TO: Minister of Justice (Canada) FROM: Roger Callow - self represented plaintiff
Hon. J. Wilson-Raybould SCofC 36993 (SK)
PERSONAL 1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001
284 Wellington St. Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8 f: 613-521-1739
FAX: 613-990-7255 4 pages
cc SCofC 36993 SK ATTN: Hon. Coté/Wagner / PMO / RCMP
AB Premier Ratchel Notley
AB Opp. Ric McIver
Hon. J.D. Rooke Edmonton Chief Justice (Queen's Bench)
Media: Edmonton Journal and Calgary Herald
N.B. This matter is about an unresolved labour case where no compensation has been paid dating from 1985 in B.C. The current legal situation since that time in a number of courts across Canada has been exacerbated by documented systematic judicial malfeasance reported to oversight bodies which, for the most part do not respond. In particular, that includes federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson Raybould. That omission has left the Prime Minister exposed to having to use his executive powers over a justice system out of control.
QUOTE: There is right, there is wrong, and there is the law.' The Halls of Justice Lee Gruenfeld
This letter is focused on a) the SCofC irregularities upcoming in the hearing of 36993 and b)Registry problems in Alberta.
1) A discussion of 36993 SK requires some background from 36883 QC dismissed for a hearing on June 09-2016 by judges Cromwell (r. Sept 01-2016), Coté, and Wagner. Currently, against my fervent objections, attempts are being made to have the same 3 hear 36993.
2) While realizing that the SCofC has limited personnel for the purpose; nonetheless, by refusing this hearing of 36883 solely on disclosure being sought by me for 30 years, the 3 judges in their wisdom condoned the egregious court abuses in Quebec in this case embarrassing Premier Couillard (whom has been kept apprised of all these judicial misdemeanors) to the extent that Quebecers can no longer trust to their courts of law.
3) A parallel situation exists in SK where alleged fraudulent activity goes unchecked. For example, the SK Appeal Court met the Employer defendant ex parte and between them agreed that the Employer would not speak in court thus obviating my questions as to their alleged fraudulency. The SK Legal Society refuses to examine these accusations.
4) Whether correct or not, the impression left is that if the same SCofC judges are prepared to cover up judicial excesses in QC; then surely they can be expected to do the same thing for SK.
5) When contacted by 'Melissa' of the SC of C by telephone on August 08-2016 to discuss the above, I requested that SCofC Chief Justice B. McLachlin make the judge selection determination; not the Registry. (N.B. McLachlin j. was earlier the target of a Form 25C (conflict of interest) in 2004 when this case was rejected under the 'ultimate remedy' provisions thus freezing me in limbo and reducing Canada to Third World status where a Canadian contract is 'not worth the paper on which is printed' plus sanctioning 'no legal answer is a legal answer' in this kafkaesque caper. McLachlin had earlier sat in 1997 with Chief Justice A. Lamers(d) in rejecting this case on essentially the same constitutional question now before the 'reluctant' AB courts. Since that time 25C has been removed from the SCofC Rules)
6) Once again, I have little interest in financing the Case in SK over the judicial peccadilloes as was the case in QC. If the authorities wish to ignore these transgressions; they should step down (including the P.M.)
7) Disclosure has been called for in both courts although the QC courts were limited to that item; more as a false flag to reveal the existence of a grey eminence whom has back-door access to the Offices of the chief justices and the subsequent appointment of judges with a reputation of 'just following orders'. Coté and Wagner strike me as that type which is all the more reason as to why they should not sit on 36993 SK. Surely those two have sufficient ethics to recuse themselves voluntarily for I do not believe it is necessary for me to make an application to that effect. Here's where Wilson-Raybould should enter the picture.
8) A second Registry denial of registering my case from Susan Logan of Queen's Bench Registry was received by fax on August 05-2016. More on Registries further on.
9) Both the Employer (the West Vancouver, B.C. School Trustees) and this employee, senior teacher, Roger Callow, wish to see an end to this 30 year judicial calamity. Understandably, the Employer wishes a judicial finding before any compensation is paid (now includes pension rights). Of course, should a judicial finding be made now in 2016, the question in the public mind is why it took 3o years and over 10 separate legal venues plus over 40 judges to arrive at a decision...and that would never do....
10) To date, the conspirators have escaped notice due to an anti-employee media boycott supported by the silence of Parliament (Trudeau /Ambrose /Mulcair /May). That can't last.
11) The constitutional question raised in 36993 is different from the one raised in AB.
12) In 36993, the ultra vires nature of BILL 35 (under which I was 'laid-off') is at stake; namely that current demonstrated ability is undefined in the document or in law in general (i.e. letting a 'hanging judge' decide what a 'hanging event will be'). As the Employer did not refute this argument, my assertion becomes fact before the court which is why I have called for a directed verdict in which, according to law, everything that flows from that act is 'null and void'. Under those circumstances, 30 years of back salary (which exists apart from judicial findings) would be paid.
