Roger Callow

5/26/2018 Roger Callow

1/24

CITATION: West Vancouver School District No. 45 v . Callow, 2014 ONSC 2547COURT FILE NO.:13-59060

DATE:2014/04/23

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: ))

Board of School Trustees (West VancouverSD #45)

Applicant

and

Roger Callow

Respondent

))

)))

))

)))

Charles V. Hofley, for the Applicant

Self-Represented

)

)) HEARD: April 10, 2014

REASONS FOR DECISION

C. MCKINNON J.

Overview

[1] Roger Callow is a litigant possessed of seemingly inexhaustible stamina. His behavioursuggests that he views the Canadian court system as something akin to a perpetual, all-day, all

you can eat buffet. Having been rebuked by the courts and tribunals of British Columbia, the

Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Callow has now taken aim at

Ontario. Ontario lacks the jurisdiction to deal with his case. As a result, Mr. Callows litigation

must be stopped. Now.
http://intra.judicialsecurity.jus.gov.on.ca/NeutralCitation/http://intra.judicialsecurity.jus.gov.on.ca/NeutralCitation/


2/24

Page: 2

[2] Immediately at issue is an action brought by Mr. Callow in this court which is scheduledto be heard on May 15, 2014. The Respondent in that action is the Board of School Trustees

(West Vancouver SD #45) (the Board). Mr. Callows action, contained in Ottawa court file

#13-58607 appears to comprise a Statement of Claim, a motion purportedly asking for judgment

in accordance with the prayer for relief contained in the Statement of Claim, and an appeal to

the Court of Appeal in Ottawa, Ontario from the judgment of Associate Chief Justice Austin

Cullen of the B.C. Supreme Court, dated July 23, 2013 made at Vancouver, B.C..

[3] The Statement of Claim is an iteration of the same claim that Mr. Callow has beenattempting to advance in various courts across the country for the past 29 years. The appeal is

from an Order of Associate Chief Justice Cullen of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and

seeks to set aside the Associate Chief Justices Order declaring that Mr. Callow be effectively

barred from the courts of British Columbia in respect of the claim being advanced.

[4] The Applicant in this proceeding seeks relief pursuant to section 140 of the OntarioCourts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (the CJA) to declare Mr. Callow a vexatious

litigant and put an end to his Ontario litigation.

[5] Mr. Callow was employed as a teacher by the Board between the years 1968 and 1985during which time he was represented by his bargaining agent, the West Vancouver Teachers

Association. In 1985, Mr. Callow was laid off from his unionized employment with the Board

and never recalled. For the ensuing 29 years, Mr. Callow has challenged the legality of his

termination. These challenges have taken various forms in various jurisdictions starting with the

arbitration of his lay-off grievance in British Columbia. Mr. Callow then attempted to challenge

his termination through various applications to the British Columbia Labour Relations Board,


3/24

Page: 3

various attempts to litigate in the British Columbia Supreme Court (BCSC), an attempt to

personally sue two British Columbia judges in the Federal Court of Canada, attempts to appeal

various lower court decisions of the BCSC, and attempts to further appeal to the Supreme Court

of Canada. Over the 29 years, Mr. Callows attempted actions and appeals have evolved into

what are essentially criticisms of previous courts and adjudicators final determinations

respecting his termination. He has been unsuccessful in all these proceedings. Mr. Callow is no

longer permitted to initiate claims in British Columbia pertaining to matters concerning his

termination (the Determined Matters). The Federal Court of Canada has also barred Mr.

Callow from taking any further action with respect to his actions against individual judges in the

Federal Court without leave of that court.

[6] In 2012, Mr. Callow brought an action to litigate the Determined Matters in the OntarioSuperior Court of Justice. His action was dismissed on November 1, 2012 by Maranger J. on the

basis that it disclosed no cause of action, was frivolous and vexatious, and that the matter was

beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.

[7] Mr. Callow unsuccessfully sought to appeal Maranger J.s dismissal to theOntario Divisional Court. The Divisional Court dismissed Mr. Callows appeal on

November 6, 2013 and awarded costs to the Board in the amount of $10,000 which remain

unpaid. In the present proceedings, Mr. Callow argued that he wanted to appeal the decision of

the Divisional Court directly to the Supreme Court of Canada. During oral argument it became

clear that Mr. Callow was unaware that an appeal from the Divisional Court must be taken to the

Court of Appeal for Ontario. Although the proper route was explained to him, he was not invited

to pursue it.


4/24

Page: 4

[8] Mr. Callow has also been remarkably imaginative in engaging in offensive conductoutside the courtroom, denigrating Canadas judiciary and legal system. He has displayed

insulting placards in public places and posted offensive materials on his website. These public

displays include highly insulting comments about the present Chief Justice of Canada and every

other judge who has had the misfortune of ruling against him.

A Detailed History

[9] The apparently interminable and lamentable history of Mr. Callows litigation inBritish Columbia, including the initial 1985 labour arbitration, the various subsequent appeals

from that decision, and the various other proceedings which he initiated against the Board and

the Association, culminated in 2003 with a Vexatious Litigant Declaration by the BCSC. This

history is summarized by Shabbits J. in Callow v. Board of School Trustees, School District No.

45 and West Vancouver Teachers Association, 2008 BCSC 778, [2008] B.C.J. No. 1137

(Callow2008) as follows:

3 Mr. Callow was employed by the Board as a teacher. He was a member of The WestVancouver Teachers' Association (the "Association"). Mr. Callow's termination has been thesubject of extensive litigation.

