CHRYSTIA FREELAND

Nov. 04-2020

TO: Chrystia Freeland - Deputy P.M.††† FROM: Roger CallowPlaintiff(NB fraud legal case)

PAGES 4††††††††††††††††† employeescasecanada.ca RECENT 7nov. CHRYSTIA FREELAND sub-title

 

cc Walter E Williamsitinerant SUN columnist & U.S. Economics Professor

cc NB Premier B. Higgs (separate letter sent with Action to be re-introduced by him as noted in factum below)

 

MESSAGE:

1) As a prospective future P.M. of Canada, I provide you with the litmus test dominating all other domestic issues; namely, the Employees Case which over 35 years and over 50 judges in almost all provinces (except NL) still lacks a Decision in a rinky dink labour matter by which the Justice system of Canada has imploded. (SEE web)

2) This NB case is sent your way due to the ethically challenged P.M. and career challenged Justice Minister (David Lametti) failing to address matters of national concern in this case. Fraud and judicial malfeasance loom large in this matter. Why N.B. is asked to handle a matter of fraud from B.C. legal outfit, Harris & Co. on behalf of the West Vancouver School District #45 in Saskatoon is simply that the court functions of SK are hopelessly confused in this matter and can hardly be expected to sit on judgment of themselves. The judges concerned are named incidentallyasthe action lists Harris & Co. as the sole Defendant. (They were not able to raise legal counsel in ON after their 2014 debacle in that province - SEE web).

3) The essence of the NB case is to provide disclosure; namely, the meeting notes of the illicit Board meeting held in July 1985 which were provided to Justice Mary Southin at her request and later returned 'because she did not use them'. In brief, she covered up a massive fraud which succeeding justices have 'covered up the cover-up'. NB would have to call this disclosure in any court case held for the purpose to know what they are accepting or rejecting. Once I have those notes, I drop my case for if fraud is shown, which is highly likely, all matters flowing from that fraud are 'null and void'; namely, my senior teacher dismissal under the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985) solely for economic reasons would, I submit, be tossed. (Those notes would reveal a fraud of grandiose proportions even though the BILL was rescinded before judgment in this sole-laid case has been made = banana republic treatment.

4) Should I receive the same silent treatment from you as I do the above fellow M.P.'s plus all Opposition M.P.'s plus media; you should not contemplate ever running for P.M.

 

FOLLOWING IS A RESPONSE TO THE FREDERICTON COURT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, PAULA ESTEY (the Chief or Deputy Chief Justice lacking the courage to at least co-sign)

1) Acknowledgment of returned unfiled action by this Plaintiff, Roger Callow, v. Harris & Co.

is made . The action dated Oct. 8-2020 was responded to by Estey dated Oct. 23 and received by me on November 03. (In passing, I note a step up in NB from the Ottawa court whose last rejection was an unsigned pencil note saying the material does not conform to forms.)

2) In her opening paragraph Estey notes an earlier voicemail on Oct. 23. I always request written responses on legal matters as I have done so in the past as matters attributed to telephone calls are usually fallacious. My files do not show the reception of any g-mail (and I check regularly) which she claimed to have sent.

 

3) Individual reasons for rejection and my response:

1. The Notice of Action with Statement of Claim Attached must be filed in Bilingual format;

RESPONSE (R.) This case has been in every province including Gatineau, QC where the matter was heard entirely in English. The last NB rejection made no mention of this rule. Is it new? I would like to know. Where required, courts provide translation purposes which is not the case required here. In brief, is Estey making up the law as she goes along?

2. The Notice of Action does not have a style of the proceeding (style and cause) which would include the name(s) of the Applicant(s) and Defendant(s);

R. The names of the Applicant and Defendant are clearly stated accompanied with appropriate contact information. I copy the format of the Defense in terms of style and cause to elicit my case. SEE 5. on page 4 which is quite clear as to the nature of the fraud. Sometimes I include the phrase 'In a matter of fraud' in the title which I haven't here but could be easily corrected.

My point is that as soon as I have the necessary disclosure from the Defendant, I will pursue him in courts outside of NB. Surely NB is committed to the 'furtherance of justice' common to all courts of law.

3. An unfiled Notice of Action with Statement of Claim must be filed with the Court of Queen's Bench before it can be filed on the Defendant(s);

R. This feature is a welcome new addition in other court systems as sending an AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Form 18B at the same time was complicated. Hence my forwarding of a copy of the Action was gratuitous and would be confirmed once a file number had been assigned.

