Callow v. Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver SD #45), 2012 ONSC 6222

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: 12-54944

RE: ROGER CALLOW – Plaintiff (Responding Party) v. BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES (WEST VANCOUVER SD #45) – Defendant (Moving Party)

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger

COUNSEL: Charles V. Hofley, for the Defendant (Moving Party)

Roger Callow – Self-Represented

E N D O R S E M E N T

1This was a motion to strike out the plaintiff's claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, alternatively an order dismissing the action on the basis that it is vexatious and abusive, in the further alternative that the action be dismissed on the basis that the court is without jurisdiction to hear the matter.

2The plaintiff was employed as a teacher by the defendant, the Board of Education of school district numbers 45 (West Vancouver) from 1968 to 1985. In 1985, the plaintiff's employment with defendant was terminated. The plaintiff has over the last 27 years initiated more than 20 proceedings challenging that termination including but not limited to:

(a) a grievance arbitration proceeding;

(b) various proceedings before the British Columbia Labour Relations Board and the British Columbia Supreme Court;

(c) various attempted appeals to both the British Columbia Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court of Canada;

(d) proceedings before the Federal Court of Canada.

3The plaintiff has been declared a vexatious litigant by the courts in the province of British Columbia. The Federal Court of Canada has declared that he requires leave to initiate any proceedings in that court.

4While it is clear that Mr. Callow feels that he has been wronged by the justice system of British Columbia, my review of his claim discloses that it is for all intents and purposes a written criticism by him of how the British Columbia courts and the British Colombia Labour Relations Board have responded to his various claims. I can discern no cause of action pleaded in the statement of claim. Consequently, I would strike the cause of action on the basis that it does not disclose any cause of action pursuant to rule 21.01 (1) (b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

5Furthermore, Mr. Callow's claims have been litigated and re-litigated over the last 27 years, this case falls squarely within the wording of the Court of Appeals decision of Currie v. Halton Regional Police Services Board 2003, 7815 (ONCA) at paragraph 17 where the Court defined a frivolous, vexatious, and abusive litigant in the following manner:

It is apparent that there is a degree of overlap in the meaning of the terms frivolous, vexatious and abuse of process. What I take from the authorities is that any action for which there is clearly no merit may qualify for classification as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. The common example appears to be the situation where a plaintiff seeks to re-litigate a cause which has already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.

6Finally, a court in the province of Ontario does not have jurisdiction to hear a claim that is inextricably intertwined in all respects with the laws of the province of British Columbia.

7For all of these reasons, the plaintiff's claim is struck and or dismissed. The defendant did not make any representation as to costs, I will accept two pages of written submissions on the subject within 15 days of release of this decision, failing which there will be no order as to costs.