4 His termination initially went to arbitration. The arbitrator upheld the termination. Thearbitrator's decision was set aside by Southin J. who was then a member of this court. Her

decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

5 The arbitrator died before further arbitration.

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 itwould attempt to settle the grievance.

7 There was no settlement.

8 Mr. Callow applied to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 1995 under the JudicialReview Procedure Act for an order requiring the Board to rehire him and pay him retroactive

salary. Spencer J. dismissed his petition ([1995] B.C.J. No. 1230). He ruled that Mr. Callowlacked standing. He said that only the Association could take proceedings. He also ruled that

the court lacked jurisdiction to address the relief sought because the matter had to be resolvedunder the administrative law procedure created by the applicable statute.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?A=0.19650095957176128&bct=A&service=citation&risb=21_T19725883387&langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23BCJ%23ref%251230%25sel1%251995%25year%251995%25http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?A=0.19650095957176128&bct=A&service=citation&risb=21_T19725883387&langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23BCJ%23ref%251230%25sel1%251995%25year%251995%25


5/24

Page: 5

9 Mr. Callow appealed Spencer J.'s decision. The appeal was dismissed by the Court ofAppeal ([1997] B.C.J. No. 231). The Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal from

the decision of the Court of Appeal ([1997] S.C.C.A. No. 159).

10 Mr. Callow has made three complaints to the Labour Relations Board under s. 12 of the

Labour Relations Code.

11 The first complaint alleged that the Association had breached its duty of fairrepresentation under s. 12 of the Code by reason of its decision not to pursue arbitration. This

complaint was dismissed in 1996.

12 The second complaint focussed on the manner in which the Association purported to

deal with the settlement of the claim. Of note is an allegation that the Association failed toconsider a settlement strategy proposed by Mr. Callow.

13 The British Columbia Labour Relations Board dismissed the second complaint in 1998

and its reconsiderat ion in 1999.

14 Mr. Callow applied for judicial review of the second complaint. On October 7, 1999,

Sigurdson J. found that Mr. Callow had not demonstrated that the Labour Relations Board'sdecision dismissing his second complaint under s. 12 of the Labour Relations Code waspatently unreasonable, and he dismissed it ([1999] B.C.J. No. 3205).

15 On January 19, 2001, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Callow's appeal fromSigurdson J.'s decision (2001 BCCA 72). Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

was denied.

16 Mr. Callow filed his third section 12 complaint with the British Columbia Labour

Relations Board on May 17, 2001.

17 The third complaint related to the Association's abandonment of his grievance becauseMr. Callow failed to agree that the Board's offer was the best offer achievable under the

circumstances.

18 The third complaint was dismissed by L. Pakinson, Vice-Chair, on April 9, 2002([2002] B.C.L.R.B.D. No. 117). Mr. Callow applied for reconsideration of that dismissal.

The reconsideration was considered by M. Fleming, Acting Associate Chair, (Adjudication),L. Hansen, Registrar and Vice-Chair and J. O'Brien, Vice-Chair, who rendered a decision on

May 3, 2002, dismissing the application for reconsideration. ([2002] B.C.L.R.B.D. No. 158).

19 Mr. Callow then advanced three separate Supreme Court actions.

20 The first action was against the Association in which he claimed one million dollars

damages. The second action was against both the Association and the Board in which heclaimed two million dollars damages. On September 30, 2002, a master of the court

dismissed both of those actions for want of prosecution.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?A=0.3654179561231222&bct=A&service=citation&risb=21_T19725883387&langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23BCJ%23ref%25231%25sel1%251997%25year%251997%25http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?A=0.5690947478141754&bct=A&service=citation&risb=21_T19725883387&langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23SCCA%23ref%25159%25sel1%251997%25year%251997%25http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?A=0.4713831328582805&bct=A&service=citation&risb=21_T19725883387&langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23BCJ%23ref%253205%25sel1%251999%25year%251999%25http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?A=0.20580604805183722&bct=A&service=citation&risb=21_T19725883387&langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23BCCA%23sel1%252001%25year%252001%25decisiondate%252001%25onum%2572%25http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?A=0.9511936995852562&bct=A&service=citation&risb=21_T19725883387&langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23BCLRB%23ref%25117%25sel1%252002%25year%252002%25http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?A=0.5504843443523899&bct=A&service=citation&risb=21_T19725883387&langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23BCLRB%23ref%25158%25sel1%252002%25year%252002%25http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?A=0.5504843443523899&bct=A&service=citation&risb=21_T19725883387&langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23BCLRB%23ref%25158%25sel1%252002%25year%252002%25http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?A=0.9511936995852562&bct=A&service=citation&risb=21_T19725883387&langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23BCLRB%23ref%25117%25sel1%252002%25year%252002%25http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?A=0.20580604805183722&bct=A&service=citation&risb=21_T19725883387&langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23BCCA%23sel1%252001%25year%252001%25decisiondate%252001%25onum%2572%25http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?A=0.4713831328582805&bct=A&service=citation&risb=21_T19725883387&langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23BCJ%23ref%253205%25sel1%251999%25year%251999%25http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?A=0.5690947478141754&bct=A&service=citation&risb=21_T19725883387&langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23SCCA%23ref%25159%25sel1%251997%25year%251997%25http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?A=0.3654179561231222&bct=A&service=citation&risb=21_T19725883387&langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23BCJ%23ref%25231%25sel1%251997%25year%251997%25


6/24

Page: 6

21 The third action was against the Board and the Association for conspiring together interminating his employment and in refusing to reinstate him. The statement of claim in that

proceeding was filed May 29, 2002.