4. An affidavit of Service (Form 18B) should have a filed copy of Notice of Action with Statement of Claim AttachedR. SEE 3.above Provide the file number and I will forward a copy to the Defendant in this 'which came first game; the chicken or the egg'? ...and it must be commissioned by a Commissioner of Oaths and all attachments should be marked as exhibits and initialed by a Commissioner of Oaths; R. In every court, and there have been many, my Affidavit of Facts suffices. On one other occasion, I was asked for a lawyer's affidavit which consisted merely of asking me to 'swear to the matters herein defined' without reading any of it; a 5 minute useless exercise under the circumstances. Running 'a court within a court' might be a great billable time exercise for the legal fraternity if they can get it, but does little to further the course of justice.

ADDENDUM

There is no connection with the jurisdiction of Fredericton and this court may have no jurisdiction over the alleged claim... R. Now Estey is being judge, jury and executioner. No legal counsel would ever use the indefinite term 'may'; it either does or doesn't have jurisdiction. Did no-one oversee this letter before it was sent out? There are good ground for dismissal in this failure of oversight reminiscent of ...'a little bit of legal learning is a dangerous thing'....

 

Also, the filing fee of $100...was not provided. R. As noted, the court was asked to contact me on this level as I would pay once a file number was to be made available.

 

Yours truly, Roger Callow 'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systemic

judicial malfeasance = we have a legal system; not a justice system.

 

NEW BRUNSWICK - October 08-2020

 

FORM 16A

FILE NUMBER _______________

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH - FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK

STYLE OF PROCEEDING - IN WRITING ON A PARTY BY PARTY BASIS

 

NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIM ATTACHED

 

TO: Harrisand Company LLP††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

(representing the Board of School Trustees West Vancouver, B.C.)††††††††††

ATTN: Geoff Litherland†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††††

14th Floor550 Burrard Street††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††

Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2B5

tel: 604-684-6633fax: 604-684-6632†††††† 10 pages SENT BY FAX

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††††

†††† LEGAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU BY FILING THIS NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIM ATTACHED.

 

†††† If you wish to defend these proceedings, either you or a New Brunswick lawyer acting on your behalf must prepare your Statement of Defence in the form prescribed by the Rules of Court and serve it on the self-represented plaintiff at the address shown below, and with proof of such service, file it in this Court Office together with the filing fee of $50.

 

FROM: Roger Callowself-represented Plaintiff

1285 Cahill DriveEast #2001

Ottawa, OntarioK1V 9A7

tel/fax: 613-521-1739†† FILING FEE to be assessed by the court

 

(b) If you are served elsewhere in Canada...,WITHIN 40 DAYS after such service.

 

†††† If you fail to do so, you may be deemed to have admitted any claim made against you, and without further notice to you, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE.

 

You are advised that:

(a) you are entitled to issue documents and present evidence in the proceeding in English....(as per past hearings on this matter)

(b) & (c) language concerns: see a)

 

†††† If you pay to the plaintiff...the amount of the plaintiff's claim ($20 million in lieu of providing disclosure), together with the sum of $100 for the plaintiff's costs, within the time you are required to serve and file your Statement of Defense, further proceedings will be stayed or you may apply to the court to have the action dismissed.

 

THIS NOTICE is signed and sealed for the Court of Queen's Bench by ____________

Clerk of the Court at Fredericton, on the____ day of ____________, 2020

 

Court

Seal††††††† __________________________(clerk)

 

Address of Court Office: 427 Queen St. PO Box 6000 Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††† t.506-453-2015f.506-444-5675

 

AFFIDAVIT attesting to validity of documents herein enclosed

I, (full name of deponent) ofRoger Callow in the Province of Ontario (Ottawa)

AFFIRM:

That the material in this factum signed by the Plaintiff dated OCTOBER 08-2020 is an accurate account of the material facts included.

 

Signed (Roger Callow)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Set out in separate, numbered paragraphs the following:

1. The capacity of all persons who are parties to the proceeding.

Harrisand Company LLP

ATTN: Geoff Litherland†††† Defendant†††

(representing the Board of School Trustees West Vancouver, B.C.)††††††††††

14th Floor550 Burrard StreetVancouver, B.C. V6C 2B5

tel: 604-684-6633fax: 604-684-6632

 

2. The place of residence of the plaintiff.

Roger Callowself-represented Plaintiff

1285 Cahill DriveEast #2001 / Ottawa, OntarioK1V 9A7 / tel: 613-521-1739

 

3. Where the Statement of Claim is to be served out of New Brunswick without leave, the facts upon which it is alleged that such service is permitted.

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.

