FACTUM - AUGUST 06-2014 #14-61592(H.D. Sept. 23-14)
'...Shame on you lawyers! for you have taken the key of knowledge away from the people. You yourselves do not enter the kingdom of God, and you prevent those who would enter from going in.' The Hiram Key Knight/Lomas
PEJORATIVE BACKGROUND (N.B. 'this petitioner' = personal pronoun 'I')
1) The analogy of the above quote is most apt in describing this government conspiracy dating from 1985 in an unresolved B.C. labour lay-off case where no compensation has been paid. The matter has been before 8 different courts and over 30 judges including two failed trips to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC). As outlined in the Preamble to the SCofC in 2004,(TAB 1) this conspiracy included two phases: a) the original conspiracy in which the Employer and Union conspired in a 'sweetheart deal' to use the neophyte BILL 35 (operant date July 01-1985; lay-off letter dated June 26-1985); against the only B.C. teacher ever laid off under this 'imposed' legislation which was withdrawn before this case was completed.
b) the conspiracy involving the judicial treatment, that is, the process of the judiciary denying this plaintiff from a re-arbitration as so ordered by the courts when the original arbitration favouring the Employer had been quashed.
2) In short, this plaintiff has been denied due process, habeas corpus, there can be no process without judgment, and there must be ultimate remedy under the collective bargaining rules; all due to judicial chicanery.
3) Canada was reduced to Third World status in 2004 with the second refusal of the SCofC to hear this matter under the rules of 'ultimate remedy' as per the collective bargaining process, leaving this plaintiff in a permanent state of limbo. Certainly, no court nor judge claimed that this matter should not be resolved leaving this plaintiff trying to prove a negative; a logical impossibility considering that this plaintiff cannot get into any court to date to handle his submission which involves accusations of fraud. Recent 'unauthorized' judicial actions - the 'MacKenzie Creed' of 2010 and the 'Cullen Creed' of 2013; both from the B.C. Supreme Court- would attempt to impair any access this plaintiff may have to the courts for redress in an alleged matter of systematic judicial abuse. No bureaucracy can withstand that charge.
4) The apparent rejection of the case presented by this petitioner is the apparent claim that he lacks the necessary status to pursue this matter to fruition. Regrettably, the SCofC did not see fit to rule on this discrepancy on the first trip to them which was a major problem considering that the Union first abandoned this case and then joined with the Employer to thwart this petitioner. Hence such things as pension rights are held in limbo along with canceled salary rights which exists apart from judicial findings. This 'deferred salary' amounts to 29 years of back salary according to the collective bargaining rules with interest appropriately compounded.
5) Regrettably, hearings in Ontario in the Superior Court at Ottawa before two different judges had them concluding that the SCofC is the final court of Appeal leaving, with all other cases, a lower court decision. The point here is that under the unique circumstances of this case, there is no lower court decision hence a rejection to hear cannot be construed as a final judgment in this particular case. That point fell on deaf ears.
6) In 1995, I went before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Spencer to request that as the Employer had apparently abandoned this case; employment should be returned to me with all terms of the contract to apply. In short, he was asked to change the earlier court Order from should return employment to me to must return employment. He did nothing. Even if the facile argument that I lacked status which he did not discuss (no court ever has) and even if the School Board had an offer of settlement available (excuse for courts to delay intervention); he should have insisted that the Employer respond to the abandonment question for if the Employer answered in the affirmative, then the court could intervene under the powers of inherent jurisdiction.
7) Over the years, I continually challenged the Employer to respond to this question of abandonment even after all offers of settlement were off the table. 'Under some circumstances' was the rejoinder without being specific nor would the court challenge the Employer on this basis.
8) All that changed on April 10, 2014 when the Employer in their own action #13-59060 did respond directly to the question requesting that the court discuss all issues (in 5 minutes) to conclude that the Employer did not owe any recompense under the circumstances. The court did not discuss all issues as Justice McKinnon's ruling was conspicuous by its absence in making any reference to this request. For that matter, it did not discuss any issue; merely that I was being frivolous and vexatious in raising these questions.
9) Other inconsistencies in Justice McKinnon's Order has led to an Appeal as well as a complaint to the Ontario Judicial Council of Judges.
10) The point here which must be made is that the Employer is a duly recognized litigant in this case hence the court is obliged to act on their request which is the focus of a renewal of #13-58607 originally slated for May 15 but canceled by Justice McKinnon as he 'cowboyed' a decision to these two cases which he chose to handle in tandem without fully realizing that a complete revision of my case was required based on the amazing revelation of the Employer abandoning this case. As noted by the numbering sequence, the hearing of this case was supposed to pre-date the McKinnon hearing.