13) The constitutional question structured for AB is essentially the same one as the Employer argued in 1997 before the SCofC (but never heard) and in Ontario 13-59060 in2014 where I was the Defendant and in complete agreement to discussing all issues. The judge, Colin McKinnon j. ignored the question completely.
14) That question is at the very root of the relationship between the law courts and government: 'Does imposed legislation by government take precedence over statute law (such as the law of contract where that legislation does not in any way refute any part of extant statute law.'
15) In terms of the Employee's Case, the Employer argues that BILL 35 had its own terms for dispute resolution and therefore the courts and Labour Board had no such powers for intervention. As the employee, I ask the significance of the action of B.C. Supreme Justice Mary Southin whom, in 1986, quashed the arbitration favouring the Board ruling, as she did, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. Hence I was left in limbo (now running 31 years).
16) To extend this argument, the governments could eliminate all court review by including terms of handling disputes apart from the court. Of course fraud is exempted and why the disclosure that I have requested is so important which the SCofC chose to ignore in 36883 QC.
17) We see evidence of that type of commercial actions in such as government auto insurance (which was designed to eliminate 50% of court claims). Internationally, a Pacific Trade group want their own dispute resolution which is typical for Third World countries without the necessary infrastructure; not developed countries like Canada which, in this case, was to be included. From what I know of the justice system, I can hardly blame them.
18) In AB, the constitutional question is the same as Ontario with this difference; I am the petitioner which makes no difference to the handling of the constitutional question which I have facilitated by dropping the contentious disclosure issue.
19) I am sure that once the AB Registry register this case, the Employer will join with me in declaring this as a special case to go before a panel of judges on a written party by party basis which would allow for careful attention to the arguments without the accompaniment of the judicial disasters brought about by oral hearings. For my part, I would be willing to sign a 'by' to the AB courts as the SCofC is best suited to handling this question.
20) The co-operation of Registries, the 'ham-in-the-sandwich' is all important to registering cases. On the one hand, they have to ensure that cases are presentable in terms of the rules with the litigants, and on the other, that chief judges do not 'hide behind Registry coat-tails' with unreasonable demands.
21) One clerk wisely told me to think of the rules more as suggestions which makes eminent good sense as some rules are enforced while others are ignored. Another clerk in one court crossed out my terms Plaintiff/Respondent and Appellant/Defendant as it must be Plaintiff/Defendant or Appellant/Respondent and then entered my factum. Justice was done.
22) Of course there is always the clerk whom , on one re-submission, rejected it saying 'see a lawyer'. "He wants to know too", I shot back. Fortunately, those are rare but I now count Susan Logan (Manager-Edmonton Queen's Bench) among them as her procrastination and nitpicking are reflective of someone taking orders from a superior.
23) I continually run into this type of obfuscation even at the court level. For example, Lavery de Billy in QC filed a 500 page properly indexed tome (where only 5% dealing with McKinnon's frivolous & vexatious finding was used according to one judge = legal billable time exercise). No such indexing was made by B.C.'s Harris & Co. in their 500 word tome. As part of the perfection process, I was ordered to spend the time (8 hours) indexing that account although it provided me the first opportunity to give a detailed rebuttal to their case. Usually, their factums are slapped down at the last minute which, of course, is a deliberate legal ploy accepted by the profession. Outcome? The SK Appeal Court merely rubberstamped the lower court actions without comment. That is a major negative reflection on Premier Wall whom was kept fully informed as to these SK legal peccadilloes.
24) As for AB and the apparent co-operation of Logan; she even took the extra effort to include Affidavit Forms specifically for AB knowing full well that I reside in Ontario.
a) Only one other court asked for notarization of my factum with which I complied. All other courts have accepted my dated signature.
b) In discussion with my lawyer, it was decided to affix the seal to the delivery notice as it included recognition of the factum as well. (In AB, it is not necessary to provide a copy of the factum to the defendant until a docket number has been assigned. I chose to do so anyway.)
c) My Ontario lawyer knows me and therefore can attest with more accuracy to my notarization than an unknown one in AB. I even included the phone number for the purpose.
d) I revised my factum so that my argument was followed by an 'APPENDIX' (or 'EXHIBIT' in some venues) as a means of getting around the myriad picayune rules listed by Logan. For example, while it makes sense to insist on protocol for the Outline Argument; supporting documents lose much of their appeal when those same rules are applied i.e. A photostat of a letter is accepted by all courts as evidence even if the strict application of type size and line distance is not observed.
