JUMP TO HOME PAGE

                                      REPLY to BCTF/WVTA - January 15-2015                 T-2360-14

TO: Bruce Laughton Q.C. for the Union   by   FAX: 604-683-6622      RESPONDENT  2

cc    Geoff Litherland esq. for the Employer   FAX: 604-684-6632     RESPONDENT  1

        (West Vancouver School Board)

FROM: Roger Callow                          PHONE/FAX:  613-521-1739     PLAINTIFF

QUOTE: 'Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.  Winston Churchill

This informal rebuttal to Laughton's  MOTION RECORD OF THE RESPONDENT WEST VANCOUVER TEACHERS ASSOCIATION/BCTF UNION obviously crossed paths with my DOCUMENTS  #4  JANUARY 12-2015 quoting relevant passages from THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS as it applies to the above case hence making Laughton's Motion largely irrelevant.

 A more detailed formal response with reference to the Federal Court rules as cited by Mr. Laughton will follow once I receive a detailed argument from the Employer. (January 31-2015 deadline please). Further, Mr. Laughton should feel free to add comment to this account.

REBUTTAL:

1) In many ways, Laughton's account parallels the 30 year inconsequential course of this unresolved legal matter referred back for further litigation when the Employer did not return employment as recommended by the court. No compensation, a key-note in employment law, has ever been paid.

2) The Laughton account, aped by the many courts as they basically rubber-stamp the account of the Employer or Union, is done at the expense of giving any definitive account of this writer's arguments. I stand by those arguments as listed at TAB 4 p. 26-29 (b) of Laughton's account:

'Repeatedly, and through various means, denigrating judges who have dismissed his claims/ruled against him. Such commentary has been included in his "pleadings" (introduced by the Employer but now included by me as a matter of course as the courts did not object to the inclusion of this material)/filings with the courts, posted on Mr. Callow's Website (including this article) and publicly displayed by him on placards (for the past decade, I am no stranger to lunchtime crowds in downtown Ottawa). Examples of each are excerpted below...'

3) Apart from what appears above to be a matter of a litigant attempting to curry favour with the court  with his salacious account - which has been richly rewarded as noted - the intention of the Laughton account  appears to be to create a 'wacko' image which, it is submitted here, is made in order to avoid key legal arguments which neither the Respondents nor the courts will address. This 'error of omission' is part of the fraud accusations against both the Respondents and the courts.

4) Nowhere is there any mention of the fact from either the Respondents or the court that I have been left in limbo due to the unfinished nature of this case once ordered back by the court for further litigation.

5) Nowhere is there any pinpointed discussion that no compensation - a keynote in labour law - has been paid. I should have remained on contract until this legal matter was resolved hence approximately 30 years of back salary is owed to me apart from judicial findings. To be sure, If any of the many judges hearing this case had seen fit to order salary continuance, we would not be here today.

6) The Laughton account is conspicuous in its absence by not including the 'secret memo notes' witnessed but not used by Justice Southin in 1986 which, it is submitted here, would define the nature of the alleged fraud as it relates to the original conspirators and the subsequent judicial cover-up. (The employer  as well has failed to provide  their copy of these 'secret memo notes' regarding meetings held by the Employer and Union on the lay-off of this plaintiff from 1985-6.)

7) Should the Employer's account parallel this Union failure noted above, then I submit that the court is bound to accept my arguments regarding a conspiracy first outlined in 2004 in a Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) Preamble. Regrettably, that court failed to hear this appeal under the conditions of 'ultimate remedy' thus freezing me into a state of limbo. That's anarchy for 'there can be no process without judgment'. 'Habeas corpus' and 'due diligence' are two other key legal concepts compromised to a degree unequalled in the annals of any Justice System.

8) If the SCofC had heard an earlier appeal (A. Lamers,(d.) Chief Justice; B. McLachlin j. (incumbent Chief Justice)and R. Cory j.(retired) on the 'Universality of Unions' (1997); a key definition of this case would have been established which could have been applied to the imposed  BILL 115 (2013) in Ontario as well as the upcoming 'Ghomeshi enquiry'. In short, what was the Union's authority to act in this case according to the Rules of the Collective Bargaining process? According to the Employer account, the Union had no such authority as the lay-off was mandated under the imposed provincial BILL 35 (since repealed before this sole-laid case was settled=banana republic justice) and conditions, apart from the Collective Bargaining process. 

8) In the absence of reasoned argument based on evidence not provided as requested above, then the court is obliged to quash the lay-off notice regarding my teacher lay-off in June of 1985 and return employment with all terms of the agreement noted above to apply.

 

SOME SPECIFICS ON LAUGHTON'S ACCOUNT:

9) THE MOTION IS FOR...that the Statement of Claim be struck out without leave to amend and the action be dismissed with costs.

R.(response) This is a desperation bid to duck out of any responsibility designed primarily for lazy judges (and there have been many of them!) failing to conduct 'due diligence'.

