JUMP TO HOME PAGE

FORM   II                                                                                                    case no. 550-17-008208-157

 

CANADA

 

SUPERIOR COURT (Gatineau District) PROVINCE OF QUEBEC,

BETWEEN:

ROGER CALLOW

DEPONENT (APPELLANT/ APPLICANT) 1.

                                                                                      

vs.

 

BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES (S.D. #45 WEST VANCOUVER, B.C.

DEFENDANT (RESPONDENT) 2.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

DECLARATION OF INSCRIPTION ON THE ROLL FOR HEARING

 

(Rule 15)

 

1.  DEPONENT

 

UNREPRESENTED   PARTY             

 

Name: ROGER CALLOW    

 

Address: 208-2220 HALIFAX DRIVE

                OTTAWA, ONTARIO K1G 2W7       

x  Applicant  

 

 

2. DEFENDANT  (REPRESENTATION YET TO BE ANNOUNCED)

 

Name: BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES (S.D.  #45 WEST VANCOUVER, B.C.)

 

Address: 1075-21st STREET  

                 WEST VANCOUVER, B.C. V7V 4A0

                                                

Fax: 604-981-1001    Telephone: 604-981-1000 

x Defendant

 

2.  EXHIBITS

 

x  A list of the exhibits disclosed to the other parties is attached hereto.

 

3.  TO DATE, THE OTHER PARTIES HAVE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING:

 

As this case has been heard in many forums but still remains without a resolution, the Defendant/Respondent is in possession of much material hence the definition of the current proceedings depends on their response to the questions raised in this factum.

 

4.  TRIAL

 

x□ The deponent certifies that he is ready to proceed once he has received the Appearance Notice from the Defendant  and estimate that his proof and argument will last   _one   hour; if the Defendant and/or the court reject a  party by party written procedure which this Appellant requests.

 

5.  Concise statement of the questions of law and fact in dispute (10 lines maximum);

 

SEE  BACKGROUND  #1-#7  pp. 06-07 accompanying this Form 

 

6.  Unless there are valid reasons for not doing so, please list the names of your witnesses and the object of their testimony. Indicate for each whether they will testify in French or English, or with the assistance of an interpreter: (no witnesses called for)

 

The facts are well known between the litigants. What is required is a judicial finding in order to abet the conclusion of this long-outstanding case. Hence, it is the arbitration aspect of the court (in a limited sense as outlined in #8 and #9 p. 7) which is the prime goal here. A non-negotiable without prejudice offer of settlement to that extent (#10 p. 7) is made by the Appellant.

 

7.  Suggested admissions, including those which may reduce the number or witnesses to be called:

 

The key to finalizing this case lies in the meeting notes (secret memo notes) held in June of 1985 by the Board which Justice Southin whom quashed the arbitration later requested and then returned 'because she did not use them'. In 2004, under the Rights of Freedoms, this Appellant did not receive those meeting notes although he did receive clarification of the so-called lay-off notice by the Board which was marked carried without showing the vote count. In 2004, the same document was included showing the vote count of the Board.  Chairperson Margo Furk, and her successor, Mike Smith, were the only 2 out of 5 to approve the lay-off. There were other inconsistencies. Somebody committed perjury; a perjury apparently being covered up by the various tribunals hearing this case.

 

8.  Authorities, jurisprudence and doctrine to which you intend to refer (make one list only and attach a schedule if necessary):

 

This section depends on what response is given by the Defendant. In the event they confine themselves (as previously) to rejecting this case on a 'frivolous and vexatious' basis, then the court may proceed without further submissions.

 

9.  ATTESTATIONS AND OATHS

B.  UNREPRESENTED PARTY

 

I (Signature of the Party) April 06-2015 (Date)

 

 

                                                                   QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT (Gatineau)                             

case # 550-17-008208-157

BACKGROUND

1) The propriety of the lay-off of senior West Vancouver, B.C. teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985 for purported economic reasons under the neophyte conditions of BILL 35 has never been tested in law. He was the only teacher so laid off under this B.C. legislation which was withdrawn before a resolution could be found leaving him in a state of limbo.

 

2) No compensation according to the rules of contract and the collective bargaining rules (includes pension rights) has ever been paid despite many attempts by this appellant to obtain a judgment from which compensation may flow.

