JUMP TO HOME PAGE

April 04-2016

TO:                                                                             FROM:

Supreme Court of Canada Registry                   Roger Callow - plaintiff (appellant)

ATTN: Suzanne Sarrazin - Registry Officer      1285 Cahill Drive Apt. 2001

301 Wellington St. Ottawa, ON K1A 0J1         Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

t. 613-996-8666  f. 613-996-9138                   t./f. 613-521-1739

3  pages sent by fax                                              e-mail: the callows@gmail.com

cc

1) Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver, B.C.) - Respondent

     1075-21st Street

     West Vancouver, B.C. V&V 4A9

     tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001   3  pages sent by fax

 

2) Lavery, de Billy  (for the Respondent)

     Ste 4000, 1 Place Ville Marie

     Montreal, QC M3B 4M4  file: 126593-00004

     t. 514-871-1522   f.514-871-8977   3  pages sent by fax

 

REFERENCE: Supreme Court of Canada #36883

 

MESSAGE:

A) At 5:10 after everyone had left the office for the weekend, a 111 page factum (Response to the Application for Leave to Appeal) was about to be faxed to this plaintiff from Lavery de Billy. I say 'about' as I curtailed this stunt after a couple of pages. There was no response to my telephone call at 5:15 P.M.

B) As I don't expect Lavery de Billy to follow up this boondoggle with a written copy, I enclose the following letter to the SCofC Registry.

 

1) There is no point in considering the Respondent's factum unless the following points are addressed.

2) There must be disclosure (the basis for a charge of criminal fraud) which was the sole request in the lower Gatineau Court without which no judgment makes any legal sense until the noted disclosure, as outlined in other documents, is produced.

3) The SCofC is now taxed with that request of which will satisfy my proceedings in Quebec. I have no interest in court shenanigans although in passing I note that the Justice System of Premier Couillard lies in tatters as one consequence of this debacle.

4) To satisfy my request for disclosure. The SCofC must also acknowledge the fact that this appellant was expelled from B.C. by the 'Cullen Creed' in this 30 year unresolved labour case where no compensation has been paid, before any application is considered of such as the rule of inherent jurisdiction which the Respondent would interpret in an exclusionary fashion. Ignoring this 'elephant in the room' in this regard has never been an option for the Court.

5) Only those precedent cases set forth which deal with a client in an unresolved legal matter by the Respondent needs be considered by the SCofC. To date, that has been zero despite legally billable time 500 page 'Books of Authorities' from de Billy x 2 (to include the second Gatineau judge).

 

In the event that disclosure is refused by the SCofC , which amounts to more judicial cover-up, the following should be considered:

5) A judicial finding on the merit of the Ontario Superior Court's Justice McKinnon 'dual actions' of having produced two separate decisions on April 23-2014 and September 15-2014; the second one not referencing the earlier decision. That apparent fraud, which I specifically warned the Gatineau court against, is a topic in QC where both Courts focus was on the April 23-2014 Decision while the Respondent quoted solely the September 15-2014 in Saskatchewan courts. Two Law societies (B.C. where Counsel was domiciled and SK where the alleged infringement took place) have been remiss in failing to deal with that dichotomy.

6) The second Gatineau judge whom wrote the Decision without any reference to the first judge in an apparently fraudulent manner, noted that Lavery de Billy's factum depended 95% on this McKinnon's j. frivolous & vexatious aspect of this case. The QC Appeal Court made no reference to this point in their judgment.

7) Neither did  the QC Appeal Court nor oversight bodies referenced by me deal with this highly questionable dual conduct of the Gatineau Courts. In brief, this is possibly one of the worst cases of judicial cover-up in Canadian jurisprudence.

8) Further, is it wise for the Respondent Employer to assign this SCofC to Lavery de Billy considering that I am awaiting an evaluation of their allegedly fraudulent behaviour in Quebec Courts?  To date, the Quebec Law Society has repeatedly ducked their responsibilities to my request. Specifically,

a) The second Gatineau hearing in writing was prompted by an apparently innocuous question on a minor legal point by Lavery De Billy to the court

b) When the Appeal Court rejected my factum for not being consistent with the rules (the Appeal Court court informed me of such by letter without returning my material for revision); they saw fit to issue a docket number to de Billy for his 'Order to Dismiss' plus a hearing date which, it is not surprising to say, did not include any reference to the duality and dichotomy of the Gatineau Court Order issued by the second judge with no reference to the existence of the first judge.