10) TAB 2 p.4 (2) There must be an existing body of federal law that is essential to the disposition of the case and that nourishes the statutory grant of jurisdiction;

R. The Federal Court was established by the BNA Act of 1867 and pre-dates the Provincial Courts and their Labour tribunals. Surely those provincial courts cannot pre-empt labour legislation which parallels employment law for federal workers which is the current scope of the Federal Court.

11) TAB 2 p.5  '...the claim advanced by the Applicant is clearly outside of the Federal Court's jurisdiction....'

R. The alleged claim requires the 'secret memo notes' before any specific charge of fraud may be applied hence the above assertion is at best premature; at least, not applicable as the exclusionary nature of the 'Cullen Creed' (B.C. Supreme Court Deputy Minister A. Cullen July 23-2013) must be tested in another court system. Justice McKinnon (ON Superior Court 13-59060 Apr. 10-2014) was in agreement with me on this point; only the Supreme Court of Canada is duly constituted to deal with these accusations of fraud which include two provinces and earlier actions by the Federal Court. He had no suggestion as to how this matter could get to that level considering that the SCofC only accepts cases from an Appeal Court level. Indeed, all these judicial obfuscations in the lower courts seemed designed to frustrate that progression through the courts which, If Justice McKinnon is correct, would appear little more than 'speed bumps' (my terminology). At any rate, those lower courts are in a position of ruling on some aspects of this case which is the intention here i.e. presentation of evidence-secret memo notes- and the all-important question of authority.

 

12) TAB 4 Justice Colin McKinnon Decision  (ON Superior Court  April 23-2015) ONSC 2547  Court File 13-59060

R. To date, the Employer has provided a one-liner...consenting to the Union Motion' that the Plaintiff's claim be struck for want of jurisdiction', a most confusing response in that it was their Ottawa Branch, Hicks, Morley et al who conducted the four hearings in Ottawa Superior Court which are currently under Appeal as well as being referenced to the oversight bodies for gross judicial misfeasance. Hicks, Morley would appear to have deserted the Employer which explains the re-entry of Vancouver's Harris and Company. Hence any mention of these findings above is highly questionable under the circumstances with Justice McKinnon's Order being , as described by me on page 1 of the Ottawa Citizen  (April 28 p.1) as a 'wacko judgment' being referred to the Canadian Judicial Council. I will elucidate on that point in the following critique as Laughton's comments on this judgment fall wide of the mark as to what happened.

13) The Employer launched #13-59060 as the Plaintiff with myself being the Respondent which a reader could easily miss in reading McKinnon j.'s account. Nonetheless, McKinnon j. awarded damages to the Employer which is under Appeal although obfuscation in the ON Appeal court is marring that process.

14) The stated purpose of the Employer above was to have all issues discussed (in 5 minutes) with a conclusion that the Employer did not owe any compensation to this Respondent. Justice McKinnon made no mention of this key point in his ruling.

15) In their submission, the Employer did not see fit to include the Union which, if they were following the mandated BILL 35 route, would not  appear to be necessary.( At least it is presumed that would be their argument.) Interestingly, while the Ontario courts rejected my presence in an Ontario Court; they were quite prepared to entertain the Employer's references to this B.C. case. In short, if justice were to be applied equally to both parties in Ontario courts, I should have received damages as opposed to paying the Employer for his failed bid.

16) If the Collective Bargaining Process were to apply which appears to be the Union position, then their presence was required and I so mandated that presence in a subsequent ON Superior Court hearing #14-61592. The Union did not make an appearance. Unfortunately, that case was badly skewed with the presiding Justice (Paul Scott) writing 'temporary notes' which could not be appealed which no doubt was his intention. Other complications involved a second Order written by McKinnon which varied from the first and was sprung on me in court without my knowledge and certainly not my consent by Ottawa's Hicks Morley et al for the Employer who had not filed any 'Notice of Appearance'. (No wonder Vancouver's Harris and Company would stick to a one-liner as their rebuttal under those circumstances.) Once again, all the above matters are in the hands of the oversight committees.

17) Hence my two requirements for this case still stand; a) production of the 'secret memo notes' and  b) a response from the Respondents as to which basis of authority on which they are functioning. A failure to respond on both accounts should permit the court to quash the lay-off notice and return employment (with all conditions of the contract to apply) to this plaintiff as earlier recommended by the court. In law, a recommendation must be pursued by the court; particularly as this matter is unresolved as it now stands.

 

A Detailed History  (excerpts) p. 19 (9)

6. The Association then decided it would not arbitrate whether Mr. Callow's termination was contrary to the legislation under which the Board had purported to have acted, but that it would attempt to settle the grievance.

