JUMP TO HOME PAGE

APRIL  2014

 

OPEN LETTER TO PMO (CANADA)– APR.01-2014

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN  and  U.S. NEWS)

 

...TO TORTURE CHAMBER

 

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com (29 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. Canadians awoke in the New Year to a Justice System in tatters and without leaders to rectify this national debacle negatively affecting 35 million Canadians. In brief, the dual debacle of the credibility of the courts is matched by the debacle of government irresponsibility leaving 35 million Canadians in the lurch. Current series is now addressed to the Prime Minister's  Office due to the failure of P.M. Stephen Harper to fire his incompetent Justice Minister and now awaits the necessary leadership to face up to this issue of national importance. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears.

 

QUOTES: 1) 'Unlike law, which prescribes hard rules, culture works as a soft constraint. The law enforces punishment after a crime has been committed, while culture, by nurturing morality, prevents crimes from happening in the first place. A society's morality is often embodied in its culture.  EPOCH TIMES 

2) 'In other words, modern tyrants are more ascetically inclined, doing whatever is necessary, even if morally or ethically unsavoury, because they are acting impersonally to create a stable, peaceful and prosperous society (or as they tell themselves). Robert Sibley  Ottawa Citizen

 

MESSAGE

1) As the innocent target of a West Vancouver, B.C. School Board illicit lay-off in 1985 (unless the sorcery relates to the whistleblowing of fraud on the part of an administrator), I have been kept 'sailing on a sea of red tape never to put into the port of judgment' in this kafkaesque tale.

2) Without a judicial decision, no compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid.

3) In August of 2013, I laid #13-58607 in Ottawa Superior Court to contest the 'Cullen Creed' from B.C. Supreme Court which was laid in July, 2013 barring this litigant from any court for reasons best known to a judge as he did not quote any pertinent laws nor take argument. The Ontario courts powers under 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice' were cited.

4) In the above document, I accepted this loathsome document as judicial abandonment of my claim so that I could collect back salary plus interest which belongs to me apart from legal outcomes (as I should always have remained on contract until a resolution was found).

5) Rather than filing a response, the Employer filed a new action #13-59060 setting a hearing date before the main action, it is submitted here, as a means of undermining that main action. That hearing is slated for Apr. 10-14 (2 hrs) The main action is slated for May 15-14 (2 hrs)

6) This matter has been referred to the Upper Canada Law Society which has yet to reply to a Third Request. (Running an action in tandem is a no-no. Seeking to undermine a priori the central action is tantamount to running a court within a court)

7)The thrust of the Employer's argument is two-fold: To have the plaintiff labeled 'vexatious' as a means of excusing the court from addressing either the iniquity of the Cullen Creed or the financial obligations of this Employer to me.

8) Without the compliance of the court and the silence of the anti-employee media, the Employer cannot get away with this nonsense. Silence from Canadian professional teachers is due, no doubt, to Union leaders wishing to hide that dirty little secret of 'sweetheart deals', completing this picture of silence (although there is nothing to stop individuals from creating an internet 'viral' campaign).

9) In that regard, the Canadian courts are reduced to protecting the judicial register. In short, if a legal matter is like that proverbial tree falling in a forest with no-one to hear it; it does not make a sound in this analogy. Unfortunately, the Judicial System remains corrupted beyond all recall as Canada has now sunk to Third World status due to this unresolved legal case.

10) Leaving a litigant in legal limbo goes against the grain of all law for there can be no process without judgment...except, it would appear, now in Canada. Not to mention, of course, habeas corpus and 'ultimate remedy' (money must exchange hands under the 'collective bargaining rules'.)

cc Law Society of Upper Canada

ON Trial Lawyer's Association

SCofC Judge R. Wagner

Premier Wynne/Opp. leaders Horwath/Hudak      (no copy-waste of time)

P.M. Harper/Opp. leaders Mulcair/Trudeau/May (                   "                     )

CBC's Peter Manbridge

Ottawa Sun's Ezra Levant

Ottawa Citizens Editorial editor Kate Heartfield

Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver S.D.#45)

Chief Justice - Osgoode Hall

 

OPEN LETTER TO PMO (CANADA)– APR.06-2014

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN  and  U.S. NEWS)

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com (29 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. Canadians awoke in the New Year to a Justice System in tatters and without leaders to rectify this national debacle negatively affecting 35 million Canadians. In brief, the dual debacle of the credibility of the courts is matched by the debacle of government irresponsibility leaving 35 million Canadians in the lurch. Current series is now addressed to the Prime Minister's  Office due to the failure of P.M. Stephen Harper to fire his incompetent Justice Minister and now awaits the necessary leadership to face up to this issue of national importance. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears.