11) There are a number of departure points for this case in 1985 but I will begin with the School Board Meeting notes of June 26, 1985 (the same date as the lay-off letter from the Superintendent) showing the creation of 16 new positions and no lay-offs. BILL 35 did not become operant until July 1-1985.
12) The three 'plateau' conditions for lay-off under BILL 35 were: a) teacher's qualifications b) seniority c) current demonstrated ability (cda) which is not defined in the Act nor in law in general. Because the Act did not supplant the School Act; cda could not refer to matters of teacher competence as outlined by Justice Southin who said that the Employer used the Act for the wrong reason. (In actual fact, it was used for the reason it was intended which is the source of the original conspiracy - as differentiated by later court irregularities pointed out secondly as a 'conspiracy of process'). Parts a) & b) were not at question in the arbitration. In short, this 'imposed legislation', it can be argued, was ultra-vires. It was withdrawn by the government before this sole laid case was settled.
13) By failing to return to arbitration as so ordered by Justice Southin, the Employer set the clock 'ticking' in terms of salary redemption. As such, they have no-one to blame but themselves.
14) The part of the case for interim compensation was the original focus of #13-58607. Any court it is submitted here, could act in that regard as they are not being asked to determine any judicial outcome. Rather, the court is merely recognizing that under the collective bargaining rules, a client may collect his salary while contesting a matter which is an important provision to avoid the type of nonsense initiated by this Employer regarding salary cut-off. In short, I am asking the court to return me to 'deferred' salary (all back salary provisions) until a resolution is made regarding the propriety of the initial lay-off so that such matters as pension rights may be finalized. I am asking for the full amount of salary considering that I did not have access to the social provisions of the collective bargaining terms for 29 years.
15) Conspicuous by its absence from the April 10-2014 hearing was the presence of the B.C. Union which, due to the reference to B.C. and their exclusionary role, must be present if all issues are to be discussed hence I now include them in this factum. It should be noted in this regard, that I also introduced the Union in my appeal at Toronto of McKinnon's Order as well.
16) In view of the 'Cullen Creed', where I am barred from B.C. courts, there must be a court elsewhere in Canada to hear this matter under the terms of natural justice and inherent jurisdiction. 'Not my jurisdiction' is not a viable court excuse particularly as the SCofC refuses to hear any part of this matter without an Appeal Court decision; a very bad provision under the circumstances of this particular case.
17) I don't know what is an appropriate settlement apart from the back pay which is determined by legislation but the current unprejudiced buy-out package is six million dollars. The price goes up, not down from there.
18) Should the Ontario courts deny a role in settling this legal matter; I submit that it is incumbent on them to provide for a necessary alternative. For example, they could defeat such restrictive practices on myself of the 'MacKenzie Creed' and the 'Cullen Creed' - both highly questionable judicial actions - to give me access to the B.C. courts.
19) In the event that this court sees fit to repeat the same message of non-involvement as has been the case of the last three Ottawa hearings on this topic; Parliament must intervene as for a first time both litigants are now asking the court for a conclusion. Failure in that regard would now lead to the complete failure of the Canadian Justice System as there is no longer any reason to have a judiciary in Canada.
20) Hence the future of the entire Canadian Justice System depends on a proper handling of this case and why I have made requests for an 'A' level judge(s).
21) The media ducked out of the April 10, 2014 hearing although the Ottawa Citizen saw fit to report Justice McKinnon's Decision (Page 1 April 28-2014) without taking my 'Right of Reply'. Will they duck out for a second time now that their credibility is also on the line?
REQUEST to the petitioner: The importance of this case, I submit, warrants declaring it as a 'Special Case' to go before 3 judges at the Appeal Court at Toronto as long as both litigants agree. Requests on this level in the past have been ignored by Hicks, Morley et al for the Employer; no doubt as a means to enhance billable time costs.
NOTE ON THE REVISED FORM: The original #13-58607 was limited to interim compensation as I should never have been released from salary until a legal finding had been found (e.g. 29 years of back pay). A prima facie case was made on this basis which any court could have fulfilled. Currently, due to the Employer's request on April 10-2014 as the plaintiff in #13-59060 to discuss all issues, this matter has been broadened out to include the Union which is charged with a resolution by the B.C. courts. Should the request that I first seek' permission of the court to proceed' as per MacKinnon's Order be demanded; then I so make this submission here.
