NOVEMBER 10-2018
TO: Kazim Mohammed - Deputy Registrar Vancouver
Supreme Court
FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff employeescasecanada.ca 2018 Hinckson cj 'fraud'
MESSAGE:
1) Acknowledgment of your letter dated Nov.01-2018 and received
Nov.09-2018 is made which states in part: We
received the following document in the
mail and it cannot be filed for the following reason: 1. We cannot file the
Notice of Civil Claim (fraud Action against Hinckson
cj) as you have
been deemed a vexatious litigant; therefore, you cannot initiate any
proceedings in any registry of the Supreme Court without prior leave of the
court....
RESPONSE: Whom do you think you are giving the above
judicial finding...a judge? I think not. Hence I have directed a copy of this
account to A.G. David Edy calling for your immediate
dismissal for usurping the judicial process. cc D. Edy A.G.
2) Space limits a telling of the factum but the web site listed above: Concluding Remarks #49-#52 and
the Letter to D. Edy also included dated Sept.27-2018 B.C. Justice System Crashes and Burns - NDP
Future at Stake are pertinent here.
3) This account focuses on Res Ipso Loquitor
for which neither MacKenzie (2010) nor Hinckson cj which repeats her
error of not calling for argument nor quoting pertinent laws, chose to expel me
from the courts 'for reasons best known to themselves' in an unresolved B.C. labour
case where no compensation has been paid. In brief, neither judge gave me the
opportunity to address the court on this point of law explaining why I
requested A.G. Edy to immediately suspend Hinckson cj. Edy's
silence (plus Premier Horgan) speaks legions on this
point.
Res Ipso Loquitor Latin for "the thing speaks for
itself."
Overview In tort law, a principle that allows plaintiffs burden of proof with
what is, in effect, circumstantial evidence. The plaintiff can create a
rebuttable presumption of negligence by the defendant by proving that the harm
would not ordinarily have occurred without negligence, that the object that
caused the harm was under the defendant's control, and that there are no other
plausible explanations. In the vernacular, this term is likened to the patient
whom goes for a hospital arm operation and comes away without his foot instead.
Prima Facie Case To prove res ipsa loquitor negligence, the plaintiff must prove 3 things:
1. The incident
was of a type that does not generally happen without negligence The court noted negligence when they quashed
the arbitration in 1986 for failing to show a causal factor.
2. It was caused
by an instrumentality solely in defendant's control. As the senior teacher laid off under the imposed conditions of BILL 35 (lay-off for economic reasons
only); I had no say in that process
3. The plaintiff
did not contribute to the cause. If I
did, then disclosure is called for which over 50 judges including Hinckson cj. should have called
for or ordered the RCMP to act. He ignored all issues limiting his response to
a 'bastardized' interpretation of the 'MacKenzie
Creed'.
4) A.G. Edy's inaction is the sole source of
this judicial malfeasance. Premier Horgan should
replace him and order this matter back to the court with a special
investigator. cc Premier Horgan / media
October 01-2018
COMPLAINT AGAINST
VANCOUVER SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE C.E. HINCKSON
BY: Roger
Callow Plaintiff File S-188996 September 20-2018
N.B. (from
website)
Complaints
must be submitted in writing by mail, addressed to:
The Chief Judge of the Provincial
Court of British Columbia
Suite 337 - 800 Hornby
Street
Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6Z 2C5
MESSAGE:
1) So to whom does a litigant make a claim of judicial malfeasance when
the targeted judge is the Chief Judge himself? Is this the Justice System being
clever?...or too clever by half?
2) Hinckson j. handled medical malpractice suits for a legal firm for 31 years
without being made a partner; not even the obligatory QC after his name. To
some that would make him ideal Chief Justice material.
3) I have called on the B.C. Attorney General D Edy
to suspend Hinckson j. until his alleged malfeasance
in this case may be examined. It is not only the Attorney General's Office
which is at question here but,
considering Premier Horgan's position vis a vis the Office of the B.C.
Lieutenant Governor which ducked their responsibility in dealing with this
thorny unresolved legal case where no compensation as per the laws has been paid;
but the entire NDP Party in Canada.
4) An allied action in Ontario for civil fraud including the names of two
justices and the Employer's legal Counsel from 2014 (CV 18000 769 0000) extant before the court currently is
intertwined with this case; particularly as it relates in a 33 year search for disclosure revealing a conspiracy in a sweetheart deal. Hinckson
cj. was also taxed with disclosure if he did not wish
to give the $20 million forfeiture fee requested.