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

 

QUOTE  'Nadon ruling latest blow to P.M.'  O.C. Mar.22-14 A2

 '...Some, such as Justice Department whistleblower Edgar Smith, are openly questioning who in government is minding the constitutional store.

   "If the attorney general, the Prime minister, Governor General and the chief justice of the Supreme Court aren't, it's pretty pathetic that they rely on citizens," Galati said.

'...People said to me in that case (subject material unnecessary to make this point),"They've been doing it for 60 years, how can it be wrong?" I (Galati) said, "Nobody's challenged it." '.

     'Ultimately, private citizens must be prepared to step up and challenge government and the courts, Galati said Friday...the constitution belongs to the citizens and it's there that we find our protection....'

     '...It's true, it's often the citizens that bring up these challenges. It's just pathetic that the court doesn't recognize that the citizens who are grieved by these constitutional breaches shouldn't have to be the ones to pay to fix the constitutional breaches.' (my bold print)

 

MESSAGE

1) So P.M. Harper was conveniently 'out of country' with the SCofC  rejection of his SCofC choice of Justice Nadon. Draft dodger Pierre Trudeau was also AWOL on the first Remembrance Day of his prime ministership although a very nervous Pierre turned up on the second year. All this 'tempest in a tea pot' could be due, more than to any other reason, to catty SCofC judges annoyed with retired ScofC judges, Ian Binnie & Louise Charron, for being 'bought off'.

The lone SCofC minority position on Nadon appears closer to the truth.

2) It would seem that Hicks,Morley et al for the Employer would borrow a leaf from the P.M. with his 'retro-active' legislation in the Nadon matter (which is actually anarchy by any other name and also rejected by the SCofC in the Nadon matter).

3) In order to escape their fiduciary responsibilities in the Employee's Case (no compensation   -includes pension rights-has been paid in 29 years contrary to any number of laws in this case), the disingenuous approach of Hicks, Morley on April 10 #13-59060 Ottawa Superior Court    10 AM will seek to operate retroactively in thwarting the main hearing on May 15 #13-58607 laid prior to #13-59060.

4) By having this employee declared 'frivolous and vexatious', they would seek to undermine the May 15-2014 hearing in an 'a priori' manner which is counter to good judicial processes.

5) I say 'good' because I have been receiving nothing but bad processes from over 8 separate courts in Canada including the SCofC justifying why my moniker is the 'Outlawed Canadian'.

At least Harper got into court; I can't as I am persistently rejected on 'judicial grounds' in this unresolved legal case leaving me in limbo.

6) More recently, I have sent a second request (March 24-14 of Aug.30-13) of Justice Minister, Peter MacKay, to the PMO on a constitutional crisis much more significant than the Nadon challenge.

7) Other than the SCofC, judicial opinions may be appealed. Even here, the rejection of this case for a hearing by the SCofC  in 2004 created a ground breaking precedent as with all other cases, an upper court rejection leaves a lower court decision in its place. As there was no lower court decision extant in the unique circumstances of the Employee's Case, the SCofC rejection was tantamount to making 'no legal decision into a legal decision'. That contradiction hits at the very basis of the credibility of any justice system.

8) Many rejections have been received over the past few years by the SCofC Registry on judicial grounds; basically an interpretation of Section 40 which I believe Registrar Roger Bilodeau has deliberately misconstrued as a means of protecting SCofC judges for any hearing would of necessity reveal their cupidity in the 2004 ruling.