9) Technically, I do not yet have a judgment from the authorized first lower Hearing Court judge in Gatineau although I have requested one nor a proper Appeal Court Hearing as my factum was rejected by the Appeal Court Registry in an apparent double 'black hole' whammy in this kafkaesque affair. What I do have consists of a major embarrassment to the ethically-challenged Premier Couillard whom has been kept fully cognizant of this affair as it unwound.

10) Prime Minister Trudeau is reluctant to send in the RCMP nor use any other executive mechanisms available to him. At the very least, he should invoke a trusteeship over Quebec Courts. Canada should be made of sterner stuff.

 

Yours truly,

 

 

(Roger Callow)

 

cc. QC Premier Couillard

      P.M. Trudeau

      SCofC Hon. A. Karakatsanis

      RCMP

 

CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - APRIL 01-2016 - 4 pages

 

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

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employescasecanada.ca (30 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. teacher lay-off in 1985) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. Currently there are two SCofC hearings slated (QC & SK) with a pending hearing in P.E.I. This edition is focused on QC being ubered (external threat from an unexpected source) through the interlocked legal proceedings from different courts across Canada. Pulitzer Prize seeking writer is sought in this one-of-a-kind story of the century.

 

QUOTES:

A) "Every system has its weaknesses," Ava said, "And in fact, the senior Communist Party leaders don't operate much differently than wealthy people in the West." The Princeling of Nanjing  Ian Hamilton (In that regard, the judiciary should serve as a check to such excesses of the wealthy; not merely to 'ape' them. RC)

B) PLACARD:  A LIE BY THE COMPANY...IS A MATTER OF POLICY / A LIE BY THE EMPLOYEE...IS GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL

 

March 22-2016

TO:                                                     FROM:

Quebec Law Society                                  Roger Callow

Maison du Barreau du Québec             Ottawa, Ontario  K1V 9A7

445, boulevard Saint-Laurent               

Montréal (Québec) H2Y 3T8                  

 

1) It would seem that all the Canadian Legal Societies went to the same seminar...'How to evade your responsibilities no matter what'.

2) In this issue in SK, the B.C. Legal Society failed to answer the central question leaving the SK Legal Society on the hook for this transgression by a B.C. legal counsel in SK courts. The SK contingent are failing to respond in a second SCofC appeal. The Ontario Legal Society has never replied to excesses of Hicks, Morley, et al which has since dropped representation of the Employer. In QC, (see letter of Dec.27-2015) 10 d), the QC Legal Society ducked examining the perfidy of Lavery de Billy  in an obvious perversion of court functions reducing the ethically challenged Premier Couillard and the Montreal La Presse under its 34 year old editor recently re-located to Ottawa in control of the Ottawa Sun/Ottawa Citizen.

3) You will recall how The QC Legal Society one day before the hearing (and therefore could not be filed) ducked examining de Billy's conduct with a 'the court will decide'. Unfortunately, the court did not do anything other than to dismiss the claim as per the Respondent's request.

4) Now that the SCofC has issued a docket number - 36883 - a report on the alleged perfidy of Lavery de Billy from the QC Legal Society is of even more importance. Please respond accordingly. Below is an annotated letter dated January 11-2016 outlining the judicial scam of the decade. 

Yours truly, 

(signed) Roger Callow

 

January 11-2016  (SEE employescasecanada.ca  QC-SK DISMISSALS 2016

TO:

Hon. Jacques Chamberland  Quebec Court of Appeal

FROM:  Roger Callow  Plaintiff 

Subject: Roger Callow v. Board of School Trustees

Motion to dismiss the appeal  No. 500-09-025753-153

MESSAGE:

1) Acknowledgment of your e-mail dated January 11, 2016 is made.

2) Due to the importance of this letter of yours which strains the credulity of the Justice System, not only in Quebec but in the entire judiciary of Canada, a copy of this letter is being sent to Premier P. Couillard and Prime Minister J. Trudeau.