25) As I do not like to argue with underlings no doubt acting on orders from the Chief Justice in this case, I ask that a new clerk with an eye to getting this case before a judge be assigned and if that is not possible, to replace Chief Justice Rooke. Tell me in 'shorthand' what has to be done to expedite this matter for the Registry, and I will do it. But no more obfuscation. In one instance, a court even provided me with a copy of a filed action of which format I copied. Problem solved.
26) It should also be noted that Registry obstruction is not uncommon in this case at the APPEAL level e.g. SCofC Registrar Roger Bilodeau and I have had a few years of running commentary on this level although strangely, he has absented himself from 36883 & 36993 in that regard. The Ontario Appeal Court of Chief Justice George Strathy are past masters at obfuscation. SEE web site and the mess that new A.G. Naqvi is expected to sort out.
27) The key with AB is that this is the first time that a lower court is rebuffing my efforts making AB, the 'redneck capital of Canada' if it does not surcease under Premier Notley. With unemployment being what it is in AB, surely hard pressed people should expect their approach to court where it is required regarding lay-off/dismissal not to be impeded by a lot of red tape with Canada's version of the RIO Olympics.
TO: Queen's Bench Court Administration (Alberta)
ATTN: Susan Logan, Manager (Edmonton)
1A Sir W. Churchill Square
Edmonton, AB T5J 0R2
FROM: Roger Callow - self-represented plaintiff
1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001
Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
QUOTE: 'When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.' Edmund Burke
1) As I did not hear back from you at time of writing, I have taken the liberty of adjusting my factum according to my e-mail of July 20-2016 to you and my revisions therein based on your letter dated July 6-2016. The new factum is coming via Registered Mail.
2) Registry 'hurdling' is a task in itself; particularly if the Registry receives instructions from the Chief Justice perverting the Registry routine. Regrettably, that has been a factor in the many courts that this unresolved legal issue has been presented giving rise to my assertion to the existence of a 'grey eminence' with backdoor access to the Offices of the Chief Justices across the land and the appointment of 'compliant' judges to high profile cases such as is this one of the 30 year Employee's Case (employescasecanada.ca) . Provinces such as Quebec and Saskatchewan are the topics of two Supreme Court of Canada challenges (36883) and (36993) which have not only have had devastating effects on the court systems and Premiers of those two provinces but now is a direct challenge to the executive powers of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. If that language frightens you...good, as someone has to awaken this country - considering the media boycott on this national story - to the implosion of the Canadian Justice System due to a 'rinky dink senior teacher lay-off matter' in B.C. under highly spurious conditions 30 years ago.
3) Copies of legal information were included to such as Premier Couillard and Premier Wall whom are paying the price for being MIA in this case. Premier Notley is yet to be tested. She gets top marks for her fund raising regarding the Ft. McMurray fire conflagration; lower marks for AB's handling of children's social welfare problems. This case will shatter her government and courts if she falls into the dissolute pattern of Premier's Couillard and Wall.
4) As you know, litigants depend heavily on the Registries in order to know which rules are enforced while others are all but ignored. One Registry clerk opined to me, and not incorrectly so, that one should think of the rules more as suggestions. Good advice. For example, your account is complete and is in marked contrast to such as Ontario (see web 'Yasir Naqvi') where I receive a scrawl of a signature without identification below as to whom is signing nor what position this person holds in the Ministry of the Attorney General. Quebec courts have no address or contact numbers on some of their correspondence.
5) I believe my new format sufficiently addresses the itemized concerns that you list in your letter of July 6-2016 but should the court become punctilious - perhaps with point 4 - then I recommend that you have Chief Justice N.C. Wittmann co-sign your letters in future as I do not like going after underlings.
6) The pathetic feature about all these court machinations in other venues is that they were so unnecessary. The courts have acted like generals with a new toy seeking to try it out. While this plaintiff pays a price; the courts have paid a much higher price in terms of credibility...and what is a court of law without credibility? Nothing.
7) The unique feature of this current version of the Employee's Case in Alberta is that both the Employer and myself are in agreement as to the constitutional question raised. All we require is an 'honest broker' in the courts of law, something the Employer certainly did not get when they broached this question in Ontario (13-59060) McKinnon j.-Ottawa. The same challenge is being raised again in Alberta although with a reversal of the plaintiff-respondent relationship which has no bearing on the constitutional question.
8) Indeed, Premier Notley and the AB courts may escape all handling of this case as noted in my new factum, by having the Chief Justice sign a letter requesting that the Supreme Court of Canada handle this national challenge directly as they have the expertise for constitutional questions not available to the provinces. I am sure the Respondent Employer would not object to that course of legal action as it would be a considerable saving to the taxpayers in West Vancouver.
Roger Callow (The Outlawed Canadian)
cc West Vancouver School Trustees
Premier Notley / Justice Minister Wilson-Raybould / P.M. Justin Trudeau
North Shore News
ALBERTA QUEEN'S BENCH - PLAINTIFF'S FACTUM JUNE 2016
SPECIAL CASE N.B. This topic has not been broached with the Respondent Employer as it is unlikely that they would agree to this format until they had viewed this factum.
