RESPONSE TO BCTF/WVTA FACTUM (received by fax November 21-2014 - 3 pge)
T-2360-14 by Bruce Laughton Q.C.
A) 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
B) 'Matthias, listen. We shrews of the union try to run our lives along democratic lines. You must not think too harshly of us. The shrew who spoke out against accompanying you was only stating chapter and verse of the act. I was wrong to criticize him. Guosim did right to uphold his argument.'
Matthias arose and shouldered his bundle. 'Look, Log,Log. Don't talk to me about your silly rules: subsection three paragraph four and all that nonsense. You are either with me or against me. I haven't got valuable time to waste on a list of Shrew Union rules and disputes.' Redwall Brian Jacques
BRUCE LAUGHTON Q.C.
1) Let's start with the conclusion; namely, that you are an ethically challenged legal counsel attached to this case. Conspicuous by its absence from your factum are the 'secret memo notes' which I requisitioned from you.
2) That submission is based on the position of the Union lawyer, Alan Black, at the arbitration in 1985 - now quashed leaving this targeted employee in limbo without any compensation (which includes pension rights) due to your cupidity and others.
3) His stated position was that he represented both parties and should an argument break out between parties, he would withdraw and refuse to represent either side. That is an ethical stand. You are not ethical in that regard.
4) As you were part of the Rankin team as junior legal Counsel in 1986, you should never have represented the Union after I moved on to other legal counsel. In your own words in answer to my question: 'I represent the Union' to which you have done to such an extent and degree, that in recent times, you have filed a joint submission with the Employer.
5) Under those circumstances, how is a client to be given fair representation when the B.C. Courts would only recognize the Union to represent my interests under the collective bargaining rules? In common parlance, what is a client to do under the circumstances of a 'sweetheart deal'?
6) The answer of the courts was for me to file a 'Section 12' complaint with the B.C. Labour Board which, as you know, I did many times which was denied every time for a hearing; the Board falling back on the Union factum claiming that 'they had not done anything wrong'. In that sphere of reference, the question needs be asked; Did the Union do anything right?
7) In short, the WVTA/BCTF should never have appointed you to respond to this case but, the question needs be asked, where would the Union find another ethically challenged lawyer willing to compromise their careers to the extent you have demonstrated in this matter?
8) The first challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) on that question of a conflict of interest under the 'inherent jurisdiction of Unions' was designed to answer that question which is a question of national importance. The current CBC-Ghomeshi case, for example, falls under this label.
9) I will cite just one other case in this regard; the refusal of the Ontario Court in 1999 to hear Senator hockey player, Alexei Yashin's case, because he was the member of an Association. His lawyer told me that in a similar case, a ballet dancer also belonging to an Association, was able to be heard by the court apart from her group, and whom went on to win her case.
10) That was the tremendous failure of the three (SCofC) judges (Chief Justice A. Lamers (d) / incumbent Chief Justice B. McLachlin / Justice Cory) to hear this case. I registered McLachlin j. under Form 25C (Geez, I have never seen a Form 25C reflecting a SCofC judge with a conflict of interest.) He won't again as the SCofC has pulled that rule.
11) That was the first major step in this fraudulent action (by omission) as these courts could only be too aware of 'what the butler saw' or the secret memo notes of Justice Southin from 1986 would be produced revealing an alleged conspiracy in which the B.C. government was hi-jacked (BILL 35) and the judiciary was co-opted (gerrymandered arbitrator appointment) to sanction a 'sweetheart deal' between Employer and Union.
THE SWEETHEART DEAL
12) The BCTF (parent union to the WVTA) lawyer was correct when he told me that BILL 35 was 'the Roger Callow' Act which the Union (falsely) proclaimed in 1985 was the 'battle of all teachers' when it was only used against one teacher and was withdrawn before my case was resolved (banana republic law which was aped by the Ontario government in 2013 with their passing of the imposed BILL 115 which led to wide scale teacher protests.)
13) The BCTF talked other School Districts in June of 1985 into withdrawing their use of BILL 35 but left the one in West Vancouver where it was clear that there was no declining enrolment necessitating teacher lay-off which Assistant Superintendent, Bill May, responsible for staffing claimed was unnecessary in June of 1985 (His testimony at arbitration was conspicuous by its absence in the Arbitrator's Report.)
14) Bill May claimed that the request for my lay-off came directly from Superintendent Ed Carlin. According to the notes, a meeting was held before the main meeting of the Board on June 26 to authorize the lay-off. Possibly that was the cryptic sheet claiming that my lay-off was sanctioned by the Board as it was noted 'carried'. No vote disposition was included. In material received in 2004 under the 'access laws'; the vote count showed that 2 members out of five; namely Chairperson Margo Furk and her successor, Mike Smith, were the only two to sanction this lay-off. What happened in that tumultuous meeting would be on record with the 'secret memo notes' given to Justice Southin along with other meetings that the Board heard on BILL 35 discussion. Scuttlebuck had it that Furk was 'not going to be the fall guy' on this account while one other Board member was reported to have gone ballistic over this lay-off request...hardly good fodder for the Board's lawyer in terms of putting these members on the stand to testify to what was essentially a lie regarding lay-off figures.