AFFIRMED : in the Province of Ontario (Ottawa) on OCTOBER 08, 2020

 

Roger Callow (signed) Plaintiff

 

4. Each allegation of a material fact relied upon to substantiate the claim.

The fact of the criminality of the Saskatoon Court QGB 52 0f 2019 and the Defendant in April and May of 2019 is included here as EXHIBIT A. Due to the history of 35 years in which the court oversight bodies refuse to acknowledge let alone investigate serious judicial malfeasance, this plaintiff is forced to open in other courts as evidenced on the web site: employeescasecanada.ca 2020 including a compendium of that abuse packaged under the heading 2019 JUNE GOVERNOR GENERAL PAYETTE and while not presented in this case until I have a response from the Defendant which is unlikely to be forthcoming considering my threat to sue them or anyone representing them for fraud. The recent case in Saskatoon appears to be an anomaly where a tacit agreement was broken with the appearance of Harris & Co. The truth of the matter is that none of the three litigants - the Employer, the Union (not represented here) and myself as Plaintiff cannot get legal representation other than our self-representation.

 

5. The plaintiff's claim.

This order alleges that Harris & Co. 'may have ignored, covered up, attempted to cover-up, allowed, tolerated, encouraged, participated in or were willfully blind to criminal conduct and/or serious misconduct in their bid to deny this plaintiff of his livelihood as a senior teacher in West Vancouver, B.C. dating from 1985. The operant word here is 'may' as the refusal of the Defendant with court support in many provinces has thwarted the attempt of this plaintiff to obtain disclosure: namely, the meeting notes of the West Vancouver School Trustees in July of 1985 which Justice Southin of B.C. Supreme Court called for and then returned them 'because she did not use them'. She quashed the arbitration favouring the Trustees for failing to show a causal factor. The arbitrator was ruled patently unreasonable. I was left in limbo. As one in attendance at that arbitration, conspicuous by its absence from his Report was the evidence of Assistant Superintendent, Bill May, whom was responsible for staffing, testifying that there was no need to lay off any teacher in June of 1985 under the imposed conditions of BILL 35 (B.C. 1985) or any other means. The arbitrator converted 16 new hires into 16 lay-offs adding my name as the necessary 17th. In short, the arbitration failed the 'threshold test'; namely, was there a need to lay off any staff under any conditions in June of 1985? It appears that Justice Southin opened herself to blackmail by the Employer when she failed to call them out for fraud and the next 35 years has been spent by the courts of law across Canada 'covering the cover-up'.

†††† The reason that New Brunswick has been selected to hear this case is that it is one of the few provinces in which this case has not been heard previously and therefore not tainted with corruption.

†††† To that end, as is the case with all other provinces, Premier Higgs (letter Sept. 15-2020 plus addendum Oct. 08-2020) is being kept fully apprised of activity in this case. Due to the connections with the imposed Carbon Tax which New Brunswick contests, I have offered to include a constitutional challenge if requested which, it is submitted here, is vital to their success. To that end, a justice with constitutional background might be appointed. I am prepared to accept intervener status from the province in order that their concerns may be filed as well in that regard if they wish. Whatever option Premier Higgs chooses, disclosure is necessitated for both our concerns.

†††† Until I learn the intentions of the Defendant, this is a 'bare bones' presentation. Not included here is BILL 35, Justice Southin's Report (or the Appeal which the Employer lost) or the compendium of wrongdoing (Governor General Payette-2019) and other material pertinent to this case.

ACTION REQUESTED

1) For disclosure of July 1985 meeting notes to be produced on pain of the Defendant paying the sum of $20 million non-negotiable without prejudice forfeiture fee.

2) Alternatively, the court should order the RCMP to seize these documents and possibly fine the Defendant for each day of delay.

 

CIVIL vs CRIMINAL LAW

†††† The Canadian Justice System, in its cleverness has permitted large interests to exploit the dichotomy between civil law (a personal matter between litigants with a dollar value attached) and criminal law (controlled by the state and barred to litigants such as myself involved clearly in a criminal matter).

†††† The point here is that if the disclosure called for shows a criminal intent, then everything flowing from it is 'null and void'. That is a calamity facing the Employer in this case. That is also a calamity facing Justice Canada.

†††† The employeescasecanada.ca has shown systemic abuse on the part of Justice Canada which goes without investigation negatively impacting all contracts - both private and diplomatic in Canada e.g. NAFTA(2). President Trump has been advised to warn all foreign interests in this regard to boycott Canadian courts until this matter is resolved.