22 On February 28, 2003, Williamson J. heard an application by the Board and the

Association to have the third action dismissed, and for an order pursuant to s. 18 of theSupreme Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 443 ordering that Mr. Callow not commence furtherlegal proceedings without leave of the court.

23 Williamson J. referred to the 1995 reasons of Spencer J. Williamson J. said that Mr.Callow was bound by any settlement of his dispute that would be reached by the Association.

Williamson J. also said that any dispute between the plaintiff and the Association to do withemployment by the Board or the termination of that employment fell squarely within thejurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board. He dismissed the claim.

[10]

On March 11, 2003, Williamson J., of the BCSC made an Order, pursuant to section 18 ofthe Supreme Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 443, that the Respondent could not institute further

legal proceedings without leave of the court: Callow v. The Board of School Trustees of School

District No. 45 (West Vancouver) and West Vancouver Teachers Association, 2003 BCSC 371,

[2003] B.C.J. No. 535 at para. 24 (the 2003 Vexatious Litigant Order).

[11] The Respondent appealed the 2003 Vexatious Litigant Order to the British Columbia Courtof Appeal. He was unsuccessful as that court agreed that he had persistently and without

reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings and recognized that the appellants

litigious activity had to be brought under some measure of control and order: Callow v. The

Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 (West Vancouver) and West Vancouver

Teachers Association, 2004 BCCA 19, [2004] B.C.J. No. 79 at paras. 4 and 7.

[12] Mr. Callow then sought, and was denied, leave to further appeal the 2003 VexatiousLitigant Order to the Supreme Court of Canada: Callow v. The Board of School Trustees of

School District No. 45 (West Vancouver) and West Vancouver Teachers Association (2004), 331N.R. 199 (S.C.C.).

[13] Since the issuance of the 2003 Vexatious Litigant Order, Mr. Callow has twiceunsuccessfully sought leave to initiate proceedings in the BCSC. In particular:
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/rsbc-1996-c-443/latest/rsbc-1996-c-443.html#sec18_smoothhttp://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/rsbc-1996-c-443/latest/rsbc-1996-c-443.htmlhttp://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/rsbc-1996-c-443/latest/rsbc-1996-c-443.htmlhttp://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/rsbc-1996-c-443/latest/rsbc-1996-c-443.html#sec18_smooth


7/24

Page: 7

i) In Callow 2008, Shabbits J., of the BCSC dismissed Mr. Callowsapplication for leave to commence legal action against the Board and the

Association. In doing so, he stated as follows:

41 I refuse Mr. Callow leave to commence a further legal action

against the Board and the Association. He has already commencedactions against them. They have been dismissed.

42 I also decline to make an order permitting the petitionersgrievance to be resolved by a process that this Honourable Court

deems appropriate.

[]

62 Williamson J. ordered that Mr. Callow could not institute

further legal proceedings without leave of the court. I refuse togrant Mr. Callow leave to institute legal proceedings or to apply

for judicial review.

ii) In 2009, Smith J. of the BCSC also denied Mr. Callows application forleave to commence an action for damages against the Association forbreach of their duty of representation. In doing so, he stated as follows:

15 Mr. Callows current complaint is that the Association and theTeachers Federation breached their duty of fair representation.The previous decisions of this court have made it clear that the

remedy for a breach of that duty must be pursued before theLabour Relations Board. Mr. Callow has done that three times and

has been unsuccessful. His only possible recourse would be topetition again for judicial review, but that is precisely whatShabbits J. denied him leave to do.

16 He now seeks to reframe the same complaint as an action fordamages and argues that the administrative scheme established by

the Labour Relations Code cannot, as a matter of law, deny himthe ultimate remedy of monetary compensation. For thatproposition, he relies on the decision of the Supreme Court of

Canada in St. Anne Nackawick Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. v.Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704.

[]

21 The wrong that Mr. Callow alleges here is that the defendants

breached their duty to fairly represent him. The Labour RelationsBoard, on which the statute confers jurisdiction, has determined

that no such wrong has been committed. In the absence of a
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/rsbc-1996-c-244/latest/rsbc-1996-c-244.htmlhttp://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/rsbc-1996-c-244/latest/rsbc-1996-c-244.html


8/24

Page: 8

wrong, there is no basis on which the court could award themonetary remedy that Mr. Callow seeks.

22 The proposed action is therefore an attempt to relitigate mattersalready decided and has absolutely no prospect of success. The

application for leave to commence it must be dismissed.

23 Mr. Callow has unsuccessfully brought this matter before theLabour Relations Board three times. Previous decisions of this

court should have made it clear to him that those results can onlybe challenged in judicial review proceedings, where they must be

shown to be patently unreasonable. One such challenge has failedin this court and an application for leave to bring further judicialreview proceedings has been rejected. In the circumstances, this

application was clearly futile and vexatious and it is appropriatethat the defendants have costs of this application as special costs.

Callow v. West Vancouver Teachers' Association, 2009 BCSC 367, [2009]

B.C.J. No. 552 (Callow2009).