15) I was at the point of dismissing the Union lawyer for refusing to call the Board members to the stand as the Board's lawyer had not done so nor was the Arbitrator asking for such. Justice Southin was not quite so sanguine as she repeatedly asked Stuart Clyne Q.C. ; "Mr. Clyne, I want to know for a certainty; what was before the Board when they chose to lay-off senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow?" His slip-shod answer was no doubt the reason that she asked the Board and the Union for all meeting memo notes (which she later returned because 'she did not use them'.
16) Black's correct legal argument to me was that it was not incumbent on the Union to disprove the lay-off figures. Rather, it was up to the Board to prove the need for lay-off which necessitated the appearance of the Trustees to testify which never happened.
17) I hired Harry Rankin (d.) with a promise from him to place the Trustees on the stand in any re-arbitration and dismissed him when he reneged on that promise although Southin's directive was that the Arbitrator should accept further evidence. The Union insisted that Rankin be the lawyer of choice.
WHAT THE BUTLER SAW
18) Why did the Trustees go along with Carlin's recommendation for lay-off? This part is speculation on my part but would be information of which Justice Southin had been in possession.
19) Carlin was approached by members within the WVTA executive - names I have are former WVTA presidents, Ron McQueen and Jim Crook (both teachers at West Vancouver Secondary who were confidents of their long time co-teacher and principal, John Williams, whom I had accused of fraud in terms of changing my 'Professional Report on Teacher' from a positive to a negative. I had caught him out on that level and provided the information to Deputy Minister of Education, Jim Carter, himself a former principal of West Vancouver where Williams was a teacher. Carter was also the topic of a controversial firing of a senior West Vancouver Secondary teacher in 1978 where Ed Carlin was the Superintendent which was broadcast widely in the media. One other name I had was former President, Peter MInshull. On one occasion, incumbent President, Maureen Ciarniello, without being specific, groused that she was but one voice on the WVTA committee.
20) Carlin, it is submitted here, was approached by the WVTA requesting that Callow be dismissed as a means of protecting Williams. The Board bought into the scam because BILL 35 fell outside the Union jurisdiction (see Harris & Co. letter dated February 7, 1996 to the Labour Relations Board p.299 of my enclosed factum for A990790 Vancouver Registry)
'...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 Labour Relations Board has no jurisdiction to interpret or apply.'
That was a primary reason why the Labour Board could ill-afford to hold a Section 12 meeting which adds to the cumulative charge of fraud by me.
21) The thinking here was that by running an end-game around the Union, I would have to foot the onerous legal costs which I couldn't leading to a buy-out which would save the Board the embarrassing matter of investigating Williams who went into a quiet retirement in 1990. Carlin was dismissed in 1987 and never again served in the public education field in B.C.
22) The BCTF were in a quandary as they represented both the interests of the teacher and principal in this case (the administrators were separated from the Union by legislation in 1988 costing the Union valuable fees). The BCTF could hardly admit to being out-played by the government so they financed the arbitration and the following court hearings which were very expensive for them.
CASE NOTES A990790 VANCOUVER REGISTRY (1990'S)
23) I have enclosed selected passages from the approximately 500 page factum plus Book of Authorities case notes illustrating how the Union turned against me in order to scuttle this legal matter. (N.B. not included with this letter)
24) In summary, those case notes point out that I have been anything but 'frivolous and vexatious' in pursuing the conspirators in this unresolved legal case ordered to further litigation when the Employer did not return employment as recommended by Southin. In 1995, when it was clear that both the Employer and Union had abandoned this case, I requested that the court change her wording from should return employment to must return employment with all terms of the contract to apply. In law, courts are obliged to pursue recommendations which was not done in this case. That's part of the accusation of fraud here.