1) There are two reasons for declaring this matter a special case.
2) The first reason is because both the Employer in this B.C. based West Vancouver School Board senior teacher lay-off in 1985 under the conditions of the neophyte BILL 35 and this targeted party both agree on the nature of the constitutional question to be raised; namely, imposed government legislation (whose terms do not obviate any conditions of statue law) vs court overview.
3) The second reason is to enjoin AB Premier, Ratchel Notley in this document to ensure proper judicial conduct which has not been the case for 30 years in which many courts, judges and lawyers have been referred to the oversight bodies concerned. A number of Premiers have been thoroughly embarrassed on this account. Her direct influence is called on in order to avoid the risk of any such machinations in Alberta courts.
4) The School Board has always maintained that the Arbitration in 1985 in this senior teacher lay-off matter is the final decision in which the Court and Labour Board (collective bargaining rules) have no oversight application.
5) In 1986, on my application, Justice Mary Southin quashed the arbitration ruling, in that process, the arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable'. I was left in limbo which extends to the present without any decision as to the propriety of the lay-off.
6) When the Board refused to return employment as she recommended, Southin j. ordered the matter back to arbitration. She did not return me to salary as our side expected for surely we would not be here to date if she had.(This 'deferred salary' - 30 years and counting - belongs to this employee apart from judicial findings.) The Employer appears to have interpreted her action, and not incorrectly so, as one in which the Employer would have to get through the back door what Southin j. would refuse at the front door.
7) The School Board unsuccessfully appealed Southin's Decision so that, in terms of the court ruling, the School Board was in contempt of court by failing to return to arbitration. No succeeding justice - and there have been many - has seen fit to order me back on salary nor to re-arbitrate this matter.
8) The rationale by the School Board is that apparently only an arbitration can adjudge the constitutional question in terms not available to the courts. If so, it is submitted here that the Employer was bound to return to arbitration as a contingency of that position. No other explanation has ever been given by the Employer for their failure to return to arbitration prompting my unsuccessful application in 1995 before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Spencer to return employment with all conditions of the contract to apply due to the apparent abandoning of this matter by the School Board.
9) In 2013 in Ontario Superior Court, Colin McKinnon j. (13-59060 heard on April 2014), the Employer as Plaintiff requested that 'all issues' be discussed with which I was in ready agreement. The April 23-2014 Decision made no reference to that request.
10) It is in these terms that as plaintiff, I now raise this constitutional question above although it is noted that it is immaterial whom is plaintiff and whom is respondent.
11) I believe all would agree that if Justice Southin had alleged fraud, which she didn't even though there was ample proof from the arbitration, the courts would automatically have oversight capabilities. Attempts for the past 30 years to acquire disclosure to that extent of declaring fraud (the memo notes regarding June 1985 meetings of the Board discussing BILL 35 and the lay-off of Mr. Callow, returned by Justice Southin 'because she did not use them') have been foiled by over 10 separate court systems and over 40 judges in their bid to deny me this most basic of rights which is at the heart of habeas corpus and therefore all law. Indeed, the recent unsuccessful SCofC Appeal (36883) QC In June 2016 was limited to just that revelation.
PREMIER RACHEL NOTLEY
12) Premier Notley, by all accounts, acquitted herself well recently in the story of the tangible Fort McMurray fires.
13) This is another type of intangible conflagration which threatens all of Canada and, to date, has been of considerable embarrassment to provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada. (A copy of this factum goes to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.)
14) By including her here, I hope to avoid what I now label as systematic judicial malfeasance which goes unchecked. 90% of those problems can be traced to oral court hearings, either in person or by teleconferencing and subsequent duplicitous court actions.
15) To avoid such judicial cupidity, I request that Premier Notley ensure that this case is presented on a written party-by-party basis before a qualified constitutional judge.
16) Premier Notley in the above endeavor, is encouraged to obviate court 'interference' in terms of jurisdiction, transference, frivolous & vexatious behaviour as all those questions have been dealt with elsewhere although all my explanations are ignored by the courts. Material on Jurisdiction is included here in this factum.
17) Should the Employer be successful in their bid, then that would appear to be the end of the matter dealing with the propriety of my lay-off. Compensation (includes pension rights) would then be based on that outcome. N.B. The School Board did not accept my retirement notice issued 10 years ago at age 65.
18) Should I be successful, then 30 years of back salary plus interest is owed and it would be a matter between myself and the School Board to work out an exit arrangement.
19) Unfortunately, from negative past experience, I feel that I must state that in the event that the AB courts pull 'a fast one'; they should expect an appeal.
Roger Callow self-represented plaintiff June 21st, 2016