[14] Subsequent to the 2003 Vexatious Litigant Order, Mr. Callow has also sought to initiateproceedings in the BCSC against the Board and the Association without seeking leave of the

Court. In response, Associate Chief Justice MacKenzie of the BCSC, on her own motion, and

without a hearing, declared on October 10, 2010, that:

1) The Notice of Civil Claim herein is a nullity and is set aside.2) Roger Callow shall not, except with prior leave of the Court, initiate

any proceedings in any Registry of the Supreme Court pertaining to orin any way connected with the subject matter of the proceedings in theSupreme Court of British Columbia Vancouver Registry File Nos.

SO87238, SO75775, SO22978, A950147 or pertaining to or connectedwith the subject matter of his allegations against the Defendants in this

action or arising from or related to that subject matter.

3) Any document or process filed by Roger Callow in contravention ofthis 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 anyprocess that is filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order orany document or process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry:

Callow v. The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 and West

Vancouver Teachers Association (1 October, 2010), Vancouver File No.


9/24

Page: 9

S106159 (B.C.S.C.), MacKenzie A.C.J. (the 2010 Vexatious LitigantOrder)

[15] Mr. Callow then sought to appeal the 2010 Vexatious Litigant Order to the BritishColumbia Court of Appeal. As a condition of proceeding with the appeal, the court required that

Mr. Callow post security for costs in the amount of $10,000, which he did. After posting this

security, Mr. Callow, days later, asked for it to be returned to him but then failed to take the

required steps under the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009to effect same. Instead,

he commenced an action in the Federal Court of Canada against British Columbia Court of

Appeal Justice James Threfall and British Columbia Court of Appeal Justice A.W. MacKenzie

(neither of which judges were properly described; Madam Justice MacKenzie being of the BCSC

and Justice Threfall being of the British Columbia Provincial Court): Callow v. The Board of

School Trustee of School District No. 45 and West Vancouver Teachers Association (20

December, 2010), Vancouver File No. CA038538 (B.C.C.A.), K.C. Mackenzie J. (Action

Against Judges).

[16] Mr. Callows Action Against Judges was struck out by Prothonotary Lafrenire of theFederal Court, on November 9, 2011, on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of

action, the proceedings constituted an abuse of process and the Federal Court had no jurisdiction

to review decisions made by judges of provincial courts: Roger Callow and British Columbia

Court of Appeal Chief Justice James Threfall, British Columbia Court of Appeal Justice A.W.

Mackenzie (9 November, 2011), Ottawa T-1386-11 (F.C.), Prothonotary R. Lafrenire (the

Prothonotarys Order).

[17] Mr. Callow then brought a Motion to set aside the Prothonotarys Order. This Motion wasdismissed by Mosley J. of the Federal Court on December 2, 2011, wherein he stated:

I fully agree with [the Prothonotarys] conclusion that there is no reasonable cause

of action disclosed by the Statement of Claim and that the proceedings constitutean abuse of process of this Courtno further steps shall be taken on this action

without leave of a judge or this court.

Roger Callow and British Columbia Court of Appeal Chief Justice James Threfall,

British Columbia Court of Appeal Justice A.W. Mackenzie (2 December, 2011),Ottawa T-1386-11 (F.C.), Mosley J.


10/24

Page: 10

[18] Mr. Callows attempted appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal from the 2010Vexatious Litigant Order (as per paragraph 15 above) was dismissed as abandoned by the Court

of Appeal Registrar, on April 30, 2012: Callow v. The Board of School Trustee of School District

No. 45 and West Vancouver Teachers Association (30 April, 2012), Vancouver File No.

CA038538 (B.C.C.A.), Registrar (the Registrars Order).

[19] Mr. Callow sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the Registrars Orderstriking out his Application to appeal the 2010 Vexatious Litigant Order. The Supreme Court of

Canada advised Mr. Callow by way of letter of November 28, 2012, that because the British

Columbia Court of Appeal had dismissed his Action for delay, he did not have a final judgement

which he could appeal to that court: Letter from Roger Bilodeau, Q.C., Registrar of the Supreme

Court of Canada to Roger Callow (28 November, 2012) Re: Roger Callow v. Board of School

Trustees (West Vancouver SD #45) and Roger Callow v. Board of School Trustees West

Vanvouver, B.C. #45Court of Appeal of British Columbia Number: CA038538.

[20] Mr. Callow now resides in Ontario. On July 13, 2012, he filed Civil Claim No.12-54944 with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Ontario Action #1). Ontario Action #1

again sought to litigate the Determined Matters in that it amounted, in essence, to a critique

regarding the manner in which the British Columbia courts and adjudicators had, over the

preceding 27 years, dealt with his complaints pertaining to his 1985 termination from unionized

employment, and a request for back salary and interest to his 1985 termination date.

Mr. Callows claim also sought to appeal the BCSCs declaration of him as a vexatious

litigant.

[21] On August 22, 2012, the Board filed a Notice of Motion in the Ontario Superior Court tohave Mr. Callows Claim in Ontario Action #1 struck out under the Rules of Civil Procedure,

R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the Boards Motion to Strike) on the basis that: it disclosed noreasonable cause of action (Rule 21.01(1) (b)); it was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of

process (21.01(3)(d)); and/or the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the Claim

(Rule 21.01(3)(a)).


11/24

Page: 11

[22] On November 1, 2012, Maranger, J. granted the Boards Motion to Strike on all groundsand struck out and/or dismissed the Respondents Claim on the basis of all requested grounds

finding inter alia:

4 [that the Claim was] for all intents and purposes a critique of how the BritishColumbia Courts and British Columbia Labour Relations Board have responded

to his various claims and does not disclose a reasonable cause of action

5 Mr. Callows claims have been litigated and re-litigated over the past 27

years, this case falls squarely within the Court of Appeals decision in Currie v.Hamilton Police Service Board, [2003] O.J. No. 4516, 2003 CanLII 7815

(ONCA) at paragraph 17 where the Court defined a frivolous, vexatious andabusive litigant

Callow v. West Vancouver School District No. 45, 2012 ONSC 6222, [2012] O.J. No.