9) Over Registry rejections, there are no appeals which explains my letter (2nd Appeal March 24-2014 to PMO). In short, I submit that Bilodeau usurped the role of the SCofC judges creating a constitutional crisis of no mean proportions. Why have judges at all if the Registry is the final arbiter of judicial matters? Bilodeau, it is submitted here, radically altered the function of the role of the Registry as an administrative body to that of a judicial one.

10) In the matter of the Employee's Case, both the judges and registries have made themselves de facto agents for the interests of this particular Employer, the Board of School Trustees in West Vancouver (S.D.#45) creating a constitutional crisis without equal.

 

cc Law Society of Upper Canada

ON Trial Lawyer's Association

SCofC Judge R. Wagner

Premier Wynne/Opp. leaders Horwath/Hudak      (no copy-waste of time)

P.M. Harper/Opp. leaders Mulcair/Trudeau/May (                   "                     )

CBC's Peter Manbridge

Ottawa Sun's Ezra Levant

Ottawa Citizens Editorial editor Kate Heartfield

Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver S.D.#45)

Chief Justice - Osgoode Hall

 

PART  II

 

HE FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA IS INCLUDED AS REPLY 25A (#13-59060 APRIL 10-14 HEARING DATE & #13-58607 MAY 15-14 HEARING DATE). A COPY IS ALSO ENCLOSED TO HON. MADELEINE MEILLEUR, THE NEW ONTARIO A.G. WHOM I HAVE ASKED TO APPOINT TOP JUDGES TO THESE HEARINGS (NO CHIEF JUSTICES NOR DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICES NEED APPLY).

 

OPEN LETTER TO PMO (CANADA)– APR.07-2014

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN  and  U.S. NEWS)

 

 

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com (29 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. Canadians awoke in the New Year to a Justice System in tatters and without leaders to rectify this national debacle negatively affecting 35 million Canadians. In brief, the dual debacle of the credibility of the courts is matched by the debacle of government irresponsibility leaving 35 million Canadians in the lurch. Current series is now addressed to the Prime Minister's  Office due to the failure of P.M. Stephen Harper to fire his incompetent Justice Minister and now awaits the necessary leadership to face up to this issue of national importance. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears. I feel like Ralph Nader in 1961 trying to convince the public of dangerous cars (Unsafe at any speed). Who knows, maybe recalling judges and chief judges may become standard fare in the future just like automobiles. To be sure, the current system is not working.

 

QUOTE: '...prosecutors of attempting to deflect from the weakness of their case by laying a smokescreen of irrelevant evidence, ''creating an elephant in the room that is impossible to ignore...."  While the above quote by lawyer Michael Edelson is on another unrelated case; the legal tactic used here by the 'prosecutors' is similar to the Hicks, Morley (for the Employer) approach recently appealed to the Upper Canada Law  Society.

 

JUSTICE SYSTEM OF CANADA 'UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED'

 

REBUTTAL TO LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA' LAW CLERK, ALDONA-MARIA BIGOS (Mar.26-14) Your #2014-135167

Question posed to the Law Society: May a Defense Council, rather than responding to an action, launch instead their own action and arrange to have it heard before the main action laid by the Plaintiff with the aim of derailing the main action?

1) As a general rule of law, two actions affecting each other may not exist in tandem.

2) The specious argument by the Defendant would no doubt be that such is not the case as the one they subsequently laid takes precedence in being heard first.

3) This type of logic cannot hold. Two judges operating in two separate courts are provided with different materials and therefore are not able to give a judicial finding from one court taking into account that their particular decision impinges on the actions of the second court.

4) As such, Hicks, Morley et al for the Defense are perverting the course of justice in a significant way and will forever change the practice of law should Defense Counsel be permitted to 'run a court within a court' with this type of practice. In short, there would be bedlam if it got known that the Upper Canadian Law Society (UCLS)through their inaction has sanctioned this insidious practice.

5) Note that the objection does not apply to lodging a concurrent Defense or a Defense in the future. It is solely a protest against acting a priori to gain unfair legal advantage in court.

6) For this reason, I have requested $30,000 in maintenance fees from the court of #13-59060 being heard on April 10-2014 in Ottawa Superior Court. (The main action #13-58607 is slated to be heard May 15-2010 in the same court.) I cannot imagine Hicks, Morley taking a precipitous action such as this without prior complicity with the court.