R. The Union failed to settle the agreement which, under the mandated BILL 35, they were not obliged to do but under the rules of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, they had to sign an agreement with the Employer whether I agreed or not. At one point, the Union declared that would be their course of action but subsequently backed off without explanation. The point here is that if they did sign without my consent,  then I was eligible to sue them and if it turned out that the Union had no such authority to sign such an agreement, a major disaster would be in the making for the Union movement let alone the WVTA/BCTF. This explains, I submit, why the Labour Board and the SCofC (1997)refused to hold any hearings which would reveal this dichotomy. That's fraud in my books.

(23). '...Williamson j. (2003 B.C. Supreme Court) also said that any dispute between the Union and the Association to do with employment by the Board or the termination of that employment fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board. He dismissed the claim.'

R. Williamson j. is merely regurgitating Spencer j.'s opinion of 1995 which he quoted (not substantiated as neither the Employer nor myself as the only other party present made any reference to the collective bargaining rules) regarding jurisdiction which has never been settled (but would have been if  the B.C. Labour Board or the SCofC  (1997) had seen fit to hear this case). Williamson j. also declared this writer to be 'frivolous and vexatious' knowing full well that the B.C. Labour Board had repeatedly refused any Section 12 Hearing on the grounds that 'the Union had not done anything wrong'. A better explanation would have been that the courts and the Labour Board did not want any discussion of the 'authority to act' question. That is part of the systematic accusation of fraud made by this writer.

14. Subsequent to the Vexatious Litigant Order, Mr. Callow has also sought to initiate proceedings in the BCSC against the Board and the Association without seeking leave of the Court. In response, Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie of the BCSC, on her own motion, and without a hearing'  (1) The Notice of Civil Claim herein is a nullity and is set aside....

R. MacKenzie usurped the law in October 2010 as permission to proceed was indeed requested in the Claim that she set aside. Hence there was no need for her action as the presiding Justice could have ruled on admissibility. This action was designed, it is submitted here, to truncate yet another possible trip to the SCofC which would be embarrassing to the entire Justice System...and that would never do....

27. 'Mr. Callow continued to make efforts to litigate in the Supreme Court of British Columbia without seeking leave to do so when he attempted to file a Notice of Claim commencing a new legal action. As a result, on July 23, 2013, Associate Chief Justice Cullen, on his own motion and without a hearing, ordered and declared that:  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 Defendant will not be obliged to respond.'

R. A widely distorted version of events as Justice McKinnon was only too aware. Similar to the MacKenzie Creed, there is no stated reason in the Cullen Creed for their respective actions. In fact, we have no idea why these two judges wrote what they did. McKinnon j., in his perfidy, knowing the weakness of these two Creeds not having any justification for their motions, merely created one. Considering this was the first time that I was able to challenge such court perfidy in open court as I did, this would appear to be the first concrete act of fraud by the judiciary. In short, I was expelled from the B.C. Justice System in such fashion that I could not appeal this draconian action to the SCofC. That level of chicanery goes unequaled in Canadian jurisprudence. Of interest, Justice McKinnon's own Order concluded that I may not proceed  without permission of a judge in Ontario courts; the all-important point that the Cullen Creed did not include illustrating McKinnon's abject failure to deal properly with this point. The written transcript showed that Justice McKinnon was only too aware of the distinction drawn as reflected by his Order including the all-important 'with permission of a judge to proceed'..

 

The Plaintiff's Conclusion

A) In a matter of  judicial misfeasance, Justice McKinnon misconstrued the MacKenzie and Cullen Creeds so badly that a major miscarriage of justice has resulted. All other conclusions that he made are suspect as a result.

B) Justice McKinnon had an opportunity to call on the 'secret memo notes' and failed to do so hence his conclusions are, once again, highly suspect.

C) By failing to consider the Employer's request to discuss all issues, he thwarted any reasonable consideration of  both Respondent's authority to act in this case.

D) Due to the above and other peccadilloes as related to the oversight bodies, I submit the proper course for the authorities is to immediately suspend Justice McKinnon from the bench (along with a second justice - Paul Scott j. for apparently colluding with him in #14-61592).

 

To the Respondents

I have made very serious allegations of fraud against you personally as well as the courts of law. In law, accusations of fraud take precedence over other judicial powers. I will await your response to the above assertions until January 31-2015 after which I will file my final DOCUMENT awaiting a written Federal court decision as to how to proceed . Any possible hearing  as adjudged from those observations is to be before a judge in Ottawa.

To place all your 'eggs in the one pathetic basket' in terms of diminishing the claims above is tantamount to a slap in the face of justice although it should be noted in this case that the Justice System to date is quite prepared to be slapped down when they feel that their own interests are being threatened.

Considering the personal role of both legal counsels in this matter, I question if the principals; namely the Union and the Employer, are being made aware of the four Documents of evidence in their possession?

Until this 'whistleblower' story of gargantuan proportions is properly handled by the legal authorities, the Canadian Justice System continues in a 'state of suspended credibility'. It can't get any worse than that.

 

Yours truly,