3) In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada reinforced my position of being in limbo in an unresolved labour matter with its genesis in B.C. dating from 1985. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid due to the fact that there is no judicial finding relating to my 'illicit' teacher lay-off under the imposed BILL 35; the only teacher so laid off under this allegedly ultra vires piece of legislation. That's when Canada sank to Third World status as the very essence of any Justice System is its finality. That's why this matter is a 'standing case'.

4) Much litigation ensued in B.C. In July of 2013,Deputy Justice A. Cullen of the B.C. Appeal Court (Cullen Creed), on his own recognizance, without taking argument nor applying applicable laws, expelled me from the B.C. Justice System (no 'may proceed only with the permission of a judge' was included) forcing me into other Justice Systems as it was clear his action was designed to inhibit another trip to the Supreme Court of Canada, the only court competent to examine my claim of systematic judicial abuse.

5) At root of this accusation is the refusal of the courts over a 30 year period to act on my request for Disclosure; namely, those secret memo notes of meetings held by the Board in June of 1985 to discuss my senior teacher lay-off (no Board member took the stand in the arbitration which was quashed and the arbitrator ruled patently unreasonable). From that arbitration, I learned that there was no request from the Board to lay off senior teacher Roger Callow nor any other teacher in June of 1985. In brief, I was the target of a fraud, maintained subsequently by the Justice System over 10 separate courts and 40 judges as they all seemed intent in blocking another appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

6) Without those memo notes which the Employer through their various legal representatives refuse to divulge and, more importantly, the courts refuse to order them to produce, every court on this issue is compromised by cover-up. There must be disclosure before due diligence may be conducted; particularly when fraud is alleged as is the case here.

7) A careful reading of the legislation in each or the other forums illustrates the application of inherent jurisdiction, natural justice, transference which never happens under judges appointed to this case which does entail a responsibility of other courts to fill the void created in B.C. by the unusual and illicit actions of the Cullen Creed.

8) Failure of the courts above has lowered Canada, it is submitted here, to fourth world status.

9) If it is possible to stoop any lower to a fifth world debacle, that is about to happen in QC on January 18-2015 in which Chamberland j. from the Court of Appeal in Montreal insists on proceeding on that date before important investigations have been conducted as outlined below. The key here is that Premier Couillard and Prime Minister Trudeau have prior knowledge as to the scope of a scam unequaled in the annals of Canadian Jurisprudence which is about to be committed.

10) As Plaintiff, I would have no qualms with the January 18-2016 hearing date:

a) if the necessary disclosure of the 'memo notes' above is ordered by the court;

b) the detailed letter to Mtre Catherine Dufour dated January 08-2016 on the irregularities in this case would seem to pass your account by with this statement...On the very same date, Mtre Catherine Dufour wrote to you, confirming that the hearing would take place, as requested, by teleconference, at 11:30. Whom made this request? Was it Lavery, de Billy or the court claiming to act on my request?....

c) The duplicity of your letter on this basis plus other considerations as noted below needs also to be investigated, not by the Chief Justice, but by the government figures included in this account. The fact of the matter is that I filed a Factum which was rejected as it did not conform to proper filing procedures. Traditionally, such rejected forms are returned to the plaintiff before a docket number is assigned (still not returned as of the above date). So how did Lavery, de Billy LLP obtain a docket number as the Respondent? How can he file for dismissal of something which does not exist on file? That accusation implies collusion on the highest level between the court and Lavery, de Billy. As such and as the plaintiff, I am expected to deny a negative which is an impossibility. Further Lavery, de Billy is playing the duality card by filing a second factum (a stunt pulled by this employer in other court systems) which ignores the all-important question as to why two judges were assigned to this case with one of them writing a judgment without making reference to the existence of the other. That's fraud on a grandiose scale and a fraud which goes uninvestigated since my letter to Elizabeth Corte-President of the Quebec Judicial Council on August 01-2015. There was no response. How can the court proceed without a definition as to the propriety of the duality of judges. Lavery, de Billy's account would appear to be a suppression of this issue which the tenor of your letter would support.

d) Lavery, de Billy's alleged perfidy as outlined above was the subject of a letter sent to the Quebec Bar Association on December 27,2015 and it would be unwise for the court to proceed until that finding is made along with the Quebec Judicial Council evaluation.

e) Also, on December 27, 2015, I mailed a letter to Justice Therrien asking for his Order as that of Goulet j.s.c. made no reference to his involvement. Without a proper investigation into these matters which Lavery, de Billy would avoid counting on an embarrassed court to do his bidding in covering up this massive travesty. In brief, the entire course of justice in Canada will be suborned should this Appeal Hearing choose to dismiss without the 'due process' outlined above. 'Duly processed' would be more like it.

