ROUGH JUSTICE

OPEN LETTER TO PMO (CANADA)– JUNE.22-2014

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

JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case(Canada)

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. ...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.

ROUGH JUSTICE

and in the end; rough justice is really no justice at all

1) The legal fraternity hate to see a judge's decision challenged, and lord knows how many such Decisions ought to be over-ruled; the Employee's Case being no exception.

2) I have experienced - if that is the proper word - 4 Courts on the Appeal level in B.C., Federal Court, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) and currently Ontario.

3) The unique feature of Ontario is that I only wish to surpass it to the SCofC as that is the only court which can handle all issues in the unresolved Employee's Case. That wish was surprisingly made by the Employer in #13-59060 which they launched for that purpose.

4) In short, the Employer didn't get that end although they managed to bring the court into disrepute with their efforts accommodated by Justice C. McKinnon. That case is under appeal with, as noted above, using the Appeal Court of Ontario as a mere stepping stone to the SCofC. That has never happened before and the judiciary is wild about it.

5) When the Supreme Court of Canada rejects action for a hearing (close to 85% of the time), the litigants are left with a lower court decision which certainly, in terms of one side, would appear to be a miscarriage of justice. Hence, The SCofC, in that regard, is a great burial ground for contentious issues which is generally accepted by the public.

6) No matter, it has become common practice to accept the above court finality as having paid recognition to the fundamental legalisms such as that of due process, habeas corpus, there can be no process without judgment.

7) To the best of my knowledge, all cases rejected for a hearing have a lower court decision to fall back on; not so the Employee's Case where an arbitration was quashed leaving former senior West Vancouver Teacher, Roger Callow, laid off in June of 1985 in a permanent state of limbo where no compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. As such, even no lip service has been applied to the three key legal fundamentals outlined in 6). Therein lies the charge of anarchy for without the observance of these three key legal concepts, there can be no law. PLACARD: CANADIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM / "DUE PROCESS"=" DULY PROCESSED"

8) In 1995, this targeted employee went before Justice Spencer of the B.C. Supreme Court arguing that as the Employer had not returned to litigation to finalize this matter as ordered by the court and thus abandoned this matter, the court had the power to change the should return employment to must return employment as earlier recommended by Justice Mary Southin who quashed the original arbitration labeling, as she did, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. (He had converted 16 new hires into 16 lay-offs adding Callow as the 17th knowing full well that Callow was the only lay-off that year. In short, I was the victim of a government conspiracy (BILL 35) in which the government was hi-jacked for this single-laid case for whistleblowing (banana republic justice) and the judiciary was co-opted with a government-appointed arbitrator to sanction a sweetheart deal between an Employer and Union.

9) Justice Spencer refused the request as well as failed to place me back on salary (I should never have been removed from salary until this legal matter was concluded; a key failure of Justice Southin in that regard as well). While being aware of the laws of frustration (the matter had been referred back to the same arbitrator who had subsequently died); Spencer claimed that the only person to hear a re-arbitration was dead. Hence he did nothing although noting that I was bound by any agreement signed between the Employer and Union.

10) The Union refused to sign a carte blanche settlement with the Employer which would leave them exposed to a legal action which would, of necessity, reveal the perfidy of all those attached to the conspiracy. That was fine with the B.C. Labour Board (Barbara Parkinson Decision B117/2002)

11) The Spencer Decision set the template for all other hearings in which courts bobbed and weaved to avoid any hearing (in the case of a B.C. Labour Board, a Section 12 hearing) whatever.

12) The matter eventually rose to the level of the SCofC, first on the universality of unions e.g. does union control extend into pension claims? before Chief Justice A. Lamers (d.) including Justice Beverley McLachlin. She was Chief Justice in 2004, when the SCofC rejected a hearing under the ultimate remedy provisions of the collective bargaining process; a mainstay to even the legitimacy of a contract. In the Preamble to the SCofC, it was noted that there had been a conspiracy of process on top of the original conspiracy. That's when my legal advisor volunteered this amazing statement: 'You have exhausted all remedy under the law.' That's when Canada sank to Third World status.

13) By 2010, after unsuccessful attempts to get this matter on rail, I filed S106159 in the Appeal Court of B.C. requesting that I be placed back on salary (including all back pay) as that amount belonged to me apart from judicial findings and, as such, which any court could assign. I left it to the court to finalize this matter with the only two they would recognize in this case; namely, the Employer and Union.