5) Until Hinckson's Order, all judges ducked out
for jurisdictional reasons...frivolous and vexatious claim, matters already
settled, etc.
6) For a first time in 33 years, Hinckson cj has
unequivocally directly linked the courts with the conspiracy known as the employeescasecanad.ca. As long as he
remains on the bench, there can be no justice in Canadian courts.
7) Unlike some European courts, a Canadian Justice may not fulfill an
advocate's role. He must adjudicate the claims set before him or her and rule
according to law. That is our legal system which Hinckson
cj. would usurp.
8) For reasons best known to themselves (and perhaps me as well); the
defendant Employer and Union did not oppose my petition. In law, that means
that my argument must stand as fact and the asserted fact was that I was the
victim of a conspiracy to defraud me of my compensation due to an illicit
senior teacher lay-off in 1985 under the conditions of the imposed BILL 35. Justice
Southin quashed that arbitration ruling the
arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. I
was, as events turned out due to judicial cupidity, left in a 33 year state of
limbo.
9) While the 26 page account included to Hinckson
cj details events up to the current time; I include
here a 9 page definition of events more closely aligned to the MacKenzie Creed of 2010 which is Hinckson's starting point as he quotes verbatim from that
Order and then signs it as his own in a bid to authenticate this obviously ultra vires action
by the court setting a very dangerous precedent. Why bother with courts of law
at all under these circumstances?
10) The proper course for Hinckson cj if he were to use the faulty MacKenzie
Creed was to invite me to provide argument before he reached his Decision. That
is primarily why he should be removed from the bench.
11) The only other recourse for Hinckson cj. was to request that the RCMP seize the necessary disclosure documents as I requested
along with placing me back on salary (I should never have been removed until
this legal matter was resolved.) He did neither.
Roger Callow (signed)
cc
RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki
Following is the 9 page dissertation as it
relates more specifically to the MacKenzie Creed
which would have been presented to Hinckson cj if it had been requested
JANUARY 2017
The following two excerpts from 2013 & 2004 (both refused for a hearing in
the SCofC) details the perfidy of the Justice System.
Events from that time have merely followed their logical corrupt judicial
course culminating in the two 2016 hearing rejections (QC 36883 & SK 36993). The same panel of 3
judges heard both at different times much to my vociferous dismay. One of them,
Suzanne Coté is rumoured to
be the successor to Chief Justice MacLachlin (In actual fact, a second judge on this
panel, was given the appointment; Richard Wagner cj.
- RC. Oct. 1-2018)
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT – NOVEMBER 2013
1) The matter of depriving a litigant of his duly invested right as a citizen from court access without very careful examination of the situation is a matter of national importance.
2) Materials included here refer to earlier applications to the Supreme Court of Canada that were rejected for not fulfilling the designated rules of Registrar, Roger Bilodeau. I have no idea of the application of this earlier information but include it nonetheless to illustrate the great lengths the judicial processes of various Canadian courts will go to in order to frustrate an unresolved 28 year legal saga in which an employee has been deprived of his rightful compensation (includes pension) under the collective bargaining rules.
3) The Justice System depends on the intangible notion of credibility for without credibility, there is no Justice System in a modern democracy. When the Canadian Justice System goes bad, as I submit has been the case in this legal saga of systematic injustice, Canadian rule of law reverts to Third World status. The current Appeal is one in a series of court actions before over 28 judges which would conceal perfidy on the part of the Employer, Union and the various courts.
4) The above point was made in 2004 before the Supreme Court of Canada where to the accusation of an original B.C. government conspiracy was the alleged conspiracy of the process of this case in the courts. The failure of the Supreme Court of Canada to hear this most serious charge in 2004 is the author of far worse legal transgressions since that time including the current appeal before this court of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ of October 2010 in which a judge functions completely outside the law without censure. The equally egregious ‘Cullen Creed’ of July 2013 from the same B.C. Supreme Court also referenced here is a current source of action in Ottawa Superior Court (#13-58607) is pending.
5) Justice Minister, Hon. Peter MacKay has been asked to intervene in this matter as it affects the conduct of the Judiciary in B.C. and the Federal Court.
6) It is clear at this juncture, that over 7 court systems have shown an inability to resolve a simple matter of a teacher lay-off in British Columbia in 1985.
