N.B. 'Secret memo notes' refer to June meetings held by the School Board and Union in which the 'sweetheart deal' was hatched. Justice Southin called for them in 1986 but returned them 'because she did not use them'. The memos are instrumental in the fraud charge against the original conspirators and the subsequent judicial cover-up. Justice Therrien failed to ask the Employer any of the questions listed below.
QUEBEC HEARING JUNE 8-2015 #550-17-00828-157
Oral Hearing - Plaintiff Roger Callow
1) Point of Order: submit to court May 21-15 letter to de Billy outlining case
2) So, Mr. de Billy, where are the 'secret memo notes' which I requested and form the basis of this charge of fraud? They are not in your factum nor handed into the court today.
3) The significance of those 'secret memo notes' lies in your request to have this motion dismissed on the grounds that it is 'frivolous & vexatious' but to do that the court has to see on what your submission is based. You wouldn't expect them to buy a 'pig in a poke' would you?
4) Regrettably, the English courts did buy a 'pig in a poke' many times, which explains, in part, my presence in French Canada under the Couillard government which has been kept apprised of all these developments.
5) Surely you did not accept this case without seeing those secret memo notes? The importance of that point is that the RCMP have been called in - for a first time - by me to get at the source of this massive fraud which in English Canada has been attributed to systematic judicial abuse. The word, 'systematic' hits at the very core of any bureaucracy which is why this is the leading civil case in Canada today as the Employee's Case qualifies as a 'standing case'.
6) Further, Mr. de Billy, it appears as though you are telling the court how to do its job by requesting in premature fashion that any undecided appeal at this point should be sidetracked with only the Chief Justice-the one responsible for judge appointments it needs be noted-to handle this matter. What if, for example, I wish to appeal solely on the grounds of costs which the Appeal Court is designed to handle while the Office of the Chief Justice is not? Your attempt to undermine the course of justice in this manner smacks of complicity paralleling what I call the 'English Disease'. Is this to be the French Canadian Disease as well? I hope not.
7) Obviously, my bid to acquire those secret memo notes is being rejected by you. That is one thing. But it is quite another thing to deny the court's request on that level. That's what this hearing is focused on today.
8) The second unanswered question relates to 'compensation'. The Ontario representative for the Employer - whom has since dropped his representation of them - launched #13-59060 before Superior Court McKinnon j. declaring that the employer did not owe any compensation in this 30 year case. He was not specific as to why nor did the judge ask him the question.
So, Mr. de Billy, where do you stand, for this entire matter is based on compensation to this plaintiff.
9) Under which authority does this case fall, Mr. de Billy? The rules of collective bargaining as the B.C. Courts assert? Or under the rules of the imposed BILL 35 as the Employer asserted in the 1997 letter included in my motion? Again, your answer is conspicuous by its absence.
10) As such the application of the highly specious McKinnon Order as to 'frivolous and vexatious' behaviour is ultra vires in that it is based in part on B.C. actions where the lines of authority regarding collective bargaining vs BILL 35 are in dispute.
11) So, Mr. de Billy, which rules to the above apply?
12) Further, where are your arguments as to why I should not be returned to salary (including all back salary) until this matter is resolved? These 'delayed salaries' exist outside the judicial framework of this case and belong to this plaintiff no matter what outcome is reached by the courts.
13) In summation, both the employer and myself wish a conclusion to this case. I require one to collect my compensation. The Employer requires one in order to put a rest to the accusations of judicial interference which plague this case but how to do it when, under the current circumstances of an unresolved case, the Employer does not have to pay a dime?
14) Conjecture on my part here is that the Employer would acquiese to my request at the expense of de Billy and the French Canadian court. The copious response supplied by de Billy is exactly what I would produce for a Supreme Court of Canada hearing; the only body capable of handling all aspects of this case. It is not suited to the Employer's case. Why would they do that, the question needs be asked? Because, I submit, they want me returned to salary as a means of providing leverage for an outside settlement although they will not admit to it. In that regard, The French Canadian courts with poor French Canadian legal counsel could be blamed for not following the lead of the 'correct' English courts; an easy sell in Vancouver.
15) At this point, if my friend chooses to run his time out with inconsequentials, so be it. I will make myself available on a party by party written basis for any further considerations required by this court to finalize their decision.
16) For my part, I would like to be granted both requests regarding evidence and back pay although I can live with one. Should both requests be rejected, this matter will be appealed. A further consideration for the court is what reflection would there be on Quebec courts and the Couillard government in the event that the requested evidence is produced from another source e.g. the RCMP?
17) Before I sit down, I raise the key question defining today's court; namely, will the court now request the 'missing memo notes' from the Defense? COURT REFUSAL
May 21, 2015
IN GATINEAU, QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT
RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT EMPLOYER IN NO.550-17008208-157
Roger Callow Lavery, de Billy esq. for the Employer
208-2220 Halifax Drive Ste. 4000, 1 Place Villa Marie
Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7 Montreal, Que. H3B 4M4
TEL/FAX: 613-521-1739 Tel:514-871-1522 Fax:514-871-8977
Plaintiff (self-represented) Defendant SENT BY FAX ONLY
1) As of the above date, I have not received any correspondence from de Billy esq. in this matter other than a Notice of Appearance dated April 13, 2015.
2) Written requests were made by this plaintiff of de Billy for:
a) 'the secret memo notes' of Justice Southin's (1987) hearing in which she quashed the arbitration favoring the School Board in the matter of the lay-off of senior West Vancouver Teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985 for reasons of declining enrolment as per the specifics of the neophyte BILL 35 which became law on July 1, 1985 (lay-off letter pre-dated that enactment date). This BILL was only ever used against this targeted plaintiff before it was withdrawn in the 1990's.
b) a signed affidavit to the effect that those memo notes have been destroyed.
3) These memo notes are integral to the charge of fraud extant before the Federal Court in #T-2360-14.
4) In the event of an unsuccessful petition by this plaintiff, a request to the court to return this plaintiff to salary until this matter is resolved. That salary would include all back salary plus interest from November 4,1985 and exists apart from judicial findings. The rationale is that the Board believed that the arbitration would be completed by November 4,1985 and presumed a success which did not follow with the ensuing court review. Regrettably, Justice Southin did not see fit to return this plaintiff to salary when the Board did not return employment as recommended by her. de Billy should come to this current hearing armed with conscientious arguments as to why this request should not be granted; if that is their position.
5) In earlier correspondence, I suggested de Billy select a court hearing date of one hour in Gatineau Court as my schedule is more flexible. A hearing date of June 8 or June 15 in Room 1 at 9:00 A.M. should suit both our schedules. Would you select one of these dates and confirm it with the court and this writer?
6) It should not be necessary to re-iterate this point but considering Employer actions elsewhere, all employer material pertinent to this case should be in the hands of this plaintiff at least 10 days beforehand if one of the two dates above is selected by the Employer; 15 days if another date is selected. Should there be no response to the above by May 31, this plaintiff will select a date.
cc Geoff Litherland esq. Harris & Co. LLP (parent B.C. legal firm for the Employer) by fax only: 604-684-6632