 

REBUTTAL:

7) I suppose that I should count myself blessed that I received a two page tome signed with both names from the UCLS as the usual response from extra-legal personnel is a phone call from the youngest clerk in the office labeled Beth, or Indigo, or Jennifer just saying 'no go'. Some courts do not even respond keeping the fees to apply, no doubt, to their Xmas fund.

8) In the opening paragraph of her 'omnibus bill' , clerk Aldona -Maria covers the full gamut of the case concluding with this line: 'You feel that you may have been denied justice and you appear to be seeking the Law Society's assistance in this matter.'  (She neglects to point out that without a judicial finding as earlier ordered by the court, no compensation according to the collective agreement has been paid so, yes, I 'may' have been denied justice.)

9) 'After reviewing the information you provided, we (is this the 'royal we'?) have found that the concerns you raise are not something that the Law Society can deal with. (Do you mean that they are not competent to deal with the question outlined in 1-5 above?) We can only act on complaints that provide information suggesting a lawyer has done something contrary to our Rules of Professional Conduct. (Ah, now we have it. No legal counsel has ever pulled this stunt before hence there is no rule on it...way to go, UCLS!

10) In her redundant letter where she 're-invents the legal wheel' , Aldona-Maria points out the inability of the UCLS to intervene in matters within the purview of the court which, as any idiot can see from #1-5 is not the question that I asked of the UCLS.

11) A copy of this account is being forwarded to the new ON Attorney General, Madeleine Meilleuir whom I have tasked with finding out what happened to an appeal for costs (DT-12-1872) to Osgoode Hall which appears to have fallen into a black hole.

12) It should also be known that her ineffective predecessor had been more of the problem than the solution in this case in Ottawa. If ,as the current A.G., she sanctioned that silly letter from the Premier threatening legal action; Ontario voters have much about which to be concerned. Only amateurs threaten legal action.

13) Much is made in letters such as the above that I am not represented by legal counsel implying that bureaucracies speak only to other bureaucracies. My 'uniformed' reaction?...a fool and her legalities are soon parted if the media hop on this one.

14) A copy of this letter is included to Opposition leaders Horwath and Hudak  to 'put their money where their mouth is' on an issue of national importance as the credibility of the legal system is more important than one evasive UCLS letter.

 

cc  ON Trial Lawyer's Association

SCofC Judge R. Wagner

Premier Wynne/Opp. leaders Horwath/Hudak      (Wynne copy to A.G. Meilleuir)

P.M. Harper/Opp. leaders Mulcair/Trudeau/May ( no copies - waste of time)

CBC's Peter Manbridge

Ottawa Sun's Ezra Levant

Ottawa Citizens Editorial editor Kate Heartfield

Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver S.D.#45)

Chief Justice - Osgoode Hall

 

APRIL 09-2014 oral outline for #13-59060 April 10-14 Ottawa Supreme Court

1) Point 3 of 'confirmation letter' of April 07-14

 

2) Three Questions which must be answered in court today:

     a) Will the court assign maintenance fees against Hicks Morley in the sum of $30,000 for an allegedly fraudulent act?

     b) Will the court insist that Hicks Morley responds to this question which underlies the whole case? 'Is the Employer bound to pay compensation to this employee? If so, how and when would that be done?

     c) Will the court produce its own prima facie case as to the legitimacy of the "Cullen Creed"? Those findings are instrumental in the main case running on May 15-2014. Should the court quash the #13-58607 hearing on May 15-2014 as per the request of Hicks, Morley, I will ask the presiding justice to recuse herself/himself from the proceedings.

 

General Response

1) I have no problem accepting the Employer's factum as a defense to #13-58607 H.D. May 15-2014

 

2) I have every problem with Hicks, Morley filing a separate action - as opposed to a defense - in a bid to pre-empt the hearing on May 15-2014.

 

3) In #13-59060, I submit that Hicks, Morley is seeking to inveigle the court into committing a most egregious act; namely to cancel #13-58607 on May 15-2014.

 

4) I must have a definitive answer today as to questions b) and c) above before leaving court  as this is the only time the three parties will be present to discuss this issue.