ACTION CALLED FOR
7) For the Supreme Court of Canada to make an Order over-riding any previous injunction against permitting this plaintiff to appear in any court unencumbered by any stricture as he would have full status to resolve this long outstanding labour issue where no compensation has been paid. I believe that I have always had that power in any event, but in my particular case I have been denied that right. There is no need to call for a full hearing before the Supreme Court for that Order.
8) That a Trustee be appointed by this Court to ensure that all courts abide by that Order.
EXPLANATION
9) The level of abuse that I have received from the courts, including this most recent appeal of DT-12-1872, has to be unequaled in the annals of Canadian Jurisprudence. If the judges cannot see their way to a judicial decision in this case; surely a jury should be given the opportunity to act ‘on behalf of the people’.
10)A denial of this request for this Order on any level will be considered by me as abandonment by the court to resolve an unresolved legal problem. In such an eventuality, it will be the turn of the legislative branch of government – specifically Justice Minister, Hon. Peter MacKay – to provide the necessary relief in the absence of the inability of the courts to do the job that they were hired to do..
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF CANADA (2004)
(ON APPEAL FROM THE
COURT OF APPEAL FOR B.C.)
NOTICE OF
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
ROGER CALLOW –
APPLICANT
File number CA030699, made February 27, 2004
(Annotated)
Questions:
21) a)
How does a conspiracy between a union and an employer in the conduct of an
employee’s grievance impact on the collective bargaining scheme? (Particularly when evidence would show that
the request to use BILL 35 against me originated within the local West
Vancouver Teachers’ Union = ‘sweetheart deal’ in which I submit the Union would
sacrifice the teacher if the Employer would sacrifice the Superintendent. He
was removed the following year and never held another post in B.C. RWC)
b) Does
the Labour Relations Board have exclusive jurisdiction to hear an unfair
representation complaint by a union member against a union where the
occurrences giving rise to the grievance happened at a time where the relevant
category of union members were excluded from the ambit of the Labour
Relations Act? (The Justice System
glossed over this fact although it is to be noted that the Board repeatedly
refused a Section 12 hearing on this matter which would have revealed the
conspiracy = the Labour Board joined the conspiracy.)
c) In
what circumstances can a court of inherent jurisdiction process a union members
grievance in the face of a collective bargaining agreement that provides for
arbitration to resolve grievances? (That
is the key point in this question of national importance then and now which the
SCofC has failed to address ((refusing to hear this
case in 2004 and currently filibustering) = Third World status as SCofC becomes part of the conspiracy.This
question lies at the center of the current appeals (5 and possibly 2 more to
come). The ‘MacKenzie Creed’ complicates the current
legal scene to such an extent and degree that now, no matter what the outcome,
Canada is reduced to that of ‘a failed state’. No legal system can withstand
‘running a court within a court’ and be considered viable.))
MEMORANDUM OF
ARGUMENT
PART I –
STATEMENT OF FACTS
22) This
is an application for leave to appeal the decision dated January 9,2004, of the
Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissing the Applicant’s appeal from the
decision of Mr. Justice Williamson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Justice Williamson dismissed the Appellant’s action against the Respondents
based on conspiracy and ordered that the appellant may not, without leave of the Court, institute
any legal proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. (Note that this provision does not deny court
access to me such as is the case of the MacKenzie
Creed. S106159, which she removed
from the docket, requested such leave making her Order redundant as well as
antithetical.)
23) The
Appellant, a teacher who had been employed by the Respondent School Board for
17 years, has been endeavoring since his layoff in 1985 to obtain redress for
what he believes to be the unlawful action of the Respondent school board.
24) The
Respondent Association initially assessed the Appellant’s grievance to be with
merit and took it to an unsuccessful arbitration, and then to a successful
judicial review of the arbitrator’s decision (only after I changed lawyers and an appeal was filed without Union
knowledge), where Madam Justice Southin
determined the arbitrator’s decision to be flawed, and directed the arbitrator
to hold a further hearing. Madam Justice Southin’s
decision was upheld at the Court of Appeal. (NB Ontario Teachers would be
interested in this point. The Employer argued that BILL 35 was a consentual agreement (between employer and union) as
opposed to imposed (by government). While it was a ridiculous argument, the
Employer was in a position to blackmail the courts; a blackmail dealt with
elsewhere and which exists to the present day.)
25)
Before the arbitration could be reconvened the arbitrator died.