 

DATED at Ottawa, Ontario this 08 day of OCTOBER, 2020

 

Roger Callow (signed) self-represented plaintiff

1285 Cahill DriveEast #2001 / Ottawa, OntarioK1V 9A7 / tel/fax: 613-521-1739

 

Name of firm

Harrisand Company LLP (Defendant)†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

(representing the Board of School Trustees West Vancouver, B.C.)††††††††††

ATTN: Geoff Litherland†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††††

14th Floor550 Burrard Street††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††

Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2B5

tel: 604-684-6633fax: 604-684-6632

 

Address for service within New Brunswick: All other Registries forego this provision for the litigants herein. This is where Premier Higgs may assist if the Registry sets up a bulwark. (Nov. 04-2020.They did so a separate letter was sent to him to assist in re-filing R.C.)

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger CallowPlaintiffOctober 08-2020†††††††

 

ADDENDUM

In the event that Premier Higgs does not arrange for Special Counsel, this matter will devolve into requesting disclosure. In that regard, the court should consider RULE 23.01

(1) The plaintiff or defendant may, at any time before the action is set down for trial, apply to the court

(a) for the determination prior to trial, of any question of law raised by a pleading in the action where the determination of that question may dispose of the action, shorten the trial, or result in a substantial savings of costs,

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger CallowPlaintiffOctober 08-2020

 

EXHIBIT A (3 0f 5 pages)

May 23-2019 (employeescasecanada.ca )

 

TO: Premier Moevia fax: SK: 306-787-08852 Pages

FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff; Saskatoon QGB 52 of 2019

††††††††††† 1285 Cahill Drive E #2001Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7t./f. 613-521-1739 e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

MESSAGE:

1) Confirmation of a Saskatoon hearing in the above case on May 23-2019 is made between 1:30 and 1:45 before a Justice Sherman with Harris & Co.'s Bruce Laughton for the Employer being present. There was no representation from the B.C. Teachers Union. There is to be only an oral Decision from the presiding justice although I asked for a written one.

2) The above hearing before Justice Sherman is a 'switch & bait' routine which I encountered in QC in 2016 (SEE web site). In that case, Chief Justice Goulet wrote the Decision for the hearing judge whom was not even referenced in his Decision. That's fraud but a fraud which went all the way to the SCofC (26883-2016) without being heard. Technically I am still awaiting a Decision from that lower court QC judge.

3) The entire Saskatoon Court under the aegis of Konkin j. was involved in a conspiracy which has been reported to the oversight body where I called for the dismissal of Registrar Glen Metivier, his apology notwithstanding. As a result of that hearing on April 25, I challenged Konkin j's credibility directly, when in answer to the question, he claimed that material filed by an ad hoc appearance of Harris & Co. (Geoff Litherland) whom did not file any other forms with respect to an appearance, was addressed to the SK court when in fact they had not been having been used in another venue. Was Laughton double billing? At any rate, Konkin ordered that material to be forwarded to me for comment with a re-hearing scheduled for today, May 23-2019. Only he was qualified to deal with this hearing which he apparently ducked.

4) The method of diminishingthe Employee's Case is to set a priority which was indeed the approach used by Justice Sherman whom sat in for Konkin j. without waiting for the outcome of the SK oversight committee results. The priority related to posing one question...how is the jurisdiction of SK involved? an important question which requires a lengthy answer detailed in my factum. Such explanations have been sufficient to get a hearing with written results in all other provinces including SK in 2016. Not so Justice Sherman who limited his answer to a narrow definition in which he displayed a woeful ignorance of this case. He did not read my entire factum in that regard. But he did see fit to quote an Alberta case of which he researched; the filed #1903 06964 Thomas j. Decisions not realizing -although being completely disinterested- in the fact that I had been rejected from Edmonton Queen's Bench for incomplete forms. Thomas j. gratuitously assigned the above file number and proceeded to adjudge the case without any court hearing or input from me. Nor did he call for the basic disclosure which has plagued this case for 34 years. Thomas j. is another one of my subjects referred to oversight bodies. It is of interest to note that Hicks Morley et al for theEmployer launched a case in 2014 (MacKenzie j.'3' Decisions not referencing each other were referred to the Canadian Council of Judges. There was no response. There never is from this august body in other complaints.

 

May 30-2019

 

TO: Saskatoon Court Chief Justice Popescu :f. 306-975-4818Sent by fax 1 Page

FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff; Saskatoon QGB 52 of 2019

††††††††††† 1285 Cahill Drive E #2001Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7t./f. 613-521-1739 e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com ††employeescasecanada.ca2019 MAY this date

MESSAGE:

1) I remember you from Regina courts in 2016...and not too fondly. That case wound up at the Supreme Court of Canada level: SEE web: 2016SCofC26993. After 34 years and over 50 judges, I still do not have my disclosure in this unresolved labour issue where no compensation has been paid under B.C.'s imposed BILL 35 (1985). The outcome of this case is all-important in the Appeal of the Carbon Tax by Premier Moe. Perhaps you should discuss the matter with him as he obviously didn't listen to me.