 

5) Noted here is that there is no causality included in either the MacKenzie Creed (currently being dealt with at the Supreme Court of Canada) and the Cullen Creed nor is there any connection drawn between the two judgments. This current appeal relates solely to the Cullen Creed of July 23-2013.icks, MorleyHick All other matters are extraneous.

 

OPEN LETTER TO PMO (CANADA)– APR.13-2014

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN  and  U.S. NEWS)

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com (29 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. Canadians awoke in the New Year to a Justice System in tatters and without leaders to rectify this national debacle negatively affecting 35 million Canadians. In brief, the dual debacle of the credibility of the courts is matched by the debacle of government irresponsibility leaving 35 million Canadians in the lurch. Current series is now addressed to the Prime Minister's  Office due to the failure of P.M. Stephen Harper to fire his incompetent Justice Minister and now awaits the necessary leadership to face up to this issue of national importance. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears. I feel like Ralph Nader in 1961 trying to convince the public of dangerous cars (Unsafe at any speed). Who knows, maybe recalling judges and chief judges may become standard fare in the future just like automobiles. To be sure, the current system is not working.

 

QUOTES:

1) '...The judicial system is fragmented and riddled with corruption, often falling to Canada's sectarian-based power sharing politics. Political interference in the judiciary is common, and courts are accused of succumbing to political pressures.' April Fools! The country actually named was Lebanon.

2) 'The point is that we have been starting with the answers, while real questions go begging. It seems to be more than past time to ask the hard questions'. Letter to Editor writer (the source of all conspiracies and subsequent cover-up)

 

CANADIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM - UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED

 

A COMPARISON BETWEEN CONRAD BLACK'S 'FIGHTING RESTRICTIONS ON DOING BUSINESS' AND MY'FIGHTING RESTRICTIONS ON GETTING COURT ACCESS'

 

1) On the one occasion I wrote Black on his Chicago courtroom loss  due to placing his alter-ego, 'Fast Eddy' to present his case to a lunch-bucket jury; he wasn't amused. Fast Eddy was not his first choice; I should check out my facts first, he retorted.

2) The above reveals why Black is a testosterone filled Alpha male while I am quite happy to be relegated to the 'woodwork' as a Beta male as I have no desire to lord it over my bretheran and, in my experience, many who do are poorly equipped for the job.

3) This latter point is salient in that Black made many enemies with his control of the Chicago Tribune whom, I suspect, were only to ready to entice the Federal boys in on the promise of successful RICO charges which could enrich them. Those racketeering accusations didn't see daylight (as they should not have).

4) We are both blackened by the Justice System; Black as a victim and myself as a target.

5) Rightfully or wrongfully (as Black would have it), he is a convicted felon in the U.S. and due to financial arrangements between both countries, his status in Canada is negatively affected.

6) As a laid-off teacher for economic reasons (which have never been tested in law for 29 years before 8 courts and over 30 judges) where no compensation has taken place (including pension rights) I am an innocent target (unless 'whistleblowing' is a crime) left in limbo .

7) The parallels relate to the court procedures applied to the both of us:

     a) Both us of are accused of 'relitigating' cases which permits the courts to duck out.

     b) Both of us are blocked with access to the courts or tribunals; Black to do business

          in Canada and me to finalize an unresolved legal labour case.

      c) Both of us are being victimized by a system which has a pre-made decision in which 

          the authorities have carte blanche powers. Black's lawyers voice that concern:

          'We hope and expect the panel doesn't have a pre-conceived notion of Black's fitness to

           be an officer and a director. It's not Black's fault the story is long and complicated.' Peter

           Howard  Lawyer for Conrad Black

      d) Both of us are objects of authoritarian tunnel vision. In Black's case,  'This issue is not

          about what Black has done right,' argues the OSC staff lawyer, 'it is what he has done

          wrong'. In my case, my lack of success before many courts seeking to finalize a court case

          that a judge once argued back to litigation after quashing the original arbitration

          labeling, as the judge did, the arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable' was due to

          systematic judicial culpability as, it is submitted here, the court became a defacto agent

          of the Employer to gain through the back door what they could not gain through the

          front door. The Employer did not fulfill that court Order leaving me in limbo thanks to

          over 30 judges and 8 courts. The employment scene has been completely altered.

      e) Black as a manager has one thing that I, as an employee, do not have; media coverage.

