JUMP TO HOME PAGE

March 01-2015

 

TO: CCAT-CTAC

c/o University of Ottawa

57 Louis Pasteur P.0.Box 97

Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5

 

FROM:

Roger Callow aka 'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System'

                                employeescasecanada.com

208-2220 Halifax Drive

Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7

 

enclosures:

A) Letter from the B.C. office of the Chief Judge  (1 page dated Feb. 13-2015 received Feb. 26-2015)

B) 'Respondents' Status'  (5 pages from December 15-2014)

C) Canadian Judicial Council - Background Information - Complaints & Inquiries

    (2 pages from internet)

 

MESSAGE:

1) Do I ever have good news for your up-coming seminar in May in New Brunswick regarding  'Dealing with difficult litigants' !

2) Included above is information outlining the #1 'problem case' in Canada today. Far be it from me preaching to the converted but I have included an enclosure on the responsibilities of the Canadian Judicial Council and how they have been treating this 30 year unresolved labour case where no compensation has flowed.

In short, they do not treat it at all which includes failing to acknowledge  copious materials outlining fraud on the part of not only the original conspirators but now the court processes as well stretching across two provinces and the Federal Court.

3) In brief, the Canadian Judicial System is in a state of 'suspended credibility' amidst silence from the legal fraternity, Parliament (gang of 4: Harper/Mulcair/ Trudeau/ May), and the anti-employee media.

 

PROVEN SUGGESTIONS AS TO HOW TO DEAL WITH DIFFICULT LITIGANTS

4) Just don't respond, as the B.C. authorities did not with the initial complaint against Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie (McKenzie Creed-October 2010).

N.B. I accept that the Provincial Court does not have any link with the Supreme Court of B.C. which explains why the above material is forwarded to the Canadian Judicial Council as recommended by the B.C. letter writer.

5) Not responding permeates the bureaucracies associated with this case. For example, the B.C. Teachers Pension Board did not respond for two years to my repeated legally proper request to transfer my paid-up teacher's pension before 1985 (lay-off year) from B.C.  to Ontario as per regulations. When they did, they claimed that they had lost the forms and would I re-submit an application which I did. (This way they escape being accused of procrastination.) It took another 2 years for the request to be fulfilled. Of course all these measures were designed to push me into signing an outside agreement concerning my illicit lay-off...never happened.

6) On two occasions (1997 in which Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice B. McLachlin was a sitting member and 2004 when she was Chief Justice), the SCofC refused to hear this matter; with - as per custom - no reason given.

7) Hence the SCofC is a great burial ground for issues on the above basis leaving every other litigant with a lower court decision . Due to the quashing of the original arbitration in 1985, there was no lower court decision leaving this litigant in the untenable position of being in a permanent state of limbo. Bye, bye, habeas corpus, due process, there can be no process without judgment etc. etc. In short, the Canadian Justice System shot itself, not in the foot, but in a clear projectory path directly to the brain.

8) The provinces are not without their judicial gimmicks either. A favourite is the 'frivolous and vexatious' label which seeks to diminish a case to 'bite size proportions' from which it can easily be disposed.

9) The current case before the Federal Court (T-2360-14) is a prime example alleging fraud on two levels: the original conspirators (a) B.C. Government's imposed BILL 35 used only against this teacher and then withdrawn before this case was resolved (banana republic justice)/(b)the Employer: West Vancouver School Board/(c) the B.C. Teachers Union) and the court processes stretching over 8 separate court systems in B.C., Ontario and the Federal Court with over 30 judges in a matter of systematic judicial abuse.

10) And what was the sole argument that the Union lawyer (a significant part of the fraud charge is against him) presented with a 'me too' response from the Employer's lawyer in T-2360-14? Why, that this matter was `frivolous and vexatious` as evidenced by an Ontario Superior Court judge where the Union did not appear and in which I was the respondent (#13-59060 ). That whole Ontario matter is being appealed and has been referenced to the CJC. Again, no acknowledgment is ever received from that illustrious body consisting of Chief Justices which are a focal point in this story of  judicial perfidy.

11) As to specific judicial perfidy, Vancouver prothonotary, Roger Lafreniére, decided on February 11-2015 that, yup, I was being nothing but 'frivolous and vexatious' ignoring, as he did, the charge of fraud. This is the second time that Lafreniére has 'jumped the gun' in a case which was to have been heard in Ottawa before a judge. For a second time, Chief Justice P. Crampton was the oversight judge and, in the latter regard, had been kept fully aware of unfolding events as has the Prime Minister's Office.