 

3) Currently he is expelled from the judiciary in B.C. for reasons best known to a judge on his own recognition, without quoting pertinent laws nor taking argument. Hence this Appellant is forced  to call on the extra-judiciary powers of another Justice System under the powers of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice. See 'Justice Cullen Order July 23-2013' pp. 11-12  APPENDIX II

4) Plaguing this case is the topic of this appellant's status. According to the Employer, the conditions of BILL 35 determine how the case should be conducted and not the collective bargaining rules. Whichever is the proper course, a determination must be made by the court in order that this case may proceed to fruition. See Employer letter dated Feb. 07-1996 pp. 09-10   APPENDIX I

 

5) Central to adjudicating the status question is the revelation of the 'secret memo notes' which this appellant has repeatedly but unsuccessfully requested from the Employer. This key evidence dealing with meetings held on this topic of teacher lay-off in June of 1985 by the Employer and requested by Justice Southin of B.C. Supreme Court in 1986 when she quashed the arbitration of the Employer, was returned to them because 'she did not use them'.

 

6) Every legal attempt to obtain justice in this case is obviated by an Employer who dodges central questions with spurious arguments such as...'the litigant is seeking to re-litigate matters which have already been settled' without specifying which matters have been settled and when were they settled?

 

7) In recent years, the Employer has reinforced its argument by claiming that this appellant's case is 'frivolous and vexatious' based primarily on the number of unsuccessful attempts this appellant has made to obtain closure on this long-standing unresolved issue which even the courts at one time claimed should be re-litigated.

 

REQUESTED ACTION

8) That the Respondent Employer produce the so-named 'memo notes' on pain that the court will re-order a return of employment to this appellant with all terms of the contract to apply. That would be approximately 30 years of back-salary (full amount requested due to the loss of social advantages) with interest appropriately compounded. This sum exists apart from judicial findings.

 

9) A  determination of the status question so that this appellant may pursue a finalization of this unnecessarily long drawn-out case.

 

UNPREJUDICED OFFER

10) For a limited time - to April 24-2015 - this Appellant is willing to accept six million dollars in settlement of all outstanding issues. The price goes up, not down from there.

 

HANDLING

11) In previous hearings, the Respondent Employer and I have agreed to a written presentation without the necessity of a court appearance. I would ask for that arrangement to continue. (The Employer appears to have lost his Ottawa Representation in any event and is unlikely to obtain other local representation under the circumstances.)

 

Rule 29. Roll of Urgent Matters (Quebec Superior Court)

Cases that must be heard and decided by preference by provision  of law or  decision of the Chief Justice or of the Judge designated by him for such purpose (Article 275 C.C.P.) shall be placed on the roll of urgent matters, and in particular the following matters

(1) Incidental to the compulsory execution of judgments. (Article 576 C.C.P.)

 

APPENDIX 1

 

HARRIS & COMPANY

Judith Anderson esq. file  #666045.998

February 7, 1996

 

Labour Relations Board

1125 Howe St. Van. B.C. V6Z 2K8

 

Dear Sirs and Mesdames:

Re: Callow v. The Board of School Trustees (S.D. #45) West Vancouver  BCCA No. CA020560

We are counsel for the Board in the above noted matter.

We note from Mr. Callow's Complaint (p.3 (t) that he seeks from the Labour Relations Board a direction that the Association "take the necessary action to continue the arbitration within the parameters of the 1988 Court of Appeal decision".

It is the School Board's strongly held view that the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdicition 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, thje arbitration in question was a hearing pursuant to the provisions of the School Amendment Act (BILL 35 RC), which the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdicition to interpret or apply.

We request that the School Board be provided with an opportunity to make further submissions on this point to any granting of any remedy.

APPENDIX II

 

Document received from Hon. Associate Chief Justice Austin Cullen dated July 23-2013:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Docket S106159 (Vancouver Registry)

Between:  Roger Callow (Plaintiff)

and: The Board of School Trustees of School District No.45 and West Vancouver Teachers Association (Defendants)

ORDER

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE CULLEN    Tuesday, the 23rd of July, 2013

 

THIS COURT, on its own motion and without a hearing, at Vancouver, British Columbia on Tuesday, July, 23, 2013, ORDERS AND DECLARES THAT:

1. Roger Callow shall not initiate any proceedings or seek leave to initiate in any Registry of the Supreme Court pertaining to or in any way connected with the subject matter of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia Vancouver Registry File Nos. S08728, S075775, S022978, A950147, or pertaining to or connected with the subject matter of his allegations against the Defendants in this action or arising from or related to that subject matter.

2. Any document or process filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry is a nullity to which the Defendants will not be obliged to respond.