          

8) Whatever the outcome for Black, the  Canadian Justice System remains basically intact; not so for the Employee's Case as Canada reverted to Third World status in 2004 in failing to hear my case under the 'ultimate provisions' label. Recent court contretemps are leading to the complete collapse of the Canadian Justice System...but don't expect to read that in the anti-employee media.

- o -

April 21-2014

 

TO: Hicks Morley et al

ATTN: C. Hofley esq.

sent by fax only   613-234-0418  2  pages including this one  REPLY REQUESTED

FROM: Roger Callow

phone/fax 613-521-1739

 

MESSAGE:

1) It would seem that the alacrity which Justice Maranger Of Ontario Superior Court managed to deliver his judgment (later appealed) in an earlier hearing (3 hours! ...not difficult if the judgment had been pre-written which it could very well have been as it did not bear witness to arguments made by me in court) is not to be matched by Justice MacKinnon from Superior Court in a hearing launched by you on April 10-2014 (#13-59060) predating my #13-58607 on the same issue slated for May 15-2014...a nice 'tandem' match; if not a bent one. (now known as the 'Hicks Morley caper')

2) Whatever prompted you to file this allegedly fraudulent action is beyond me. You not only embarrass the court services but also your client.

3) Asking that the Court to declare me a 'vexatious' litigant in this unresolved legal matter, to cancel the hearing set by me in a previously laid action on the same issue and finally, to ask the court to confirm - for the first time in 29 years - that the Employer does not have to pay any compensation; is quite a mouthful.

4) All three requests are doomed to failure; the first two because they cannot obviate my original hearing as, if need be, I merely lay another one. The third request is amazing in that Justice MacKinnon gave a long song and dance about not involving the Ontario courts in this issue. How can he make a judicial finding regarding the efficacy of the original lay-off in B.C. under these circumstances? If he does, as I stated in court, the appeal would not refer to the usual 'judicial bias' in appeal, rather to 'judicial malfeasance'...placed in my 'bad books' in your words to which I replied; 'You mean I have good ones?' (certainly not for the courts or politicians in this issue.)

5) However, be that as it may, it is recognized that in the April 10-2014 Hearing, you requested that all issues be discussed; something I was not prepared to do in #13-58607 as the Ontario courts are not competent - as confirmed by Justice MacKinnon - to involve themselves in such as the propriety of the initial lay-off. That proposition, it would appear, belongs to the Supreme Court of Canada which badly screwed up by failing to hear this issue in 2004. 'You have exhausted all remedy under the law' was the candid opinion of my legal advisor at that time; a rather preposterous notion when one thinks about it.

6) However, due to your importune action, perhaps some good can come out of this imbroglio  as now both of us are prepared to see the matter defined for all issues: (Was that your intention? Does your client know what you are up to?)

a) Only the Supreme Court of Canada is in a position to deal with all issues hence an appeal of MacKinnon's Order - no matter what it states - must be made to the Appeal Court at Osgoode Hall who will be asked by me for a 'by' in order to avoid yet another 'speed bump' on the way to the Supreme Court of Canada where I have a number of submissions on file. I'm ready to roll if you are...or not.

b) In the event #13-58607 is to be held, will you now agree to handle this as a 'Special Case' before 3 judges now that we can agree on the question? (I agree that you may claim more billable time with more hearings.): "The plaintiff and the defendant both agree that the question of compensation underlying this case is based on the employee claiming that compensation - in whatever amount - is due while the employer claims that no compensation in this case is due to the employee." That point on your part was explicit in the April 10-2014 hearing.

7) As a side-note, you claimed in your factum that I had not paid for my most recent claim ordered by the Ottawa Divisional Court  (DT12-1872) P.S. Both of us had a good laugh, didn't we, about 'Justice Rip Van Winkle' who fell asleep in that earlier one hour hearing as I so aptly pointed out.