11) The original purpose of my action laid in Quebec solely requesting the 'missing memo notes' was to reveal the existence of an 'eminence gris' whom has back door access to the Office of the Chief Justices of the land....

12) For my part, it is time to send in the RCMP to obtain the 'disclosure' demanded above by this plaintiff. Either Couillard or Trudeau has that power.

13) As you seem so determined to proceed on January 18-2016, I will see you in court by teleconferencing to see whether or not Canada deserves its 'fifth world rating'. I can only wonder as to the calibre of your two accompanying judges if they accepted your account.

14) You could save everyone considerable embarrassment if you just give this action 'a pass' on the grounds that only the Supreme Court of Canada is competent to examine all claims brought forth by this plaintiff. T-2360-14 filed in Federal Court and re-filed in QC but not commented on by Goulet j. alleges fraud by the original conspirators and the ensuing court processes.

 

cc Premier Couillard / P.M. Trudeau / SCofC ' 36883' / RCMP / WV School Trustees

 

THE LETTER WHICH HANGS THE CANADIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM- JUNE 11-2015

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employeescasecanada.com (30 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems and over 30 judges. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. Below is the significance of government imposed legislation (BILL 35 -1985) The WV School Board continually thwarts settlement which has been abetted by every BCTF President since 1985.

 

 

HARRIS & COMPANY

February 7, 1996                               

Labour Relations Board

1125 Howe Street

Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2K8

Attention: Margaret Arthur

Dear Sirs and Mesdames:

Re: Callow v. The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 (West Vancouver) et al

BCCA No. CA020560

 

We are counsel for the Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 (West Vancouver) in the above-noted matter.

 

We note from Mr. Callow's Complaint (p.3(t)) that he seeks from the Labour Relations Board a direction that the Association "take the necessary action to continue the arbitration within the parameters of the 1988 Court of Appeal decision."

 

It is the School Board's strongly held view that the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdiction to make any ruling regarding the hearing of a future arbitration hearing due to the fact that the arbitration was not a proceeding under the scheme provided in the Labour Relations Code, the former Industrial Relations Act, or the former Labour Code. Indeed, the arbitration in question was a hearing pursuant to the provisions of the School Amendment Act, 1985 (BILL 35 - RC), which the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdiction  to interpret or apply.

 

We request that the School Board be provided with an opportunity to make further submissions on this point prior to any granting of any remedy.

Yours very truly,

Judith C. Anderson

HARRIS & COMPANY

N.B. The B.C. Labour Board refused all my requests for a hearing as did successive B.C. Courts. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear this matter hence the jurisdiction question is at the core of this imposed government legislation. That is how I was relegated to a permanent state of limbo where no compensation (includes pension) was paid in defiance of the rules of labour contract. No Canadian media nor Parliamentary source will publish this ugly truth reducing Canada to Third World status.

 

PREAMBLE TO SK CACV2783 & QC 500-09-025753-153

1) As there are similarities between both Appeals in SK and QC as they are both being challenged by the Employer on the grounds 'to dismiss'; a joint response is being filed.

2) As this Plaintiff has requested a change of legal representation in both SK and QC, two copies are being sent by Registered Mail to the Employer, the Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver, S.D. #45) for the purpose. Each copy has the appropriate document head for the respective courts.

3) Underlying both Appeals is the 30 year continuous request by this Plaintiff for the 'secret missing memo notes' regarding June 1985 meetings held by the Board and which Justice Mary Southin returned to them in 1986 'because she did not use them'. In brief, this disclosure it is submitted here, would reveal a conspiracy of massive proportions covered up by the court. Indeed, the initial QC appearance was limited to the revelation of those memo notes.

4) How, it must be asked in all good conscience, can any credible court proceed without these memo notes which would explain Justice Southin's statement 'that nowhere did the Board plan to lay-off a teacher under the conditions of BILL 35 in June of 1985'? Information from the quashed arbitration would suggest that the filed Order to that effect (without showing the vote count) was written in hindsight; most likely by the Harris & Co. legal counsel.