MISSING LINK: In 1986, Justice Mary Southin (r. 2004) called for all memos from meetings held by the Employer and Union regarding my lay-off which she later returned 'because she did not use them'. In 2004, the Employer supplied me with copious School Board material sans these memo notes which, it is submitted here, revealed the whole conspiracy. Presumably, these secret memo notes will be produced here by the defendants. It is further submitted that these concealed memos by Justice Southin would have revealed the depths of the conspiracy and, as such ,prove devastating if it were seen what she concealed. It is the submission here that the Employer has been blackmailing the courts into submission for the past 29 years with this threat of exposure.
NOTE ON BOOK OF AUTHORITIES: As there are copious materials available on this topic; for economy of a two hour case, I will refrain from providing supporting materials at this time preferring, instead, to file a REPLY25A to the responses of the Employer and Union. As the Employer saw fit to introduce copious materials from my web site: www.employeescasecanada.com without comment from the court as to the propriety of such action, I include newsletters dating from that April 10-2014 hearing (#13-59060) launched by the Employer to further elucidate the depravity of this conspiracy, not only as it affects my personal welfare, but also as it serves as a challenge to the well being of Canada and its 35 million inhabitants. (TAB 2)
OF INTEREST is why the Employer filed #13-59060 to discuss all issues in an Ontario court where I have status as opposed to B.C. where I have no status. For example, the B.C. Appeal Court ignored my remonstrations when the Employer joined with the Union to successfully access surety funds posted by me for a case (CA038538) which was never held due to the 'MacKenzie Creed' bumping it off the register. By rights, I had expenses and yet it was my money. Under these circumstances the court should have reimbursed all three parties from its own fund. As to Ontario, Hicks, Morley, et al they have struck a fee bonanza which would not hold if the hearing was held in B.C.
SEE 14) & 18) above
(signed) ______________________________ (date) August 5, 2014
(Roger Callow - applicant/petitioner)
Due to the ramifications of this case, copies of this argument are provided to:
Ontario Premier Wynne
SCofC Hon. Madame Justice Andromache Karakatsanis
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT (OTTAWA)
COURT FILE NO. #14-61592
HEARING DATE SEPTEMBER 23-2014
(general heading in accordance with 61B as filed with above action)
The appellant certifies that the following evidence is required for the appeal, in the appellant's opinion:
2. The affidavit evidence of the Employer (Board of School Trustees S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.) and the Unions; the parent BC Teachers Federation and the West Vancouver Teachers Association. This evidence would include the 'secret memo' notes of all meetings of these two organizations relating to the lay-off of senior West Vancouver High school teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985. As Justice Southin who called for these memos did not use them, according to her account, these meeting notes were returned to the Respondents. It is alleged here that these notes define the nature of the alleged conspiracy against this Appellant and hence is a matter of fraud. No School Trustee took the stand to testify to lay-off numbers at the arbitration. In fact evidence showed that 16 new positions were added; any number of which the targeted teacher could have fulfilled.
As to the fraudulent claim, consider the following. Justice Southin when she quashed the arbitration in 1986, stated that '...nothing was adduced in evidence which suggested that the School Trustees intended to lay off a teacher under the auspices of BILL 35 in June of 1985. The Superintendent's lay-off notice of June 26 to the Applicant (BILL 35 was operant as of July 1,1985) quoted both the Bill and School Board authority in making that lay-off.
The arbitration material contained a motion marked carried by the School Trustees which did not include the voting disposition. Information required under the access laws in 2004 did not produce the secret memo material although the vote pattern for the above showed that 2 out of the 5 supported the action: Board Chairperson, Margo Furk and Mike Smith, her successor; both of whom made prejudicial comments to the media against this Applicant.
The point here is that someone is lying and it is to the court's dismal record over 29 years, that no judge - and there have been over 30 in 8 different courts - has seen fit to set in motion a correction of this wrong. That is the source of the Applicant's accusation of systematic judicial abuse. No bureaucracy can survive that charge.
(signed) ___________________ August 11-2014
Roger Callow APPLICANT
208-2220 Halifax Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7
TO: By Registered Mail
1) Ottawa Superior Court #14-61592
161 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2K1
2) Hicks, Morley et al (for the Employer) Respondent 1
#2000-150 Metcalfe Street
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1P1
Tel: 613-234-0386 Fax: 613-234-0418
3) BCTF/West Vancouver Teachers Association Respondent 2
100 - 550 West 6th Avenue
Vancouver, B.C. V5Z 4P2
Tel: 604-871-2283 Fax: 604-871-2288