5176 at paras. 4-5 (Maranger J. Endorsement)

[23] Mr. Callow also sought to appeal Maranger J.s dismissal of Ontario Action #1 directlyto the Supreme Court of Canada. In a letter dated November 28, 2012, Mr. Callow was advised

that he could not do so as Maranger J.s dismissal of Ontario Action #1 was not a Final Order

that could be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada: Letter from Roger Bilodeau, Q.C.,

Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada to Roger Callow (28 November, 2012) Re: Superior

Court of Justice for Ontario Number: 12-5494.

[24] Mr. Callow then appealed Maranger J.s dismissal of Ontario Action #1 to the OntarioDivisional Court. The Divisional Court dismissed his appeal on November 6, 2013: Callow v.

West Vancouver School District No. 45, 2013 ONSC 6899, [2013] O.J. No. 5023 (Div. Ct.),

Pardu J., McCartney J., Hennessy J. (Divisional Court Endorsement). Costs were awarded to

the Board in the amount of $10,000.00, made payable within 30 days.

[25] Mr. Callow has failed to pay the costs payment ordered by the Divisional Court. Hepurported to appeal this costs award by way of serving counsel for the Board with a Form 61A

(Notice of Appeal to an Appellate Court), and copying Justice Minister MacKay/SCOF Hon R.

Wagner/Ontario Premier K. Wynne.


12/24

Page: 12

[26] The Respondent also sought to appeal the Divisional Court Endorsement to the SupremeCourt of Canada. The Registrar of the Supreme Court corresponded with him on December 16,

2013, advising him that his matter could not be brought to that court given that he did not

appear to have a final or other judgement of the Federal Court of Appeal or of the highest court

of final resort in a province, or a judge thereof: Letter from Roger Bilodeau, Q.C., Registrar of

the Supreme Court of Canada to Roger Callow (16 December, 2013) Re: Roger Callow v. West

Vancouver School District #45 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice Number: DC-12-1872).

[27] Mr. Callow continued to make efforts to litigate in the Supreme Court of British Columbiawithout seeking leave to do so when he attempted to file a Notice of Civil 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:

1) Roger Callow shall not initiate any proceedings or seek leave to initiate in anyRegistry of the Supreme Court pertaining to or in any way connected with the[subject matter of the proceedings previously filed];

2) Any document or process filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order orany process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry is a nullity to which the

Defendant will not be obliged to respond.

Roger Callow and the Board of School Trustees of School District No. 25 and the West

Vancouver Teachers Association, (23 July, 2013) Docket S106159, Cullen A.C.J. (theCullen Order)

[28] On August 22, 2013, Mr. Callow initiated another action in this court (Court File13-58607), dealing again with the Determined Matters and specifically attempting to appeal

the Cullen Order (Ontario Action #2).

[29] On January 24, 2014, the Board served and filed a Statement of Defence in response toOntario Action #2.

[30] On February 12, 2014, Mr. Callow filed a Notice of Motion, to be heard on March 13,2014 in relation to Ontario Action #2, dealing again with the Determined Matters. The Motion

did not proceed on March 13, 2014 because Mr. Callow failed to file a Notice of Confirmation

Form. He has now rescheduled the hearing of that Motion for May 15, 2014.


13/24

Page: 13

Other Vexatious Conduct:

[31] In addition to Mr. Callows repeated attempts to litigate and re-litigate the DeterminedMatters, over the course of 29 years, he has also engaged in other vexatious conduct, revolving

around the Determined Matters and which, the Board submits, is indicative that Mr. Callow islikely to persist, indefinitely, in his litigation efforts unless restrictive measures are put in place.

Such conduct includes, without exhausting the menu, the following:

(a) Repeatedly and persistently writing directly to various political officials,agencies, judges (including directly to Supreme Court of Canada Judges) and

to the media about the Determined Matters in a manner that denigrates thejudiciary and the legal system and posting those letters and his pleadings to awebsite he maintains about the Determined Matters at

employeescasecanada.com. A non-exhaustive list of examples include:

August 13, 2006Open Letter to Chief Justice Beverley

McLachlin

January 22, 2012Open Letter to the Ottawa Citizen

January 17, 2012Letter to 9 Supreme Court Judges

February 1, 2012Letter to the Supreme Court of Canada, NadiaLoretti, Director

February 1, 2012Letter to the Human Rights Commission,Deputy Minister Myles J. Kirvan

February 5, 2012Open letter to the Ottawa Citizen addressed to

Rt. Hon. S. Harper P.M.

February 13, 2012Letter to Rt. Hon. Chief Justice Lance G.

Finch

February 17, 2012Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, Rt.Hon. S. Harper

March 1 2012Open letter to U.S. News Sources attaching OpenLetter to President Obama

(b) Repeatedly, and through various means, denigrating judges who havedismissed his claims/ruled against him. Such commentary has been included inhis pleadings/filings with the courts, posted on Mr. Callows Website and

publicly displayed by him on placards. Examples of each are excerpted below:


14/24

Page: 14

(i) Excerpts from commentary in the pleadings/filings with the Court:

I am now calling on Justice Minister Peter MacKay to remove

Divisional Court judges, Pardu/McCartney/Hennessy from thebench for gross dereliction of duty in their failure to address the

specifics of the MacKenzie Creed, the sole topic before them asPremier Wynne did not take this necessary action. Their claim for reasons best know to themselves - that they have no power to

over-rule a judge in another province (no laws or precedentsquoted) is preposterous. Even the Federal Court of Canada- which

I have asked Justice Minister Peter MacKay to investigate- didntstoop to that idiocy.