BY THE COURT  (signed) CULLEN

RESPONSE OF THE PLAINTIFF:

1) How is the above Order different from the (undocumented) Order of Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie dated October 1, 2010? There are key differences as outlined in CA038538 contesting her Order which the B.C. Registry rejected for reasons best known to itself.

2) Why is this Order and accompanying letter from a second Associate Chief Justice rather than from Chief Justice Robert Baumann of the B.C. Supreme Court?

3) Number 1. is much the same as the earlier order with this clear addition: …or arising from or related to that subject matter.’

4) It would appear in some disingenuous way or other that Cullen’s Order would seek to obliterate any recognition of the challenge to the  MacKenzie Creed’ as seen in the Appeal Court (Supreme Court) of B.C., the Federal Court of Canada, The Superior Court of Ontario (Ottawa) currently under Appeal in the Divisional Court, and entries pending to the Supreme Court of Canada.

5) Justice Cullen, in the above regard, has not only perverted the course of justice in the B.C. Supreme Court, he has usurped the course of Justice in Canada as his Order well exceeds his authority.

6) CA038538 supplants the earlier Orders listed by Cullen and hence his Order is redundant in that regard.

7) How can Cullen expel this plaintiff from an incomplete judicial action which the courts at one time ordered back to further adjudication in line with the legal precept that ‘there can be no process without judgment’. The oft quoted Justice Estey in St. Anne Nackawic pinpoints this difficulty: ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law’. That aberration is what Cullen would sanction in what I submit is ‘patently unreasonable’.  Of course his Order is structured so that no such appeal may be conducted.

8) What if, at some future date, the Union decides to pursue this case? In an accompanying letter, Cullen adds, ‘No further proceedings arising out of or pertaining to the 1985 termination of your employment with the West Vancouver School District will be permitted to be brought in this Court.

9) For unexplained reasons, Cullen would seek to finalize any future proceedings as the phrase ‘with permission of the court’ (MacKenzie Creed) has been eliminated without a proper hearing. My constitutional rights have been abrogated by this Cullen Order in this unresolved labour case where no compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid.

10) ‘Your prior application before Justice Smith for leave to commence a further proceeding was characterized as futile and vexatious and resulted in an order for special costs being made against you.’ Who wrote this? (The Employer?) Who is Justice Smith? Do you mean Justice Maranger of Ontario Superior Court #12-54944 Nov. 1-2012 whose Decision is under Appeal in

Divisional Court(Ottawa)? That Account was settled for the going rate of 1/6 the Employer’s request which was labeled as being exorbitant by Maranger. Including those facts, it needs no doubt to be noted, would undermine the salacious appeal of your line.

11) The notion that the onus is on this party to show that court actions have been ‘patently unreasonable’ through the judicial review process is exactly what CA08538 was all about but was denied filing by the Vancouver Supreme Court Registry. Why have judges under these circumstances to do anything?

12) ‘You must accept the finality of this outcome’. (Cullen) Does that mean the Minister of Justice, Peter MacKay, must accept your statement?

13) Without media coverage, it would seem that the Judicial System of Canada is getting away with the hoax of the century much to the detriment of Canada and 34 million Canadians.

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow aka ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com

cc B.C. Attorney General Suzanne Anton

     SCofC Hon. R. Wagner

     media

 

May 6, 2015

 

RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT EMPLOYER IN NO.550-17008208-157

by: Roger Callow  plaintiff

 

NEWS ITEM: Ottawa Sun  May 2-2015 p.9 Ex-con gets green light to sue B.C.  Wrongly jailed for 26 years

'...But the Supreme Court ruled the Crown's lack of malice doesn't matter (N.B. The West Vancouver School Trustees did act with malice in my teacher lay-off-R.C.) because "the decision to disclose relevant information is not discretionary". The ruling says the Crown breached its obligations by withholding information that would be useful to the defence. "The motives of the prosecutor ruling in favour of Henry because of the lack of disclosure wouldn't impede future prosecutions.(Now the reader can see why the B.C. Judiciary banned this litigant from B.C. courts 'for reasons best known to the judge' as B.C quite rightfully feared a (third) Supreme Court of Canada hearing attempt. That explains my appearances in Ontario, the Federal Court, and now Quebec.

 

1) In this 30 year unresolved labour matter initiated in the Province of British Columbia where the Plaintiff has been barred 'for reasons best known to a judge', this plaintiff has turned to other courts in Ontario, the Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada (SCof C)- the latter on two occasions (1999 and 2004) where the issue was not heard under the jurisdictions of 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice'.