26)
Section 5 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act did not permit the matter
to be referred to an arbitrator other than the arbitrator who heard the matter
in the first instance. (‘frustrated’
situation where litigants are not to be held liable for court ‘glitches’.)
27) After
the death of the arbitrator, Mr. Lindholm, in
November 1989, the Respondent Association abandoned efforts to complete the
arbitration and obtain reinstatement for the Appellant. It was willing,
however, to pursue settlement negotiations with the School Board to obtain
financial compensation. However, the Applicant objected to the compensation
strategy, based on wrongful dismissal concepts, as being inadequate and
continued to press for a judicial or arbitral determination of the validity of
the layoff of an appropriate compensation strategy.
28) The
Respondent Association was not certified as the teacher’s bargaining agent
until 1988. (why any other B.C. teacher
is screwed under the circumstances of a sweetheart deal although the courts
continued as though I was under sole Union control...a good reason for never
holding union membership…and staying out of a Canadian courtroom unless you
first buy the judge.)
29) The
history of the Appellant`s efforts through the courts and the Labour Relations
Board are detailed in the affidavit of J.S. Clyne and
Douglas Player , filed on the motion before Justice Williamson. (Clyne was the ‘go
to’ lawyer for School Boards prosecuting teachers but lost that business after
this case.)
30) In
all of these efforts the Respondent Association and Respondent School Board
have adopted virtually identical positions in opposition to the Appellant’s
actions. Throughout all of the proceedings both Respondents reminded the court
and the Labour Board that the settlement proposal of approximately two years
salary was a reasonable one, which cointinued to be
available. (If I had accepted that offer,
to be sure it would set a precedent for anyone else ‘laid off’ in Canada as opposed
to being dismissed under the wrongful dismissal laws which are a different set
of laws. This case is all that keeps employers from following the ‘West
Vancouver School Board’s “final solution” hence I am fighting for all Canadian
employees. SEE 11 c)
31) That
settlement proposal is no longer available and the Respondent Association has
completely abandoned the Appellant’s grievance.(Smart employers always have ‘an offer of settlement’ on the table as a
means of delay by obviating ‘pending’ court actions.
32) The
basis of the within action is conspiracy. The Appellant alleges that the
Respondent School Board and Respondent Association have conspired to thwart his
grievance. The particulars alleged are as follows:
a.
refusing to call as witnesses at the arbitration, or on the contemplated
recommencement of the arbitration, any of the Board trustees who were at the
meetings in 1985 where Mr. Callow’s lay off was
discussed, and allegedly decided; (the
trustees refused, in essence, to perjure themselves, leaving that to the
Superintendent);
b.
agreeing to make the Board’s consent to an adjournment conditional on there
being no financial prejudice to the Plaintiff; (that’s a big one and possible grounds for the employer to pursue the
union should I win my current action);
c.
putting forth the “no financial prejudice” agreement as a roadblock to
achieving a monetary compensation settlement based on breach of statutorily
imposed contract that did not provide for a “right to terminate” (as opposed to
settlement based on wrongful dismissal principles where the employer has a
right to terminate providing it gives adequate notice or compensation in lieu);
d.
refusing to support the Plaintiff’s request for reinstatement via a reconvened
arbitration;
e.
refusing to pursue the reasonable monetary compensation settlement proposal
advocated by the Plaintiff;
f. taking
an adversarial position against the Plaintiff during court proceedings
commenced by him directed at reinstatement; (the
union refused to hand authority over to me to conduct a re-arbitration at my
own expense.)
g.
abandoning all efforts to negotiate any compensation.
33) Of
particular concern to the Appellant is the reticence of the Respondent School
Board and Respondent Association to reveal what was discussed at, or to
disclose the minutes of, the “lay-off” School Board meetings held prior to or
at the time of the Appellant’s layoff in 1985. (Under the ‘access laws’, I received partial information which showed
that a vote was taken by the Board regarding the lay-off which appeared in
their arbitration record. What did not appear was the vote pattern in which
Chairperson Margo Furk and her successor, Mike Smith,
were the only two out of five who voted in favour of the lay-off. This is the
material which Justice Southin concealed opening her
to blackmail.)He alleges that such evidence would have demonstrated that
the criteria for lay-off as set out in Bill 35 did not exist. (there was no declining enrolment)As
Madam Justice Southin said in her Reasons for Judgment
in 1986.
