'. The general rule of law is that a plaintiff's case under these circumstances must be accepted as fact. Should the court rule the lay-off to be illicit (as per Justice Mary Southin's 1986 Decision); then everything flowing from that action is null and void.
4) EXHIBIT A is a necessary inclusion as it deals with all matters, both issues and applicable law, up to 2015. The Ontario Fraud Charge continues that story from that time period and is not a topic here unless the Defendant wishes to include that aspect in their Reply. Unless requested by the Defendant, EXHIBIT A (earlier form) is not included here in the charge made directly against The West Vancouver Teachers Association.
5) At root of all actions described here is a refusal of both the Employer and Union to provide disclosure in a denial which has been supported by every court hearing this matter.
6) cc B.C. Attorney General Hon. D. Edy
Part 3: LEGAL BASIS
[Using numbered paragraphs, set out a concise summary of the legal bases on which the plaintiff(s) intend(s) to rely in support of the relief sought and specify any rule or other enactment relied on. The legal bases for the relief sought may be set out in the alternative.]
CIVIL CHARGE (FRAUD) AGAINST WEST VANCOUVER TEACHERS ASSOCIATION DATED MARCH 01-2019 IN VICTORIA SUPREME COURT web: employeescasecanada.ca
N.B. For the sake of economy, the personal pronoun 'I' will supplant the term 'plaintiff'. This matter is self represented by the plaintiff, Roger Callow.
1) Central to this case is disclosure without which no court - and there have been many - may proceed with any authentication. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Southin whom quashed the arbitration in 1986 favouring the Employer, ruling in that process, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable for failing to produce a causal factor. She returned meeting notes of the WV School Board for June of 1985 which she had earlier called for because 'she did not use them'. The Union purloined my copy. Both Parties refuse to divulge this key testimony and, more importantly, the courts refuse to request that production or order the RCMP to seize those documents. The RCMP have ignored my request on that level for many years.
2) Sureties: A word on sureties is necessary here. These funds to be posted by individuals in order to permit the continuation of the legal case are specific in pointing out that the funding is not to be used by one party to derail legal cases which has been a problem in this case where legal matters always go under my own name. I have been exposed to spurious demands on this level in British Columbia and elsewhere and although I have posted such sums, I am still denied justice particularly as it relates to disclosure. In the event that the Defense uses this ploy, I will call on the British Columbia lawyers at large to crowd fund this payment as they have to live and work in British Columbia under these circumstances.
3) As earlier courts did not see fit to call for key disclosure which it is asserted here, would almost surely indicate fraud on the part of the Employer and Union therefore making everything which flows from it null and void (since 1985), I call again for this disclosure by either a court order to the Employer and Union(for my copy) or to order the RCMP to seize such documents.
4) In the event that the court sees fit to provide me with disclosure mentioned above, I will drop this suit. On the other hand, if it doesn't, the court should expect me to pursue this case for $20 million to the fullest extent of the law.
Plaintiff's(s') address for service: [Set out the street address of the address for service. One or both of a fax number and an e-mail address may be given as additional addresses for service.]
1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001 Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7
Fax number address for service (if any): 613-521-1739
E-mail address for service (if any): email@example.com
Place of trial: Victoria, British Columbia
The address of the registry is:
Victoria Supreme Court
850 Burdett Avenue
P.O. Box 9248
Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, B.C. V8W 9J2
Roger Callow PLAINTIFF
1285 Cahill Dr. E.
Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7
Renee Willock, President, West Vancouver Teachers Association
4915 Marine Drive, West Vancouver, British Columbia V7W 2P5
tel: 604-926-1617 fax: 604-926-1119 DEFENDANT
Date: 01-03-2019 .........[dd/mmm/yyyy].................
Roger Callow[type or print name]..........................
[The following information is provided for data collection purposes only and is of no legal effect.]
Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM:
1) The exclusionary role of the Cullen Creedwhich expelled the Plaintiff from British Columbia for 'reasons best known to himself' made it impossible to make a constitutional challenge in British Columbia to this aberrant Order although a constitutional question was launched (and thwarted) in Nova Scotia in 2017.