8) In fact, I invited you to dip into a surety in B.C. courts frozen to me for which I would give my full support; the difference one way or the other to be made up later (better you than seeing these funds end up in the Judge's Xmas Party pot!) Regrettably - and again you made no reference in your account - to the fact that an appeal of these costs disappeared down a black hole in Osgoode Court in Toronto. New A.G. Meilleur was asked to investigate. I am sure she never read the letter in reply from a department factotum who misconstrued this issue. Perhaps you can make yourself useful in this regard by making enquiries as no-one speaks to me; at least in language I am permitted to understand.

9) Please respond soonest regarding that matter of making this a Special Case before three judges as I need to include your answer in a REPLY25A. I would like to see an end to this issue as much as the Employer would... the judges and 'billable time lawyers' may be another matter.

Yours truly

_________________

Roger Callow  aka 'The Outlawed Canadian'

cc Board of School Trustees-West Vancouver  by fax: 1-604-981-1001

- 0 -

 

Right of Reply to Ottawa Citizen's article (April 26-2014) by Andrew Duffy entitled "Ontario judge lowers the boom on 'vexatious' Ottawa litigant"

Plaintiff has spent 29 years treating courts like 'all-you-can-eat buffet,' judge fumes.

 

1) The impression I receive from this article is that Duffy was handed a 'dirty biscuit' by his editor with this admonishment: 'Don't publish the web site address' which, incidentally, is www.employeescasecanada.com

2) As noted in his article, I have been a common sight with my placards in downtown Ottawa for the past 10 years pillorying the legal and political bureaucracies. Judges knees only turn to jelly when they hear the tom toms beating outside the courtroom door. Being a Joe nice-guy doesn't work as I and many other groups have found out much to our chagrin.

3) To reduce this story to its conclusion which I have labeled the 'West Vancouver School Board Trustee Final Solution' now to be copied by disreputable employers across Canada: "We are not dismissing you from your position; rather we are laying you off and if you do not sign a $1 settlement, you will not collect your pension."(as is the case here). Would the 'right to work' brigade ever love that one.

4) Unions understandably do not want to finance court cases as win or lose, they are still left with a legal bill; oftentimes a sizable one as in the case of the original arbitration which was quashed by the court with the arbitrator ruled 'patently unreasonable' in 1986.

5) The effect of that judicial quashing above was to conceal School Board personnel perjury along with their lawyer's role of counseling fraud. It also left me - as it turns out as the targeted person - in a permanent state of limbo where no compensation has been paid including back salary which exists apart from judicial outcomes.

6) To cut a long story short, the fault lies with the Supreme Court of Canada which failed to hear two vital challenges in this case: the 'universality of unions' (1997) and 'ultimate remedy' (2004) under the collective bargaining rules. The Preamble to the 2004 Hearing is particularly insightful as to the conspiracy of the judicial process.(as opposed to the original conspiracy of an imposed BILL 35 of which Ontario teachers are only too aware with their own recently imposed BILL 115)

7) Former Chief Justice Antonio Lamers,(d.) (current) Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin refused that first hearing raising the question of the value of Union membership in Canada; particularly in the face of a 'sweetheart deal' between Employer and Union which I submit was the case here. I have listed McLachlin's name in subsequent appeals as having 'a conflict of interest'.

8) Of far more damaging consequence is the abuse of the 'ultimate remedy' provision of the collective bargaining agreement - in essence - contract violation in which money must change hands in whatever amount. That's when I submit Canada was reduced to being a Third Class Nation.

9) One point that Justice McKinnon and I are in complete agreement is that Ontario is not the place to deal with this issue, particularly now that the Employer has admitted for a first time that they do not have any obligation to pay any compensation as well as requesting that all issues be placed on the table.

10) The proper place is, once again, the Supreme Court of Canada. Regrettably, the good judge had no suggestion as to how I could get there particularly, as he stated in his finding, his decision could not be appealed. Of what is he afraid? That a Third presence in the Supreme Court of Canada would bring into juxtaposition their earlier perfidy in this issue?