14) Panic set in with the authorities as they feared - and for good reason - what a third appeal to the SCofC would signify in terms of the law and their very existence so a plan was hatched. Further, the Employer could scream bloody murder about a court system wasting 20 years of taxpayers dollars in this case. Politics, in short, was now the order of the day which is always rough justice.

15) In an undocumented Order, without a hearing, nor quoting pertinent laws, nor taking argument, Deputy Justice Anne MacKenzie of the B.C. Appeal Court dropped S106059 n October of 2010. The aim was to let her Order sink into a black hole so that all that would appear in Case Study law was the failure (of course, mine) to proceed with S106059. Rough Justice indeed.

16) That Order was contested in the Federal Labour Court (T-11-1386) considering that the Appeal Court would not recognize CA038538 laid by me to challenge her action. Two specious hearings were quietly heard without counsel being notified in which a Pronothotary claimed that I had not substantiated my case against Justice MacKenzie. Justice Mosley rubber-stamped that conclusion applying, in my absence due to not being informed of any hearing, the application of Rule 51. Remonstrations with the Chief Justice and Minister of Justice were ignored. Justice was becoming rougher and rougher.

17) While the 'MacKenzie Creed' became the subject of two hearings in Ontario (Ottawa Superior Court #12-54944 and DT-12-1872); the latter under appeal to 'Osgoode Hall' for a cost challenge in Toronto although those forms appeared to have disappeared down a black hole. These two hearings had very limited comment by the judges as attested to by the transcripts consistent which, in my opinion, were pre-written reports.

18) Along with the Federal Court, these Ontario courts concluded that they had no powers to over-rule a judge in another province. If that is the case; the only judicial power left is the SCofC but how does a litigant get to that level when he is barred from B.C. courts for reasons best known to a judge? Call that the roughest justice of all so far.

19) None of those three Ontario courts provided material grounded in Case Law as to why they are not involved under the legal principles of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice. The matter of costs for DT-12-1872 is still outstanding at Osgoode Hall which I have refiled (apparently lost by the court).

20) In the interim of the above litigations; a second Order from the B.C. Supreme Court by Deputy Chief Justice, Alistair Cullen dated July 23, 2013 imitated the 'MacKenzie Creed' although there is no reference to the former, by denying any access to a B.C. Court as he did not even include the all important 'may proceed only with the permission of a judge'. Without that clause; the justice system is smashed in its entirety. Justice does not get any rougher than that.

21) This time, the Employer usurped the legal process by laying #13-59060 requesting that, as the Plaintiff, the court should discuss all issues declaring that this case was at an end and that the Employer owed no compensation to this Employee. Previously, they had weaseled out to my question on this point by claiming 'under some circumstances' which the court would not ask them to enumerate.

22) In short, that was the question which Justice Spencer should have asked for if that had been the Employer answer given at that time, the court was obligated to intervene under the law. Similarly, Justice McKinnon, who would not grant this request should have referred to it in his judgment for we appeared to agree that only the SCofC could deal with this issue as now the Union was involved. I made an Appeal to Osgoode Hall explaining that no matter what the court decided on the 'Cullen Creed' which MacKinnon did not discuss and therefore gave tacit recognition to (a heinous legal action) or to his awarding of costs which I have asked the court to reverse to provide me with $30,000 for legal tomfoolery; nonetheless, I would have to appeal any decision no matter what the finding to the SCofC to discuss all issues as requested by the Employer. The SCofC is the only court at this point competent to handle all issues which would of necessity include the Union as I now included them.

23) Currently, I am wrestling this matter through Osgoode Hall with Registrar Huguette Johnson. The media is of no help in this regard as their publication on April 28 (Ottawa Citizen page 1) is a verbatim account of Justice McKinnon's grandstanding Decision. As seen in 1985 under Red Neck Media; I was given exposure in my right of reply. Not so today as the Ottawa Citizen has just written the media obituary for their profession by failing to include my Right To Reply. My complaint against the Citizen, it should be noted here, is not in publishing McKinnon's Order; rather, it lies in the failure to print my rebuttal. No rougher justice than that can be meted out to the Canadian media. Anarchy rules supreme in democratic Canada.

24) The April 10, 2014 hearing under Justice McKinnon exposed one glaring error of his thinking. As the SCofC is the final court of Appeal, he concluded that a decision not to hear a case was a final one which, under the exigencies of this matter without any lower court decision, is not the same as the court hearing the matter and then denying my submission.