The central problem lies with Canadas Judiciary which buys into

the Respondents arguments to such an extent and degree that theyshould be considered as having abandoned their judicial role in

order to act as an agent for the Respondent. That is why, due tothis precedent setting case, there is no longer any rule of law inCanada.

The machinations of a MacKenzie Creed of October 2010 and theCullen Creed of July 2013 are the last gasps of a smashed

Canadian Justice System which will take the rest of the 21st centuryto unravel. Until that is done, Canada joins such as China wherethere may be courts, but there is no rule of law.

When a judge can derail a duly filed action in such a fashion thatthe deleted action is listed as abandoned on the Judicial Record

while the offending instigating actions sinks into the proverbialblack whole, all justice in any country is at an end. That is thestate of affairs currently in Canada due to systematic nefarious

judicial actions in this case.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay has until December 20-2013 to

deal with these matters from the BC Courts, the Federal Court andnow, Ontario courts due to Premier Wynnes inaction regarding thethree (3) judges mentioned above.

it is arguably a case of the administration tail wagging the

judicial dog.

I mention the above point here because those funds are frozen towhich I have no access as I have no status in B.C. courts due to theMacKenzie Creed. I would rather the Defendant receive those

funds in payment as opposed to seeing these monies end up in theJudges Xmas fund.


15/24

Page: 15

The action taken by Justice Cullen is so egregious that B.C.Attorney General Suzanne Anton should remove him from the

bench.

The failure of Appeal Court Chief Justice Lance Finch to

adjudicate this matter is why I called for the dismissal of bothjudges to be arranged through the office of the Prime Minister as itis clear that MacKenzie usurped the law and nothing was done

about it. Thats how Canada became a failed state: permitting ajudge to run a court within a court. No justice system can survive

under those circumstances.

Currently there is an action solely on the MacKenzie Creed inOntario Divisional Court (Appeal) DC-12-1872. Will 3 judges

tried and true screw it up? Based on past history, you can bet onit.

(ii) Excerpts from Commentary/Posting to Website and displays onPublic Placards:

Silly Ass Judges Kill Habeas Corpus

For Sale- Justice System

Canadian Justice System Broke and Yet it is Plenty Fixed as it is

Judges approve sweet heart deal, unions gone

(c) Reporting the lawyer for the Board to the Law Society of Upper Canada for noapparent reason other than the fact he represented the Board in launching the

present Application.

The Issues

[32] The issues in this Application are:(a) whether this court is satisfied that Mr. Callow has persistently and without

reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings in this or any court;

(b)

whether an Order should be granted, which would prohibit Mr. Callow frominstituting further proceedings in any Ontario court, except with leave of a Judgeof the Ontario Superior Court of Justice;

(c) whether an Order should be granted dismissing:(i) Ontario Action #2 commenced by way of Statement of Claim filed on

August 22, 2013,


16/24

Page: 16

(ii) the Motion commenced in Ontario Action #2 and currently scheduled tobe heard on May 15, 2014.

The Law

[33]

Section 140 of the CJA provides that where a judge of the Superior Court is satisfied, onapplication, that a person has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious

proceedings in any court or conducted a proceeding in any court in a vexatious manner, the judge

may order that no further proceeding may be instituted by the person in any court; and/or that a

proceeding previously instituted by the person in any court not be continued, except with leave

of the Superior Court of Justice (The Vexatious Litigant Provisions).

[34] Section 140 of the CJA, codifies the inherent jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice tocontrol its own process and to prevent abuses of that process by authorizing the court to restrict a

litigants right to access the courts: Kallaba v. Bylykbashi (2006), 265 D.L.R. (4th) 320 at para.

30 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 144.

[35] The rationale underlying s. 140 was discussed by Blair, J.A. in his dissenting opinion inFoy v. Foy (1979), 26 O.R. (2d) 220. Though he was describing provisions of the Vexatious

Proceedings Act, R.S.O. 1979, c. 481 which preceded the present s. 140of theCJA, the rationale

of the legislation remains the same. Blair, J.A. described the object of the legislation as follows

at para. 71 (Q.L.):

It is not difficult to perceive the object of the Vexatious Proceedings Act.

The protection afforded honest litigants by the exercise of the Courtsinherent jurisdiction to control abuse of process is subject to a serious

limitation. It can only be exercised ex post facto. The vexatious litiganthas the luxury of being able to initiate proceedings and to force the otherparty to the expense and inconvenience of responding. The severe

financial burden which can be inflicted on a responding party is madeobvious by this case. Moreover, the onus of proving that a proceeding is

an abuse of process will always be on the responding party. Clearly thepurpose of this legislation was to overcome the unfair advantage enjoyedby a vexatious litigant and, in cases where an order is made under the Act,

to place upon him the onus of establishing that any proposed proceedingsare not an abuse of the process of the Court. Significantly, the vexatious

litigant is not deprived of the right to bring proceedings. Rather, the burden
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec140_smoothhttp://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec140_smoothhttp://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.htmlhttp://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.htmlhttp://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.htmlhttp://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec140_smoothhttp://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec140_smooth


17/24

Page: 17

is shifted: the vexatious litigant must establish to the Court's satisfactionthat there is a prima facie ground for the proposed proceedings.