12) And then there is the Praetorian Guard; namely, the Registries which can be counted on to obfuscate any litigant with a capricious interpretations of the rules. For example, by delaying correspondence on this level of court appointment dates, a litigant may be forced into a separate court appeal for an extension of time in which the proceedings can more easily be disposed of by the presiding authorities. Currently I have two such requests for an extension to which the Ontario Appeal Court does not respond. Indeed, the entire Ontario Justice System has locked up on this case so that nothing is forthcoming on any level; the politicians and anti-employee media included.

13) For that matter `any ole judicial excuse will do' to obstruct justice such as the Quebec judge whom refused to hear the case of a litigant while wearing a hijab...the permutations on this theme are endless.

14) So CCAT-CJAC, prattle on if you will at your convention about dealing with difficult litigants. When you come to the topic of dealing with difficult judicial bureaucrats, see me.

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow

cc. PMO / CJC

SCofC. Hon. S. Coté

 

RESPONDENTS' STATUS

Murphy's Law: Any attempt to do nothing, so nothing can go wrong, will go wrong

 

QUOTES:

A) '...It is the School Board's strongly held view that the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdiction to make any ruling regarding the hearing of a future arbitration hearing due to the fact that the arbitration was not a proceeding under the scheme provided in the Labour Relations Code, the former Industrial Relations Act, or the former Labour Code. Instead, the arbitration in question was a hearing pursuant to the provisions of the School Amendment Act, 1985, which the Board has no jurisdiction to interpret or apply. S. Clyne for the Employer to the B.C. Labour Relations Board February 7, 1996  TAB 8 of REPLY BOOKLET

B)  2) Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that any law (BILL 35 RC notation) that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of Canada-the supreme law of the land-is, to the extent of its inconsistency, of no force or effect. A tribunal must respect the Constitution so that if it finds invalid a law (BILL 35 and 'current demonstrated ability' undefined in the statute or in law generally although for structural reasons, it may not refer to teacher competence. RC) it is called upon to apply, it is bound to treat it as having no force or effect. Weber vs Ontario Hydro  Dominion Law Reports 125 D.L.R. (4th) p.594 SEE REPLY BOOKLET

First Page labeled Constitutional Question

 

Dec. 15-2014                                            File No. T-2360-14 Federal Court (Ottawa)

TO:

Geoff Litherland esq. representing the Employer                                 Respondent #1

                                      and

Bruce Laughton Q.C.  representing the Union                              Respondent #2

FROM:

Roger Callow                                                                                             Appellant

 

PRELIMINARY

1) As the Respondents do not appear to be forthcoming as to providing the 'secret memo notes', I provide the following hypothesis. When 3 former West Vancouver Association Presidents met with Superintendent, Ed Carlin in 1985 - two of the three of which served in the school where I had accused Principal John Williams of fraud vis a vis his Professional Report on this teacher to Deputy Minister of Education, Jim Carter - a scheme was hatched. Carter it needs be noted here, was a former West Vancouver Secondary Principal where Williams was a teacher and was himself involved in a highly publicized dismissal of a senior teacher in 1978 in that same school. Ed Carlin was the Superintendent in both 1978 and 1985 when I was laid off for reasons of declining enrolment (there wasn't any).

     The scheme hatched was the imposed BILL 35 which the BCTF declared was the battle of all teachers in which they talked a few School Districts out of using it; but not West Vancouver where this target was the sole laid off teacher under this BILL before it was withdrawn in the 1990's before my case had been resolved (banana republic justice).

     The arrangement made, it is submitted here, between Carlin and the WVTA personnel was to bypass the Union due to the nature of the Bill as a piece of Government legislation which did not involve the collective bargaining rules hence leaving this target to finance any challenge from his own pocket; a near impossibility. The BCTF refused to accept that WVTA position as the membership  would question the value of union membership if the employer could just run an end game around the Union. (The Union, it needs be noted here, also represented the interests of the Principal as administrators were part of the Union until 1988.)

     The secret memo notes would consist of those meetings between the Superintendent and the WVTA members. Additional information is sought with meetings between the WVTA and Carlin held after the Court recommended that employment be returned to me. Interestingly, the School District was never placed 'in dispute' (affects hiring practices) at any time. The School Board rejected the court recommendation creating the next 28 years of legal wrangling.

Geoff Litherland

2) There were legal counsel before Litherland for the School Board but he was still involved in negotiations with Laughton over the succeeding years suggesting his culpability in the charge of fraud as he appeared to alternatively declare this case a matter under the collective bargaining agreement or as a topic of a 'breach of contract' where the Labour Board had no role. If the Supreme Court of Canada (A. Lamers Chief Justice /B. McLachlin incumbent Chief Justice plus a Justice Cory) had heard this topic under the 'universality of unions' question, that matter could have been cleared up although it must be noted with considerable embarrassment to a number of B.C. Judges and the B.C. Labour Board.