“No minute was adduced in evidence to show
that the Board ever intended to layoff a certain number of teachers under the
new statute”. (note the legal casuistry here as Southin skates around the specific action of laying off
Callow)
PART II –
QUESTIONS IN ISSUE
34) Does
the conspiracy alleged against the Respondents in the conduct of the grievance process permit the Supreme Court of
British Columbia to exercise its inherent jurisdiction?
35) Are
the issues raised in this action res judicata?
36) Can
an unfair representation complaint arising from occurrences which began in 1985
at a time when teachers or their unions were not subject to the Labour Relations Code be pursued
in the Supreme Court of British Columbia?
PART III – STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT
DOES THE CONSPIRACY ALLEGED AGAINST THE
RESPONDENTS IN THE CONDUCT OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS PERMIT THE SUPREME COURT OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA TO EXERCISE ITS INHERENT JURISDICTION?
37) The
Honourable Mr. Justice Donald has unfairly characterized my action as
‘obviously a vexatious attempt to relitigate matters
already settled’. In fact I want no more than any citizen would consider an
inherent right in a fee and democratic society: an opportunity to have our
justice system determine whether the termination of my 17 year teaching career
by the Respondent School Board was performed in accordance with our law. As Mr.
Justice Spencer pointed out:
“I observe that even if he was unsatisfactory
from the Board’s point of view, he was entitled to be dealt with according to
law under the School Act and not to be made the victim of an abuse of
authority. Whether he was, remains to be decided and the sole person who could
decide it is dead. (Spencer is dead wrong here and
knows it as he asked me in court for the applicable rules regarding
‘frustration’; the key point being that litigants are not to be held at a
disadvantage due to court ‘glitches’) It is to be hoped
that there is some way of addressing that purported wrong”. (but not in his court as he had a choice; either change Southin’s ‘should’ to ‘must’ have employment returned or
order the matter back to arbitration; again, a point he raised in court. That
‘limbo’ game has characterized this case for 28 years…and still counting.)
I ask no
more and am prepared to accept the consequences of that determination one way
or the other.
38) I am
fully aware of the labour relations institutions that have afforded employees
the right to collective bargaining and understand that as a trade off for that
right employees relinquish the ability to directly pursue employment related
grievances against an employer. But re
But
where, as alleged in this case, the employer and the employee’s union
representative conspire to subvert the employee’s grievance, they undermine the
very foundations of the collective bargaining process which presumes a
collective employee representative acting in the best interest of its union
members independent of employer interests and free from employer influence. If
that independence breaks down as alleged in this case, union representation of
the employee deteriorates beyond unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory or bad faith
representation, the determination of which in cases where the parties
activities are governed by the Labour Relations Act vests with the Labour
Relations Board to subversive conduct so anethema
to the collective bargaining process as to be considered as no representation
at all. In such circumstances courts ought to ensure an appropriate remedy.
39) It is
significant to note that the conspiracy referred to above is not that the
Association and Employer conspired to bring about my layoff (although they may
well have). (they did) Rather, the
conspiracy alleged is that the Association and Employer conspired to thwart my
grievance. It started with the failure of the Union at the arbitration in 1986
to inquire into the discussions that occurred at the board meetings where my
layoff was talked about as in indicated above, and continued as alleged in my
Statement of Claim. It continues to this very day with the Association’s and
the Board’s refusal to produce the relevant minutes of this meeting and other
meetings between the Association and the Board occurring at or about the time
of the layoff.
40) The
conspiracy does not arise in its essential character out of the layoff or out
of the employer/employee relationship. Rather
the conspiracy alleged arises out of and goes to the very root of the grievance
process itself. The courts jurisdiction is not
ousted as the “essential” character test referred to in Weber has not
been met.
41)
Further, the arbitration with its attendant remedial powers as set out in the
statutorily deemed collective bargaining agreement, BILL 35, is no
longer available. (Ontario teachers take
note) The arbitrator is deceased. The law does not permit the arbitration
to be referred to a substituted arbitrator. The residual discretionary power of
courts of inherent jurisdiction to ensure the applicant an “ultimate remedy” is
thus preserved.
Weber v. Ontario
Hydro(1995) 2 S.C.R.929
ARE THE ISSUES
RAISED IN THIS ACTION RES JUDICATA?
42) The
Court of Appeal refers to a previous action I commenced and the resulting court
decision as determinative of the issues raised in the within action.