5) Progression of this case over the years in various courts has been slipshod, largely due to the last-minute filing of factums by the Employer. On a couple of occasions, that consisted of filing in court on the day of the hearing.

6) That is why the Appeal in SK is unique as this Plaintiff has been able to file a detailed response to FACTUM 1 and FACTUM II, (move to dismiss) many of the same elements applying to both SK and QC Appeals.

7) The motion to dismiss in QC is based on 'air' on January 18-2016  in that there is no filed Appeal recognized by the Court from this Plaintiff in this kafkaesque situation. This confusion has been referred to the oversight bodies as well as the government of P. Couillard.

8) Both the lower courts in SK and QC are steadfast in refusing to order the production of the missing memo notes; a characteristic of all hearings for the past 30 years. The Appeal Courts in both provinces must, of necessity, order the Employer to produce those memo notes if the respective Appeal Courts are to retain any credibility. A preliminary hearing has been sought in SK to that effect (no response to date) while that request will be made as 'a point of Order' in the QC hearing slated for January 18-2016.

9) Both courts depend heavily on the bastardized 'frivolous and vexatious' Orders of Ontario Superior Court, McKinnon j.; the SK version focused on the September 15-2014 statement while the QC version focuses on the original April 23-2014 statement. Regrettably, the oversight bodies do not respond to enquiries from this plaintiff as to this apparent fraudulent dichotomy.

DECEMBER 21-2015

 

TO: Board of School Trustees (S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                    6 pages     

 

FROM: Roger Callow   N.B. Note new address as of January 01-2016 although mail will be forwarded to me from the old address. Tel/fax remain the same.

1285 Cahill Drive #2001 Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

tel:/fax: 613-521-1739

 

REFERENCE: RESPONDENT SECOND APPEAL  FACTUM CACV 2783 of  SK APPEAL COURT WITH SELECTED PASSAGES FROM THE FIRST APPEAL FACTUM

A COPY OF THIS LETTER IS INCLUDED TO THE COURT UNDER REPLY TO HARRIS & CO. SECOND FACTUM RECEIVED DECEMBER 19-2015 BY FED-EX

ENCLOSURE: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau whom is unlikely to meet his December 31-2015 deadline set by this writer in which Canada will enter into a phase of uncontrolled judicial excess on a level and degree never before encountered in any Judicial System of a democratic country. To mark this new phase, a new website has been constructed for 2016: employescasecanada.ca (N.B. only one 'e' plus .ca designation)

 

MESSAGE:

1) As you know from previous correspondence to you, B.C.'s Harris & Company is not acceptable to this litigant for their many legal transgressions for which many judges are prepared to turn a 'blind eye'; most likely due to the fact that T-2360-14 filed in Federal Court alleges fraud on two levels; the various court processes over a period of 30 years encompassing, as it does, 10 separate court systems and 40 judges plus that of the 'original' conspirators.

 

2) Under the most unusual circumstances of events in Quebec, referred to inaccurately in Harris & Co., where a separate Notice To Dismiss (running a court within a court) was unilaterally filed by Lavery, de Billy for the Employer to be heard January 18-2016 in Montreal Appeal Court (C.A.M. 500-09-025753; Lavery de Billy, senior partner, personally would seek to cherry-pick which items of the filed appeal by me which, surprise, surprise, does not include any reference to the egregious fact that two separate judges - one the hearing judge and the second one to re-open the case and write the judgment without any reference to the existence of the hearing judge. The Quebec Judicial Council is strangely quiet on this charge filed on August 01-2015 by me. It would appear that de Billy's pre-emptive bid on January 18-2016 is to bury that major legal transgression with, it is presumed, the co-operation of a desperate court. It should also be noted that I sent a letter earlier to de Billy in which I requested their Bill of Costs awarded to them by Goulet j.c.s. There was no response. That did not stop Harris & Co. from referring to unpaid bills in Quebec before a specious Surety hearing before SK Appeal Court's, Justice R. Ottenbreit ,on November 25 (telephone conferencing) in which the judge failed to ask why there was no evidence from Harris & Co. as to these unpaid bills?  More on Ottenbreit j. later in this account.