3) On April 10,2014, Hicks, Morley et al launched #13-59060 in Ontario Superior Court asking that all claims be discussed with a conclusion that the Employer did not owe any compensation to this targeted employee. While it was not stated, it would appear that their case was founded on the 'breach of contract' rules as they did not see fit to include the Union. Suffice it to say that the Employer has lost the services of the Ottawa firm of Hicks, Morley whom was referred along with two Superior Court judges to the oversight bodies for 'irregularities' where it awaits adjudication. The court above did not grant the Employer's wish.

Bruce Laughton

4) Laughton was the Junior Counsel assigned in 1986 by Harry Rankin (d.) when I dropped the Union appointed lawyer from the arbitration and appointed Rankin for the court appeal which quashed the arbitration. Laughton purported to handle this matter as a collective bargaining issue although it was not until 1995 when Justice Spencer ratified it as such when I returned to court requesting that the should return employment of Justice Southin be altered to must return employment with all terms of the contract to be applied for reasons of abandonment. (I had been prematurely cut from salary in November of 1985 when Carlin believed that the arbitration would have been completed by that date and with a Board success. In fact, the arbitration had hardly got under way. Justice Southin had not seen fit to place me back on salary until a resolution was found.) It is submitted here that if the matter is indeed a matter of 'breach of contract' then Laughton has been acting under false pretenses which I claim is fraud. The fact that he went on to solely represent the Union after I had dismissed him is suggestive that this was indeed the case. Linking up with the School Board in some court hearings, such as he did by seeking a 'frivolous and vexatious' labeling is reflective of unethical behaviour if not in fact fraud. Mr. Laughton claims to represent the West Vancouver Teachers Association. A decade ago in answer to the question put to Mr. Laughton, all legal contact by him was made with the BCTF legal department with no contact with the WVTA. One WVTA President told me that he was told to forward all materials on my case to the BCTF. So what is Mr. Laughton's status in this case as it relates to the Union and to this case as a possible collective bargaining issue? The memo notes requested in this action are instrumental as to what he knew and when did he know it?

5) As the Supreme Court of Canada failed a second time to hear this matter under the topic of 'ultimate remedy' in 2004 wherein money must change hands in any labour settlement; we are still in the dark as to which label this case should be handled under; a 'collective bargaining matter' or 'a breach of contract matter'? If the latter, then the court has sole control over final adjudication. If the former, the court still has an obligation as they at one time ordered the matter back for re-arbitration. The Employer did not return to arbitration hence the question of abandonment is still extant.

 

ACTION REQUIRED

6) As the central charge is one of fraud against both the original conspirators and the court processes; it is incumbent on the Respondents to produce the requisite meeting notes. Otherwise the court must rule against them by placing this plaintiff back on salary appropriately compounded (30 years by 2015) until the only two that the B.C. Courts would recognize; namely, the Employer and the Union, finalize a solution. The matter of fraud against Litherland and Laughton stands apart from that recommendation as I have noted that neither of these two legal counsel should be representing their parties currently considering the charges that I have made against them. Certainly, their bid for yet another 'frivolous and vexatious' label by the court should be dismissed as being self-serving and hence not worthy of consideration.

7) A key document expelling this plaintiff from the B.C. Justice System; namely the 'Cullen Creed' by Deputy Chief Justice, Austin Cullen, of the B.C. Supreme Court, needs also be examined if not for fraud; certainly for being ultra vires. On July 23, 2013, Cullen j. on his own recognizance, without taking argument nor quoting specific laws, and for reasons best known to himself expelled this plaintiff from the B.C. Justice System. No 'permission of a judge' was included. Interestingly, Hicks, Morley et al and Ottawa Superior Court, Justice Colin McKinnon (#13-59060), attributed explanations to this document which do not exist leaving me to explain a negative which is an impossibility. I have referred this matter to an oversight committee. Hence if the Federal Court requires further litigation in B.C.; they will have to address this blockage.

 

CONCLUSION

8) There is no point for the Respondents to appear before the Federal Court tribunal without answers to the above questions for which it is incumbent on the court to require such information should they so attend.

 

cc As I have already made submission to the B.C. Judicial Council regarding the Cullen Creed and a second prohibitory Order from another Deputy Chief Justice, Anne MacKenzie of the B.C. Supreme Court (October 2010), I am forwarding this information to the Council for added information to my charge.

 

_________________  December 15-2014

Roger Callow (Plaintiff)

cc B.C. Judicial Council

cc SCofC Hon. R. Wagner