Callow v. West Vancouver School District No. 45, 2004 CarswellBC 80 (B.C. C.A.)
Roger Callow’s employment as a teacher in the West Vancouver School district was terminated in November 1985. He launched several suits against the district, including a $2 million action alleging a conspiracy between it and his union, the West Vancouver Teachers’ Association.
The claim was dismissed in March 2003, on the grounds Callow lacked standing to bring the action because he was represented by a union and the dispute was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board. The court further acceded to the request of both the district and the union that an order be made restricting his ability to bring more actions against them.
The court noted Callow had not paid the costs of his previous appeal and ruled he had persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious legal proceedings. Callow was ordered not to start further legal actions without leave of the court, a decision that was appealed and led to this latest ruling.
In viewing all his claims, the Court of Appeal ruled Callow’s appeal had been a vexatious attempt to re-litigate matters already settled; and the court had been right not only to dismiss the action but also to bring some measure of control over Callow’s actions, to order, under section 18 of the Supreme Court Act, that future legal proceedings be limited.
Roger Callow’s employment as a teacher in the West Vancouver School district was terminated in November 1985. He launched several suits against the district, including a $2 million action alleging a conspiracy between it and his union, the West Vancouver Teachers’ Association.
The claim was dismissed in March 2003, on the grounds Callow lacked standing to bring the action because he was represented by a union and the dispute was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board. The court further acceded to the request of both the district and the union that an order be made restricting his ability to bring more actions against them.
The court noted Callow had not paid the costs of his previous appeal and ruled he had persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious legal proceedings. Callow was ordered not to start further legal actions without leave of the court, a decision that was appealed and led to this latest ruling.
In viewing all his claims, the Court of Appeal ruled Callow’s appeal had been a vexatious attempt to re-litigate matters already settled; and the court had been right not only to dismiss the action but also to bring some measure of control over Callow’s actions, to order, under section 18 of the Supreme Court Act, that future legal proceedings be limited.