 

3) DELIVERY: I always follow correct judicial procedures whether by courier, or registered mail or fax; the latter two with evidence of delivery. Not so the litigants for the Employer which I claim are devious in that regard. For example, one Registered account from Harris & Co. was sent to the correct apartment building with the wrong apartment number. Fortunately, an alert neighbor delivered the document to me. Hicks, Morley et al (whom has since dropped representation probably due to my referral of this outfit to the oversight bodies for excessive malfeasance as supported by Ontario judges McKinnon and Scott - both originally Federal Court employees - were reported by me to the Canadian Judicial Council for their role in that debacle) no longer respond to any correspondence from me including a  collection for a 'Bill of Costs'. (Nor does the CJC respond.) Their personal courier never required a signature reflective of the possibility of a 'ducks and drakes' approach as I have no idea which 'so-called' deliveries were never made.

 

 

 

4) HARRIS & CO. DELIVERY OF THEIR SECOND FACTUM RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 19-2015

Once before in another specious Surety hearing in B.C. held immediately before Xmas in 2010, the time allotment for payment was in early January in which I was notified of this assessment by the Employer after the due date (no copy from the Appeal Court of K.C. MacKenzie sent to me). I learned from other sources of this fee and paid within the time limit although the Appeal Court challenge CA038538 did not proceed due to judicial machinations. Normally, Harris & Co. deliver their registered material by Canada Post (including Purolater). So why did they select FED EX this time noted for their sloppy delivery features? For example, notices are attached to the mail box for registered mail from Canada Post if the resident is not at home. Fed-Ex, not having access to apartment buildings, merely place a notice on the entrance-way call board used by about 5% of tenants. Again, it was an alert neighbor whom notified me of the notice. Presumably, if I had not been made aware of this delivery, Harris & Co. could slip this factum requesting 'Dismissal' into the SK Court of Appeal hearing without my ever being aware of this addition which, along with the collusion of the court, could bury the main issues. In brief, I would be portrayed as an ignoramus as a consequence of this stunt. It is their variation on the theme of 'running a court within a court' as per the Quebec example.

 

5) The theme of 'running a court within a court' was also used extensively in Ontario by Hicks, Morley et al and both SK and QC courts ignored my request to ignore these highly specious actions referred to the oversight bodies. For example, there is not one, but two versions of the McKinnon j. (13-59060) April 10-2014 Hearing Date). The first Decision came down on April 23-2014 and the second one came down on September 15-2014 making no reference to the first one. Quebec's Lavery de Billy quoted the former judgment while Harris & Co. quoted only the September 15-2014 in the Appeal, no doubt as a means of getting the courts to acknowledge both versions because of their ignorance due to no interchange of court information between the provinces. That's fraud and why I submit Harris & Co. should NOT be permitted to represent the Employer in SK. The Quebec Appeal court has been made aware of this judicial ON duplicity although it would appear that Lavery de Billy would seek to pull the same stunt with their unitary 'Order to Dismiss', to be heard in Montreal Appeal Court on January 18-2016. Will Harris & Co. also sneak in a separate action similar to de Billy to 'Dismiss'? January 2016 will tell.

 

6) As referenced in 2) above, more needs to be said on the Ottenbreit j. 'surety' application. While disagreeing with the lower court's Megaw j. decision which explains why this matter is under appeal, there is no real opportunity to discuss Ottenbreit's action which I label 'specious' at best. The surety has been paid under protest for reasons noted above. The real concern with the Ottenbreit action is that it undermines the three Appeal Court judges assigned to this matter which was no doubt his intention. By rights, only those three should have sat on this surety matter; much like the court sitting on the 'Motion to Dismiss' in QC. Speculation has it that Ottenbreit's unitary action could be construed as sending a not  so unsubtle message from the Office of the Chief Justice to the three assigned judges regarding the desired outcome for the Appeal. That's influence pedaling which operates below the radar of the law. There were other features of Ottenbreit's court which I found 'less than desirable'. All SK citizens are the poorer for court malfeasance.