43) My response
is that the facts supporting the within action are quite different from the
actual underpinning of the previous action. There are now allegations of
conspiracy related to the grievance
process. These allegations date back to the beginning of the grievance
following my layoff in 1985, and to the subsequent arbitration where no minutes
were produced to show that the Board ever intended to layoff any teachers under
the new legislation (BILL 35). “No minute was adduced in evidence to show the
Board ever intended to layoff a certain number of teachers under the new
statute”. The only minutes produced, and the only evidence submitted at the
arbitration as to the discussion among board members concerning my layoff were
the pro forma minutes likely written by the Board’s lawyers. None of the board
members allegedly present at the board meeting where the decision to terminate
me was made were called to give evidence. (the
key to the arbitration conspiracy as the union lawyer refused to put them on
the stand after the employer lawyer’s refusal. I almost – and in retrospect
should have – fired him on the spot. An honest arbitrator would have called for
that evidence.)
44) The
merits of the previous proceeding have been determined. Justice Spencer’s
decision was based on his perception that I had no standing and that the court
lacked jurisdiction, because of the collective bargaining agreement. More
importantly the essential facts in the present action are different from the
essential facts of the previous action.
45) The
res judicata doctrine does not therefore apply to the
merits of the within action. Nor, does the doctrine apply to the current
jurisdictional issue as this is the first action brought against both
Respondents where grievance process conspiracy has been raised. This is not
simply a different theory of liability, it is an entirely different cause of
action arising out of different events than have been pleaded in any previous
action.
CAN AN UNFAIR REPRESENTATION COMPLAINT
ARISING FROM OCCURRENCES WHICH BEGAN IN 1985 AT A TIME WHEN TEACHERS OR THEIR
UNIONS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LABOUR RELATIONS CODE BE PURSUED IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA?
46) Prior
to 1988 the Labour Relations Code (then called The Labour Relations
Code of British Columbia) specifically excluded teachers from the ambit of
that legislation, which, of course, included the provisions governing the
Labour Relation Board’s exclusive jurisdiction to hear unfair representation
complaints.
Lamont v. British Columbia Teachers Federation (1997) B.C.J. No. 1032 (QL) (B.C. Ct. of Appeal)
47) The
occurrences giving rise to the conspiracy allegations in this action commenced
as early as 1985.
48)
Accordingly, even assuming that the allegations in the within action against
the Respondent Association could be characterized as “unfair representation”
complaints, the Labour Relations Code
does not
prevent the Supreme Court of British Columbia from assuming jurisdiction.
Mills v. London Life Insurance Co. (2000) O.J. No. 1243 (Q.L.) (Ont. S.C.)
CONCLUDING
REMARKS
49) The
correctness of my lay off from my 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 in Canada and yet over 30 judges up to and
including the Supreme Court of Canada has not seen fit to insist that I be
provided the key evidence of School Board meeting notes pertaining to the
matter of my lay off. To that extent the judicial system is part of the
conspiracy charge which I have 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 I am estopped
from being granted a legal hearing without insisting, in this most unusual of
cases, for the necessary disclosure
of evidence be provided to me; namely the School Board meeting notes of 1985
showing that I was indeed laid off by the West Vancouver School Board in June
of 1985, then all Canadian law is at an end. Conversely put, it may be asked,
how may I defend a negative which is a logical impossibility; namely, that I
was not indeed laid off by the West Vancouver School Board in June of 1985?
50) There
are good grounds to conclude that I have been the object of a massive
conspiracy to deny me access to the laws. In 1986, Justice Mary Southin, in quashing the arbitration 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. From my 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 I was capable of holding - …I am being denied
any hearing which would give me an opportunity to voice my dissent. Certainly
no reference to my lay off was publicly made in the monthly report in June of
1985 where the additions were noted and filed in arbitration. No mention is
made of any layoff.
51)
Considering that Justice Southin in 1986 ordered that
all material pertaining to my layoff 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 me
even though the court has full control of this matter as far as questioning the
matter of my layoff. 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 heart
of this appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This appeal also marks the
second time that this matter has been brought before the Supreme Court of
Canada.
52)
Simply put, how can the justice system of Canada in all good conscience deny me
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.
September
27-2018
TO: Hon. David Edy FROM: Roger Callow
B.C. Attorney General self represented litigant
Room 232 Parliament Buildings 1285 Cahill Dr.