[36] The categories of vexatious proceedings are never closed and whether a particular litigantis vexatious must be determined on an objective standard: Mascan Corp. v. French (1988), 64

O.R. (2d) 1 (C.A.); Ontario v. Deutsch, [2004] O.J. 535 (Sup. Ct.).

[37] InRe Lang Michener et al. and Fabian et al. (1987), 59 O.R. (2d) 353, at para. 19 (Q.L.)(H. Ct. J.), Henry J. identified the indicators of vexatious proceedings as these:

(a) the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already beendetermined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatiousproceeding;

(b) where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to nopossible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief,

the action is vexatious;

(c) vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including theharassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought

for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights;

(d) it is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issuesraised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated andsupplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted foror against the litigant in earlier proceedings;

(e) in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at thewhole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause

of action;

(f) the failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay the costs ofunsuccessful proceedings is one factor to be considered in determining whether

proceedings are vexatious; and

(g) the respondents conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicialdecisions can be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceedings.

[38] In determining whether a litigant is vexatious within the meaning of s. 140 of the CJA, theCourt may consider not just litigation in court, but any proceeding in which the litigant is


18/24

Page: 18

involved, as well as the litigants involvement within those proceedings: Dale Streiman & Kurz

LLP v. De Teresi(2007), 84 O.R. (3d) 383 (Sup. Ct.); Ontario v. Deutsch, [2004] O.J. No. 535 at

para. 18 (Sup. Ct.).

[39] Courts may also consider the behaviour of a litigant, both inside and outside the courtroom,in determining whether a litigant is vexatious and whether restrictions should be imposed under

s. 140 of theCJA:Canada Post Corp. v. Varma (2000), 192 F.T.R. 278 at para. 23.

Application of the Law to the Facts:

[40] All the indicators and characteristics of vexatious litigation, as described in Re LangMichener are present in the current case. In particular:

The bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already beendetermined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious proceeding:

(i) Mr. Callow has been litigating and re-litigating the Determined Matters for

nearly thirty 30 years. He has initiated more than 20 proceedings about the

same issues that are res judicata.

(ii) This fact was recognized in the Maranger J. Endorsement at para. 5

dismissing Ontario Civil Action #1:

Mr. Callows claims have been litigated and re-litigated over the

last 27 years, this case falls squarely within the wording of theCourt of Appeals decision of Currie v. Halton Regional Police

Services Board 2003 O.J. No. 4516, 233 D.L.R. (4th) 657 atparagraph 17 where the Court defined a frivolous, vexatious andabusive litigant [Emphasis added.]

(iii) This fact has also been recognized by the Ontario Divisional Court

Endorsement at para. 5 upholding the Maranger J. Endorsement in Ontario

Action #1:

We agree that the claim does not disclose a cause of action. As

described in the reasons of the motion judge, the claim is essentiallya critique of prior decisions of various levels of the British Columbia

courts, most specifically, a decision of the BCSC declaring theappellant a vexatious litigant.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec140_smoothhttp://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.htmlhttp://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.htmlhttp://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.htmlhttp://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec140_smooth


19/24

Page: 19

(iv) The BCSC has recognized the impropriety of Mr. Callows claims many

times and has issued three separate Orders (2003, 2010 and 2013)

preventing the Respondent from accessing the court process, without

leave. The 2010 and 2013 Orders have declared that any document the

Respondent files with the Registry is a nullity and warrants no response

by the named defending/responding party.

Where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to nopossible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief,the action is vexatious:

(i) It is plain and obvious that Mr. Callows various actions respecting theDetermined Matters, which have already been heard and determined

numerous times in British Columbia and in respect of which Vexatious

Litigant Orders are in place in British Columbia, cannot possibly succeed

in Ontario.

(ii) As outlined in the Maranger J. Endorsement dismissing Ontario CivilAction #1 at paras. 4 and 6:

Mr. Callows claim is in essence a critique of how the British

Columbia Courts and Labour Relations Board have dealt with thedismissal.

A Court of the Province of Ontario does not have jurisdiction to hear

a claim that is inextricably intertwined in all respects with the lawsof the province of British Columbia.

(iii) In reviewing the Maranger J. Endorsement, the Divisional CourtEndorsement upheld these findings stating at para. 5:

The Superior Court of Justice of Ontario has no jurisdiction to

overturn an order of a judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court,and no jurisdiction to provide a remedy for a violation in British

Columbia of a British Columbia collective agreement.

(iv) It is plain and obvious that any actions about the Determined Matters

cannot succeed in the Ontario Courts.


20/24

Page: 20

It is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issuesraised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and

supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for oragainst the litigant in earlier proceedings:

(i)

It is clear that the grounds and issues that have been litigated and re-litigated in British Columbia proceedings have simply be rolled over and

repeated by Mr. Callow in Ontario Action #1 and Ontario Action #2. In

particular, the Determined Issues in British Columbia relate to the

termination, back pay and appeals of these issues through various channels

and to various courts. The pleadings filed in Ontario Actions #1 and #2

dealt with the same material. Ontario Action #2 also purports to appeal

the 2013 Cullen Order.