 

7) For the above reason, I have requested a one-hour preliminary conference by teleconferencing requesting a discussion of the continued appearance of Harris & Co. should the Employer insist on going with this legal outfit currently under investigation by the B.C. Law Society based on a SK Law Society reference. I also demand the necessary disclosure of the 'secret missing memo notes' of Justice Southin in 1986 whom quashed the 1985 arbitration ruling, as she did, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable leaving me in a 30 year state of limbo regarding my illicit lay-off where no compensation - including pension rights - has been paid. Request for those memo notes underlies every legal hearing since 1986 which 40 judges would studiously ignore prompting my  accusation that the Judiciary of Canada is guilty of cover-up on a level never before witnessed in Canada (theme of Federal Court T-2360-14 mentioned above). The accumulation of these court denials on evidence disclosure now amounts to conspiracy on their part. The Appeal Court of SK must demand production of those memo notes as a precursor to all information in this Appeal. Otherwise, the court is proceeding without 'dealing with a full deck' in much the same fashion as the lower court's Megaw j. did in absence of calling for the memo notes.

 

8) The assertion of this writer here is that I was never laid off by the Board of School Trustees in June of 1985 which Justice Southin was well aware but chose to cover up fraud on the part of some school officials and their lawyer whom probably wrote the Board Approval form filed 'after the fact' of the Superintendent's fraudulent letter quoting the School Trustee's endorsement to dismiss under the new BILL 35 which was not yet declared law. No trustee took the stand although I exhorted the Union lawyer to place them on the stand to attest to lay-off numbers in absence of Harris & Co. to call them or for the arbitrator to make that request.

 

9) The West Vancouver Trustees could obviate my first preliminary request in SK by appointing new legal Counsel, preferably from SK. They could obviate the entire appeal in both SK and QC by providing me with those missing memo notes. Who knows, I may be completely wrong in my assertions and all this connivance was for nothing as I do not believe any court hearing this matter has ever seen these memo notes relying, it is assumed, on the services of an eminence gris operating through the back door of the Offices of the Chief Justices. In that assessment, Premiers B. Wall in SK and P.Couillard in QC are severely and negatively affected.

 

10) At this juncture, only Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has the opportunity to forestall a legal disaster the likes of which has never been seen and will follow Canada throughout the 21st century. He has until December 31-2015 to act although, at this late date, it appears that he will fumble the ball.

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow  APPELLENT  CACV2783 (SK)

'The Outlawed Canadian' in an outlaw Justice System employeescasecanada.com

 

FOLLOWING IS A RE-HASH OF DOCUMENTS ON FILE TO FOLLOW IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT (As part of the 'Perfection Process'; I was forced to index the Harris&Co. Original Factum - before this current one - in an 8 hour enterprise in which a detailed analysis was given by me.) I now have to repeat that process due to Harris & Co.'s bid to 'Dismiss' which includes a repeat of selected 'cherry-picked' passages which, as noted above, is probably a set-up paralleling the action in QC courts. For this reason, I insist that the 3 SK Appeal Court judges refer to all material currently on file with them including this letter in any such bid by Harris & Co.

 

cc P.M. J. Trudeau / Premiers B. Wall & P. Couillard / RCMP

 

REBUTTAL OF THE PLAINTIFF TO THE RESPONDENT'S SECOND FACTUM CACV 2783

(SK COURT OF APPEAL) DATED DECEMBER 17-2015

GENERAL

1) It is the considered opinion of the Plaintiff that the term 'frivolous and vexatious' plus the bid to overturn a case under the terms of an 'order to dismiss' are badly overworked rules as evidenced by the Pavlovian inclusion of these terms in most court cases.

2) The above approach is favoured by lazy or 'otherwise inclined' judges to avoid applying time consuming 'due diligence'. This was the charge against Megaw j. of the Queen's Bench (2015-SKQB-308) and why this Decision to reject the plaintiff's claims is being appealed.

3) A most disturbing feature of this Appeal was a decision by Appeal Court's Justice Ottenbreit in November 2015 to grant a surety bid on loose evidence; a feature it is clear which contravenes the laws on sureties. Apparently, declaring a matter as a 'special case' permitted Justice Overbreit to over-write these rules. The surety was paid.

4) For 30 years in this unresolved B.C. Labour Case the plaintiff has not received any compensation - including pension rights - due to no judicial finding although the B.C. Courts had re-ordered re-arbitration after the initial arbitration favouring the Employer was quashed with the government-appointed arbitrator ruled patently unreasonable .