2) Courts hearing this case reduced the claims in an unconscionable manner; namely that I was merely being frivolous and vexatious in matters already decided. That generalization was never supported by facts. I still remain without compensation which is mine under any number of legal provisions. I am, in effect, still an employee of the West Vancouver School Board awaiting deferred salary for 34 years which includes 12 years of pension as the Board did not recognize my retirement at age 65.
3) What's not to love about this action? By having the instigator, namely, the Union pay the full cost of settlement, the Canadian Judiciary escapes an indictment of the entire system which I am sure does not amuse President Trump with his use of those 'sly' Canadian tribunals; particularly in Ontario. The politicians also escape censure as reflected by Party Government and the fact that all politicians choose to ignore this single most important legal case, particularly as it relates to imposed legislation and to the conduct of legal jurisprudence of Canada. As to the anti-employee media on this case, they join the 'fake news' appellation due to their boycott on this story. In brief, our newspaper democracy has imploded but the conspirators cannot expect to win everything.
4) 'What must be avoided at all costs,' states Justice Estey in St. Anne Nackawic, 'is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the laws'. Placed in the vernacular; 'In the halls of justice, all justice is in the halls'. This court must break this runaway judicial deception.
[If an enactment is being relied on, specify. Do not list more than 3 enactments.]
DRAFT OF ORDER REQUIRED
1) The legal question raised here regarding jurisdiction was raised in the arbitration (quashed by the court in 1986 by Justice Mary Southin A860607 January 21,1987) by the Union as the sole presentation regarding the lay-off for economic reasons of senior West Vancouver Secondary teacher, Roger Callow, on June 30, 1985 under the neophyte BILL 35 (School Amendment Act) effective July 01-1985. The arbitrator ignored this central legal question.
2) The Employer raised essentially the same question as the Union in Ontario Superior Court (13-59060 McKinnon j) April 23-2014 Decision but was ignored in that Decision.
3) The Plaintiff raised this central question on June 26-2017 as a means of breaking the log-jam leading to settlement of this long drawn out affair largely due to judicial concupiscence over this torturous 34 year affair. No compensation (includes pension) has been paid. Technically, the plaintiff is still an employee of the School Board #45 albeit an unpaid one.
4) While present at the eleven day arbitration, it is the firm belief of this plaintiff that the court was correct in ruling that no causal factor was shown regarding the lay-off of this plaintiff. Details of that alleged perfidy lie in the minute notes of the June 1985 Board meetings in which BILL 35 and the dismissal of senior teacher Roger Callow were discussed at length. No school trustee took the stand to attest to lay-off numbers which showed an actual increase rather than the decrease quoted by the arbitrator. He was ruled patently unreasonable. Madam Justice Mary Southin of B.C. Supreme Court called for the meeting notes of the Board in June of 1985 but later returned them 'because she did not use them'. Regrettably, the lawyer hired by this plaintiff to replace the Union lawyer of the arbitration, returned my copy of those notes to the Union which was paying his salary rather than to me, otherwise I would have laid an action for fraud many decades ago.
5) The background details of the above action are included in Nova Scotia 458698 (April 2017) which has been referred to the oversight bodies There was no response. The request there was for disclosure considering the goal of laying a future charge of fraud plus being placed back on salary until a solution was found. The interesting feature regarding the Employer's presentation in Nova Scotia is that they did not address the constitutional question raised nor make any reference to their earlier argument that only BILL 35 conditions were to apply to this case. They asked for the issue to be dropped for unstated reasons. The controversial court action in that regard has been forwarded to the oversight powers. There has been no response.
6) As the British Columbia NDP government of Premier Horgan has demonstrated actions against finalizing this case i.e. Lieutenant Governor's Office, copies of this action are delivered to Attorney General David Edy whom is also remiss in failing to respond to his legal mail on this matter.
(signed) Roger Callow Plaintiff
cc A.G. David Edy / PMO- D. Lametti A.G.