11) A major drawback for my legal standing is that the courts, in my case, have claimed that only the Union may represent me (at least in B.C.); a union which has deserted this case and refused me the right to continue at my own expense. Even in hoary old Ireland, a condemned man had to give his name before execution. In this analogy, I would have to respond, 'West Vancouver Teachers Association'. Hence I require intervenor status; again, something only the Supreme Court of Canada can grant now that the Employer has finally requested that all issues be placed on the table for now the Union must be represented.

12) Space limits why I have referred this matter regarding Justice McKinnon to the Judicial Council of Judges although the explanation may be found on my website. He has good reason 'to fume'.

 

Yours truly

 

 

Roger Callow 'The Outlawed Canadian'

fax: 613-521-1739

 

'What must be avoided at all costs, is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law'  Justice Estey  St. Anne-Nackawic

 

Preamble to Supreme Court of Canada Appeal

(This Appeal denied in June/04 – explains why Canadian Justice System imploded) 

This preamble makes an unusual request regarding habeas corpus 

     The correctness of the lay-off of teacher Roger Callow from his teaching position in West Vancouver in 1985 has never been properly tested. That fact flies in the face of the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada and yet over 30 judges up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada has not seen fit to insist that Mr. Callow be provided the key evidence of School Board meeting notes pertaining to the matter of his lay-off. To that extent, the judicial system is a part of the conspiracy charge which Mr. Callow has laid against the Teachers Union and the School Board and yet, due to the nature of the law, can only be referred to obliquely. Should the Supreme Court of Canada proceed on the frivolous and vexatious charge by which Mr. Callow is estopped from being granted a legal hearing without insisting, in this most unusual of cases, for the necessary disclosure of evidence to be provided to him; namely, the School Board meeting notes of 1985, then all Canadian law is at an end. Conversely put, it may be asked, how may Mr. Callow defend a negative which is a logical impossibility; namely, that he was not indeed laid off by the West Vancouver School Board in June of 1985? 

     There are good grounds to conclude that Mr. Callow has been the object of a massive conspiracy to deny him access to the laws. In 1986, Justice Mary Southin, in quashing the arbitration favouring the School Board claiming, as she did, that the arbitrator had been patently unreasonable in his conclusion favouring the School Board, had stated that ‘nowhere did the Board express a willingness to lay off a teacher under the new statute’ implying the fraudulency of the School Superintendent’s letter to that effect. Mr. Callow from his experience from the condemned arbitration in which no School Board member was called to the stand to explain how an increase of 16 teaching positions – any number of which Mr. Callow was capable of holding – submits that, while knowing otherwise, he is being denied any hearing which would give him an opportunity to voice his dissent. Certainly no such reference to the lay-off was publicly made in the monthly report in June of 1985 where the additions were noted in arbitration. No mention is made of any lay-off. 

     Considering that Justice Southin in 1986 ordered that all material pertaining to the lay-off of Mr. Callow be made available to the court and no doubt serves as the basis of her conclusion, then we submit such information would be the property of the Union and therefore should be made available to Mr. Callow even though the court has decreed that the Union has full control of this matter as far as questioning the matter of his lay-off. Both the Union and School Board steadfastly refuse to hand over this vital information. Indeed, it would appear that it was the laying of a conspiracy charge against the two parties which prompted the current frivolous and vexatious charge by which those two have successfully evaded having to produce the vital ‘missing link’ information. The failure of the two Appeal Court decisions of the B.C. Supreme Court to address that concern is at the heart of this appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

     Simply put, how can the justice system of Canada in all good conscience deny Mr. Callow access to the court to resolve an unresolved legal matter which even the court has declared should have been re-arbitrated. The fact that the original arbitrator passed away under a law which would not see the appointment of any other arbitrator calls into play the courts role of inherent jurisdiction in order to finalize this case. Failure to do so up to and including one appeal already to the Supreme Court of Canada is a denial of the letter and spirit of the law in Canada.

"The curse of the world is not decisions taken, Blake reflected, it's the decisions shelved, bought off, sidestepped."   War Dance Tim Sebastian

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. Pierre Elliot Trudeau (1919-2000) '...Every government must accept responsibility for the rights of the citizens within its own jurisdiction. Canada as a whole suffers when any of her citizens is denied his rights, for that injustice places the rights of all of us in jeopardy.'