Placed in the negative, I noted in court which no litigant should have to do, that no court has ever said that this matter should not be resolved. In other cases, the courts wait for the litigant to die so that the matter is hamstrung in such fashion that the litigant is made to appear in the wrong by not promulgating an issue. It is a long term problem plaqueing the courts (especially war crimes trials) which is the roughest justice of all for it is 'limbo justice'; the type of difficulty encountered here by over 8 courts and over 30 judges. Rough Justice=No Justice.

25) The courts, parallel to Parliament, are in the throes of dissolution as evidenced by the Employee's Case. Although there are plenty of public commentators on Parliament, there is no-one dealing with the demise of the courts. Clearly the incumbent Prime Minister is not up to the task and, to be fair, nor is any other M.P. Indeed, the P.M. and the Chief Justice of the SCofC appear to be in a hissing match as to who is the more self-important ignoring, in that process, the conflagration known as the Employee's Case(Canada) which has destroyed our judiciary. In the words of Lady MacBeth: 'What needst we fear it; for who can call us to account.'

26) Of course the smoothest justice - which is very rough justice indeed - is to ghost your issue; namely diminish its importance as reflected by banning litigants from court under the 'frivolous and vexatious' banner.

27) Where, oh where, is that international source seeking a Pulitzer Prize for exposing the story of judicial perfidy of all time in a western democracy?

cc PMO

SCofC Hon. R. Wagner

A NOTE ON THE APPEAL OF DC-12-1872 (H.D. NOV. 04-2012) FOR COSTS

1) The advice of my legal advisor was that the appeal for costs of the above case was to be made with the originating court; namely, the Ottawa court.

2) The Ottawa Court returned the Appeal Documents for a cost challenge stating that the matter should be held at Osgoode Hall (Toronto)

3) I refiled these documents with Toronto only to have them returned as the suggestion was that the forms were not properly filled out.

4) I reviewed them making a few adjustments and returned them to Osgoode Hall. I never heard back. SEE letter to Hicks, Morley et al 2 page letter dated April 21-2014 to which there was no reply even to a Second Request. SEE

5) I have had a number of submissions rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada on various aspects of this case. SEE 2 letters SCofC February 6-2013 & December 16-2013. Mistakenly believing - as it turned out - that the 3 judge Divisional Court hearing constituted the necessary qualification to be heard under Section #40; I made an SCofC Appeal of #DC-12-1872 which I include here as part of the costs factor. SEE Tab

6) The central question challenging the three Ontario hearings claiming no jurisdiction over judges in another province lacked any grounding in case law. It seems rather preposterous that precedents written by judges from other provinces may be used in evidence and yet those self-same precedents may not be questioned as to judicial viability. As matters stand, the Ontario courts have given tacit approval by ignoring those judicial actions of two heinous documents from judges which threatens to re-design the entire judicial process.

7) A REPLY 25A dated October 4-2013 was produced as Hicks, Morley et al did not produce a response within the 8 months before the Perfection Meeting before Justice de Sousa of the Ottawa Divisional Court for DC-12-1872 solely on the 'MacKenzie Creed' which did not affect the Employer's pecuniary position although they did claim a presence for the court hearing which amounted to little more than a billable time effort to 'chase this vexatious litigant out of court' as well as to enrich their personal coffers. This document is an appeal of that $10,000 award which, under the circumstances, should be reduced to $1. SEE Tab

8) A direct Appeal of the 'Cullen Creed of July 23-2013' was made on August 22, 2013 SEE Tab

9) An Appeal to the B.C. Labour Board dated November 01-2013 was still-born due to the 'Cullen Creed' SEE Tab

10) Much of the above background may appear to be superfluous to the matter of costs for DC-12-1872 but I include them here as this matter is to be referred to the SCofC in order to discuss all issues as requested by the Employer in #13-59060 held on April 10-2014. It is disgusting to see the failure of judge after judge over the 29 years of this unresolved labour case failing to ask the Employer whether they were abandoning this issue thereby permitting the courts to intervene. No doubt it is naked fear as to how the Employer would roast the court in this judicial failure should they be rightfully held responsible for their financial transgressions.

N.B. This account is forwarded directly to Registrar Huguette Thomson (Osgoode Hall) as it relates to materials previously dated but apparently misplaced. Therefore, the current signature date is not to be confused with a new listing forcing extra litigation.