25) Further, in opposition to Union assertions, I did, as the law required, place a monetary value on my job. Also, I did (and still am in order to keep my claim alive) prepared to return to the classroom (making me at age 73, the oldest teacher in a Canadian classroom). The Preamble to the Supreme Court of Canada sums up the treatment that I received from the Union:
Preamble to Supreme Court of Canada Appeal
(This Appeal denied in June/04 -explains why the Canadian Justice System imploded)
This preamble makes an unusual request regarding habeas corpus
The correctness of the lay-off of teacher Roger Callow from his teaching position in West Vancouver in 1985 has never been properly tested. That fact flies in the face of the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada and yet over 30 judges up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada has not seen fit to insist that Mr. Callow be provided the key evidence of School Board meeting notes pertaining to the matter of his lay-off. To that extent, the judicial system is a part of the conspiracy charge which Mr. Callow has laid against the Teachers Union and the School Board and yet, due to the nature of the law, can only be referred to obliquely. Should the Supreme Court of Canada proceed on the frivolous and vexatious charge by which Mr. Callow is estopped from being granted a legal hearing without insisting, in this most unusual of cases, for the necessary disclosure of evidence to be provided to him; namely, the School Board meeting notes of 1985, then all Canadian law is at an end. Conversely put, it may be asked, how may Mr. Callow defend a negative which is a logical impossibility; namely, that he was not indeed laid off by the West Vancouver School Board in June of 1985?
There are good grounds to conclude that Mr. Callow has been the object of a massive conspiracy to deny him access to the laws. In 1986, Justice Mary Southin, in quashing the arbitration favouring the School Board claiming, as she did, that the arbitrator had been patently unreasonable in his conclusion favouring the School Board, had stated that ‘nowhere did the Board express a willingness to lay off a teacher under the new statute’ implying the fraudulency of the School Superintendent’s letter to that effect. Mr. Callow from his experience from the condemned arbitration in which no School Board member was called to the stand to explain how an increase of 16 teaching positions – any number of which Mr. Callow was capable of holding – submits that, while knowing otherwise, he is being denied any hearing which would give him an opportunity to voice his dissent. Certainly no such reference to the lay-off was publicly made in the monthly report in June of 1985 where the additions were noted in arbitration. No mention is made of any lay-off.
Considering that Justice Southin in 1986 ordered that all material pertaining to the lay-off of Mr. Callow be made available to the court and no doubt serves as the basis of her conclusion, then we submit such information would be the property of the Union and therefore should be made available to Mr. Callow even though the court has decreed that the Union has full control of this matter as far as questioning the matter of his lay-off. Both the Union and School Board steadfastly refuse to hand over this vital information. Indeed, it would appear that it was the laying of a conspiracy charge against the two parties which prompted the current frivolous and vexatious charge by which those two have successfully evaded having to produce the vital ‘missing link’ information. The failure of the two Appeal Court decisions of the B.C. Supreme Court to address that concern is at the heart of this appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Simply put, how can the justice system of Canada in all good conscience deny Mr. Callow access to the court to resolve an unresolved legal matter which even the court has declared should have been re-arbitrated. The fact that the original arbitrator passed away under a law which would not see the appointment of any other arbitrator calls into play the courts role of inherent jurisdiction in order to finalize this case. Failure to do so up to and including one appeal already to the Supreme Court of Canada is a denial of the letter and spirit of the law in Canada.
26) What is inexplicable from the Union account, is why they would not - after they abandoned this case - turn power of attorney (which I believed that I had in any event in the courts) to me to conduct the case at my own expense.
27) The answer lies in the fact that any hearing would reveal the cupidity of the Union in agreeing to a 'sweetheart deal'.
28) At this stage, it is immaterial what the authorities do as events in other courts have eclipsed the fraudulent activities of the conspirators.
29) At the top of that pyramid of abuses is the 'Cullen Creed'. On July 23 of 2013, Deputy Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court, Austin Cullen, expelled me from B.C. Courts for reasons best known to himself (despite Ontario judges seeking to append motivation which does not exist in that Order). On his own recognizance, without taking legal argument nor quoting pertinent law, without giving reasons, without providing the usual judicial review 'with permission of a judge'; Cullen j. expelled me from the B.C. Justice System. That is when the Canadian Justice System crashed for access to the courts is a prime definition of a Justice System.
30) Interestingly, I accept this draconian Order as representing the abandonment of this case by the Judiciary. Now compensation may apply (29 years of back salary which exists apart from judicial findings as I should always have been kept on salary until this matter was resolved) but due to Cullen's prohibitive Order, I must seek indemnity in courts outside of B.C. under the laws of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice.
31) Interestingly, Hicks, Morley et al for the Employer in Ottawa launched a case #13-59060 (H.D.April 11-14) asking for all claims to be discussed which, of necessity, would include the Union, which they failed to notify.
32) I proceeded with #14-61592 (H.D. Sept. 23-14) including the Union for the purpose along with asserting, for a first time, fraud on the part of the litigants and the court as I accuse the Respondents of 'secreting essential exculpatory evidence'. Neither of the Respondents filed a Notice of Appearance in that case, although Hicks, Morley made a surprise appearance at the hearing under very strange circumstances. Those matters are tied up with the oversight bodies which have 'closed down' in silence on this case.
33) I now await the response of Hicks, Morley to T-2360-14 in Federal Court.
'Oh, what a tangled web we weave...' or, in the experience of former U.S. President, Richard Nixon, the cover-up is worse than the original crime