2) The above case was first heard on April 25-2019 in a conspiracy involving different factions of the court which was forwarded to the SK Judicial Council (As a generalization, oversight bodies never respond in this case).

3) What I require from you is whether Konkin j. was initially appointed as a Federal Judge (Canadian Council of Judges oversight as opposed to Provincial oversight). Further, the internet is strangely quiet on background information on Konkin j. What is his alma mater?...a U.S. diploma mill?

4) As to the case proper, all three litigants are unable to get legal representation as no legal outfit is hungry or stupid enough to get entangled in this affair. The tacit agreement I had with the Defendants was that if no-one appeared for the Defendant Employer & Union; the onus would be on the courts to act unilaterally; an agreement which held in B.C. and AB.

5) I was dumbfounded to find Harris & Co. present on an ad hoc presentation before Konkin j. on April 25 never believing that Konkin j. would ask him to forward his 500 word submission to me for a rebuttal. The material was borrowed from another court and in no way referenced the Saskatoon Court. Konkin j. lied to me on that direct question.

6) As one consequence of the appearance of Harris & Co., is for me to follow through with my earlier threat to them to sue directly should they appear in court. I am now doing so (outside of SK)

7) The maxim that 'It is a fool whom has himself as a legal client' applies equally to legal firms.

The point here, Harris & Co. is highly unlikely to get any legal firm to represent them in the new forum. Of course, the original question of disclosure is paramount in a case where I call on the court to act on a one-time without prejudice non-negotiable $20 million dollars to cover all costs for the three parties which I claim are equally responsible; the Employer, the Union, and the Courts of law. That is, unless Harris & Co. hand over the well-defined disclosure either to me privately or as ordered by the court.

 

Yours truly (Roger Callow)Plaintiff

 

JUNE 01-2019 (annotated October 08-2020)

BY: Roger Callow Plaintiff employeescasecanada.caSEE 2019 JUNE sub-heading NEW BRUNSWICK (34 year unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation has been paid due to the 'intricacies' of the imposed BILL 35 (1985) used only against this senior West Vancouver teacher in an alleged lay-off for economic reasons.e-mail: rcallow770 @gmail.com

Sun, 26 May, 12:44 (3 days ago)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif

...I am a litigant subject to the vexatious litigant judgment in Ontario. I will be making an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
I can see from Canlii that Justice Thomas made an order against you on the inherent jurisdiction of the court   Callow v West Vancouver Teacherís Association (Local School District Number 45), 2019 ABQB 353(CanLII)
Justice Thomas copied this directly form (sic) the order of Justice Corbett in Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2019 ONCA 359(CanLII) and Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2018 ONSC 58 (CanLII),
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently granted leave to appeal in  Vuong Van Tai Holding Inc v Alberta (Minister of Justice and Solicitor General), 2019 ABCA 165 (CanLII) and suggested that Makis v Alberta Health Services, 2019 ABCA 23 (CanLII), and Lymer (Re), 2018 ABCA 368 z(CanLII) be heard together.  The NSRLP obtained leave to interven (sic) in Jonsson v Lymer, 2019 ABCA 113 (CanLII)
I spoke with one of the lawyers and they have agreed to have appeals heard together  and the main issue will be the court making vexatious litigant order (sic) on the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

The order that was made against you was also made on the inherent jurisdiction and without the attorney general.

o -

5) I was dumbfounded to find Harris & Co. present on an ad hoc presentation before Konkin j. on April 25 never believing that Konkin j. would ask him to forward his 500 word submission to me for a rebuttal. The material was borrowed from another court and in no way referenced the Saskatoon Court. Konkin j. lied to me on that direct question.

 

7) The maxim that 'It is a fool whom has himself as a legal client' applies equally to legal firms.

The point here, Harris & Co. is highly unlikely to get any legal firm to represent them in the new forum (New Brunswick). Of course, the original question of disclosure is paramount in a case where I call on the court to act on a one-time without prejudice non-negotiable $20 million dollars to cover all costs from Harris for the three parties which I claim are equally responsible; the Employer, the Union, and the Courts of law. That is, unless Harris & Co. hand over the well-defined disclosure either to me privately or as ordered by the court.

 

Roger CallowPlaintiff†† October 08-2020