#2001 E.
Victoria, BC V8V 1X4 Ottawa,
ON K1V 9A7
Phone: (250) 387-1866
Fax: (250) 387-6411 2 pages sent
by fax employeescasecanada.ca
B.C. JUSTICE
SYSTEM 'CRASHES & BURNS' - NDP FUTURE AT STAKE
QUOTE: A) 'What need we fear it, when none can call us
to account' Lady MacBeth
B) 'In the Halls of Justice, all justice is in
the halls' aphorism
REFERENCE: S 188996 Vancouver Court Registry
1) Received (S.27) from the Vancouver Supreme Court Registry was the following Decision in which I call for the A.G. to immediately suspend Chief Justice Hinkson for a flagrant ignorance of judicial procedure (or, worse yet, malfeasance to an untold degree). The alternative is for you to step down as no-one in Canada may trust any longer to the anti-employee NDP Party.
Please find the
enclosed copy of the Order granted by the Honourable
Chief Justice Hinkson on September 20,2018. The Chief
Justice Hinkson has order (sic) that the Notice of Civil Claim between
Callow and the Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver S.D. #45) and others (BCTF-Teachers Union -
an odd omission ) is a nullity and is set
aside.
THIS COURT, on
its own motion and without a hearing, at Vancouver, British Columbia, September
20,2018 ORDERS AND DECLARES THAT:
1. The Notice of Civil Claim herein is a nullity and is set aside as being filed in contravention of the Orders of Associate Chief Justice MacKenzie made 1 October 2010 in Vancouver Registry court file No. S106159, and of Mr. Justice Williamson made 11 March 2003 in Vancouver Registry court file No. S022978
2. (MacKenzie Order made on her own recognizance and without taking legal argument-R.C.) Roger Callow shall not, except with prior leave of the Court, initiate any proceedings 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. S087238, S075775, S022978, A950147,or pertaining to or connected with the subject matter of his allegations against the Defendants in this action arising from or related to that subject matter.
3. 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.
4. The Defendants
in this matter will not be obliged to respond to any process that is filed by
Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any document or process
inadvertently filed or received by the Registry. (Above statements purloined by Hinkson cj as his own from Mackenzie j. which I consider fraud.
Also, it is the first time a judge has condoned this Order.
2) This obviously ultra vires Mackenzie j. action was taken during the previous Christy Clarke government which was hostile to teacher interests.
3) The Vancouver Registry under the NDP Horgan government recently accepted my petition with an implied message that I would be treated fairly in this unresolved B.C. labour issue where no compensation has been paid (now includes pension rights for ten years as I continue to be an employee of the West Vancouver School Board on 'deferred salary'. As seen from above, that has not happened under the watch of A.G. Edy as I was not placed back on salary.
4) The demise
of the NDP Party provincially (includes ON where Andrea Horwath
sits on a charge of civil fraud in this matter dating from the expulsion of
this litigant in 2013 under the Associate Deputy Austin Cullen Order whom,
unlike MacKenzie, did not qualify his Order by 'first
asking the permission of a judge'. Both Orders, it is submitted here are ultra vires.
ACTION REQUESTED
5) What does the B.C. A.G. want? For me to lay a charge of civil fraud citing the above information? I can do that if that is your wish.
6) The alternative should be fairly obvious as Hinkson CJ avoided the matter altogether; namely, to order the RCMP to seize disclosure from the defendants on which, it seems automatically to follow, a criminal charge of fraud may be laid. That request does not excuse the RCMP now under Commissioner Brenda Lucki, from not having acted on this matter in the first place after many requests to the RCMP Montreal Fraud Division.
Yours truly (Roger
Callow)
cc NDP leader Jangmeet
Singh / Andrea Horwath ON NDP / RCMP Commissioner
Brenda Lucki / Kelly Craft (U.S.)
PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE
34) Does the conspiracy alleged against the Respondents in the conduct of the grievance process permit the Supreme Court of British Columbia to exercise its inherent jurisdiction?
52) Simply put, how can the justice system of Canada in all good conscience deny me access to the court to resolve an unresolved 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 (law of frustration) 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.
ADDENDUM: If Hinkson cj did not wish to assign me the default $20 million thus resolving the entire case, he could have re-assigned salary as I should never have been released from salary under the collective bargaining rules until this matter was resolved. By rooting around in the files, he has brought up a matter which threatens the existence of the Canadian NDP Party.