 

2) No compensation has been paid since 1985 (includes pension rights) and the Plaintiff finds himself in a state of perennial limbo as the original arbitration was quashed. That feature flies in the face of such legal tenets as 'there can be no process without judgment'; habeas corpus, and due process.

 

3) Currently, a 267 page factum sits in Federal Court (T-2360-14); a contentious matter which has been referred to the oversight committees such as the Judicial Council of Canada. There has never been any confirmation of having received many missives of judicial irregularities from this writer leaving this litigant to redirect this judicial matter to the Prime Minister.

 

4) The pattern of judicial obstruction is clear; to thwart this writer from getting any of the evidence that he has sought in order to substantiate the claim that he has been the target of a massive government fraud (B.C. government's imposed BILL 35 of 1985 which was only ever used against this plaintiff and then withdrawn before the case was completed=banana republic justice); a gerrymandered arbitrator appointment in which the court in quashing the arbitration, labeled  him as being 'patently unreasonable' (He had converted 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs concluding that this senior teacher (16 years) was the necessary 17th. No school board trustee took the stand to attest to lay-off figures; the plateau test for all other considerations for lay-off.

 

5) The key to the lay-off lies in the 'secret memo notes'; those meeting notes held in June of 1985 by the Board to discuss BILL 35 and my lay-off. The Union was also apparently involved in this 'sweetheart deal' to remove a teacher for 'whistleblowing'.

 

6) These memo notes were returned 'because Justice Mary Southin (r. 2004) did not use them.' It is submitted here that her action in this regard placed her in a position of being blackmailed for 'covering up'. Hence the West Vancouver, B.C. School Board did not believe it necessary to return employment as Southin recommended.

 

7) While much has transpired legally since that time; these memo notes are integral to any judicial settlement without which compensation may not be paid.

 

8) Those 'secret memo notes' are in the possession of Vancouver Union lawyer, Bruce Laughton Q.C., whom in recent years, has joined forces with the Employer to deprive this writer of his just compensation.

He would be in possession of these 'secret memo notes' as well.

(Laughton & Co. 1090-1090 Georgia St. W. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3V7

tel: 604-683-6665  fax: 604-683-6622)

 

9) Geoff Litherland esq for the employer in B.C. would also be in possession of these 'secret memo notes'.

(Harris & Company. 14th Floor Bentall 5;  550 Burrard St. Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2B5  tel: 604-684-6633  fax: 604-684-6632)

 

10) Charles Hofley esq for the employer in Ontario before they dropped out would also have had access to these 'secret memo notes'.

(Hicks, Morley et al LLP 150 Metcalfe St. Suite 2000 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1P1  tel: 613-369-2102  fax: 613-234-0418)

 

11) The above three named legal counsel are included in the 267 page Federal Court (T-2360-14) charge of fraud extant in Federal Court.

 

12) Now it would seem to be the turn of Quebec and long time Gatineau legal counsel; Lavery, de Billy LLP whom is not a part of the fraud accusations accompanying the others noted above.

(Ste 4000, 1 Place Villa Marie, Montreal, Que. H3B 4M4

tel: 514-871-1522 fax: 514-871-8977)

 

ACTION REQUESTED

 

13) That de Billy provide those 'secret memo notes' to me and I will be rid of Quebec.

 

14) In the event that de Billy does not provide that evidence or the court fails to request the presentation of that material, then a more full account of this action is requested as denoted by the question of Respondent authority which is heavily involved in these fraudulent activities alleged in Federal Court.

 

15) The question which needs be asked by the court is how, for example, may de Billy, seek to obviate this action (for example, with a frivolous and vexatious charge) without producing the very material on which their request may be made.

 

16) The court is also bound by this caveat as they must see the very material on which they would take action.

 

17) In broader language, will the Quebec courts follow in the ruinous paths of their English Canadian counterparts?

 

18) As de Billy esq. has not acquiesced to my 'party by party' written judgment procedure, then I call for a one hour hearing; the time to be decided by de Billy esq. as my schedule is more flexible.

 

19) In the event of suspected collusion between de Billy esq. and the Gatineau courts, the Montreal RCMP fraud squad will be notified.

 

Yours truly,

 

 

Roger Callow

 

cc. Quebec Premier Couillard

PMO

Canadian Judicial Council

SCofC Hon. C. Gascon

 

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:514-871-1522  Fax:514-871-8977

Plaintiff (self-represented)            Defendant  SENT BY FAX ONLY

 

MESSAGE:

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.

OR

     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.

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow

cc Geoff Litherland esq. Harris & Co. LLP (parent B.C. legal firm for the Employer) by fax only: 604-684-6632