(ii) Mr. Callow has also, in more recent years brought actions against certain

of the Judges who have presided over the various proceedings he has

initiated. In particular, he has purported to sue two British Columbia

judges in the Federal Court. When a Federal Court Prothonotary

dismissed his proceeding, he then attempted to appeal that decision to

the Federal Court of Appeal.

(iii) Mr. Callow has also initiated a complaint to the Law Society of Upper

Canada against the Boards counsel, on the basis of counsel having

represented the Board in this proceeding.

The failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay the costs of unsuccessfulproceedings is one factor to be considered in determining whether proceedings are

vexatious:

(i) Mr. Callow currently has $10,000.00 unpaid costs outstanding arising fromthe Ontario Divisional Courts dismissal of his appeal of the Maranger J.

Endorsement. He has purported to appeal this costs Order by way of

serving counsel for the Applicant with a Form 61A, and copying Justice

Minister MacKay/SCOF Hon R. Wagner/Ontario Premier K. Wynne.


21/24

Page: 21

Mr. Callows conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicialdecisions can be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceedings:

(i) Mr. Callow has attempted to appeal virtually every Court and LabourRelations Board Decision that has been issued in B.C. in respect of the

Determined Matters; with attempts to appeal often being made to the

wrong court. He has been unsuccessful in all of his attempts.

(ii) Mr. Callow has also unsuccessfully attempted to appeal the Federal

Courts Dismissal of the Action Against Judges to both the Federal Court

of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.

(iii) Mr. Callow has also unsuccessfully appealed this courts dismissal of

Ontario Action #1 to the Ontario Divisional Court and has attempted to

appeal the Divisional Court decision directly to the Supreme Court of

Canada.

Other Vexatious Conduct Outside of the Courtroom

As recognized in Canada Post, conduct inside and outside of the courtroom are both relevant in

identifying vexatious litigation. In addition to persistently initiating litigation and appeals that

cannot possibly succeed regarding the Determined Matters, Mr. Callow has also conducted

himself in a vexatious manner in persistently writing to judges, public officials, the media and

other organizations concerning the Determined Matters, persistently posting commentary to his

website regarding the Determined Matters which denigrates the judiciary and legal system, and

displaying commentary by way of public placard regarded the Determined Matters in a manner

which denigrates the judiciary and the legal system.

Purposes Served by Section 140 of the Cour ts of Justi ce Act

[41] As stated by our Court of Appeal in Foy v. Foy, the purpose of Vexatious LitigantProvisions is to prevent the abuse of the courts system and ensure that a vexatious litigant

cannot freely continue to put the defending party through the costs and inconvenience of

vexatious litigation.


22/24

Page: 22

[42] It is beyond obvious that it would constitute an abuse of this courts process to allow Mr.Callow to continue, in Ontario, the litigation in respect of which he has been prohibited from

continuing in British Columbia, after nearly 30 years of cost and inconvenience to the Board.

[43] The court in Deutsch, in granting an order pursuant to s.140 of the CJA commented at para.27 (in respect of the litigant in issue) that:

Without any control (which is more than reasonably necessary in (the litigants)case [the litigant] will continue to run rampant through the judicial system in

Ontario, without any apparent thought or concern for the administration of justiceand the integrity of the justice system. Furthermore, he will, it appears,

needlessly clog up the courts, waste scarce judicial resources and preclude othersin other cases from obtaining timely access to the courts.

[44] Similarly, in this case, controls must be put in place to prevent Mr. Callow frompersistently, and without reasonable cause, initiating vexatious proceedings, abusing this courts

process, and voraciously consuming valuable and scarce judicial resources.

Disposition

[45] Orders issued pursuant s. 140 of the CJA, requiring that a litigant seek leave prior tocontinuing with any such proceeding previously instituted...in any court, includes appeals to

the Court of Appeal: Kallaba, at paras. 24-25. In effect, this means that the only Order that is

appealable as of right, following an Order issued under s. 140 of the CJA is the Vexatious

Litigant Order itself: Kallaba,at para. 27.

[46] In the result, orders shall issue:1. Declaring that Roger Callow may not, except with leave of a judge of the

Superior Court of Justice institute further proceedings (including purportedappeals) in any Registry of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the

Ontario Divisional Court, or the Ontario Court of Appeal in any way

pertaining to or in any way connected to the subject matter of the

proceedings in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Registry file numbers


23/24

Page: 23

12-54944 and 13- 58607 (Ontario Action #1 and #2 respectively) or in any

way pertaining to the 1985 termination of his employment.

2. Dismissing the action commenced by Mr. Callow in Statement of Claimcontained in file number 13- 58607 (Ontario Action #2).

3. Dismissing the motion brought by Mr. Callow currently scheduled to beheard on May 15, 2014 in respect of file number 13-58607.

4. Declaring that the Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver SD #45)will not be obliged to respond to any process initiated by Mr. Callow in

contravention of this Order or any document or process inadvertently filed

or received by any Registry in Ontario.

5. Ordering that Mr. Callow pay the Board its costs in this application fixedin the amount of $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Mr. Justice Colin McKinnon

Released: April 23, 2014


24/24

CITATION: West Vancouver School District No. 45 v . Callow, 2014 ONSC 2547COURT FILE NO.:13-59060

DATE:2014/04/23

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver SD #45)

Applicant

and

Roger Callow

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

C. MCKINNON J.

Released: April 23, 2014
http://intra.judicialsecurity.jus.gov.on.ca/NeutralCitation/http://intra.judicialsecurity.jus.gov.on.ca/NeutralCitation/

Documents

Roger Callow