5) The above court challenge has strong overtures of fraud, it is submitted here, as evidenced by the 'secret memo notes' of meetings held in June of 1985 by the West Vancouver, B.C. School Trustees to discuss BILL 35 (only ever used against this targeted senior teacher before it was withdrawn before legalities had concluded) and the lay-off of former senior teacher, Roger Callow.

6) Those memo notes were returned by B,.C. Supreme Court Justice, Hon. Mary Southin (r. 2004) 'because she did not use them'. Sufficient evidence was produced in the quashed arbitration to suggest that the government (BILL 35) was hi-jacked, the judiciary co-opted (gerrymandered government-appointed arbitrator) to sanction a secret 'sweetheart deal' between an Employer and the local West Vancouver Teachers Union; the only body that the B.C. courts would recognize to represent all interests of this plaintiff.

7) In latter years, the Union has joined legal links with the Employer to leave this plaintiff in a permanent state of limbo.

8) In July of 2013, Supreme Appeal Court's Deputy Justice, Alistair Cullen (the Cullen Creed) on his own recognizance and for reasons best known to himself expelled the Plaintiff from B.C. forcing him to seek justice outside the province in other courts. The all-important 'may proceed only with the permission of a judge' was conspicuous by its absence; a matter the Respondent is only too well aware although they claim in their factum that this term was included in B.C. actions. (Apparently by joining their claim with other judicial decisions; they hoped to cover-up this subterfuge).

9) The above point was stressed in court to Megaw j. although the Decision included the above falsehood having this plaintiff question as to whom wrote this Decision?

10) The second factum 'cherry-picks' the first factum which was analyzed in detail to select arguments by the Respondent to justify their ill-thought out claim 'to dismiss'. The court should refer to the completed 'perfected account' before making any consideration of the 'claim to dismiss'.

11) What is new is found in the Book of Authorities of the Respondent regarding SK Rules of Jurisdiction. A detailed analysis follows.

12) No reference is made to the 'legal billable time' case studies as no case parallels a plaintiff left in permanent limbo.

 

BOOK OF AUTHORITIES OF THE RESPONDENT (EMPLOYER)

13) TAB 11 The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (SK)

PART ll

Territorial Competence of Courts of SK

a) Application of Part

(2) The territorial competence of a court is to be determined solely by reference to this Part.

b) Real and substantial connections

(9) Without limiting the right of the plaintiff to prove other circumstances that constitute a real and substantial connection between Saskatchewan and the facts on which a proceeding is based, a real and substantial connection between SK and those facts is presumed to exist if the proceeding:

(k) is for the enforcement of a judgment of a court made in or outside SK or an arbitral award made in or outside SK

plaintiff comment (pc)

(9)The unique circumstances of being expelled from B.C. courts forcing the plaintiff to seek redress elsewhere in this unresolved labour case.

(k) Justice Southin ordered this matter in1986 back to re-arbitration after the Employer failed to return employment as recommended by her. Ensuing B.C. Courts rejected Southin j's 1986 Order to return to arbitration leaving this plaintiff in limbo.

Discretion as to the exercise of territorial competence

10(1) After considering the interests of the parties to a proceeding and the ends of justice, a court may decline to exercise its territorial competence in the proceeding on the ground that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum in which to try that proceeding.

pc Of course B.C. is the appropriate forum for this case but that would require the SK court to overturn the 'Cullen Creed'. That unwillingness on the part of the SK court is sufficient ground, it is asserted here, to exercise its residuary powers to effect justice in this case.

(2) A court, in deciding the question of whether it or a court outside SK is the more appropriate forum in which to try a proceeding, shall consider the circumstances relevant to the proceeding, including:

(f) the fair and efficient working of the Canadian legal system as a whole.

pc Is it fair for both B.C. and SK courts to deny the plaintiff any redress in this unresolved legal matter?

PART III

Transfer of Proceeding

Grounds for an order transferring a proceeding

13(1) The Court of Queen's Bench may, by order, request a court outside SK to accept a transfer of a proceeding in which the Court of Queen's Bench has both territorial and subject-matter competence if the Court of Queen's Bench is satisfied that:

(b) pursuant to section 10, the receiving court is a more appropriate forum for the proceeding than the Court of Queen's Bench.

pc a) Notice that the absolute abandonment of this issue by Megaw j. is not countenanced as, it is submitted here, he should have dealt with the matter of Employer abandonment.

 b) The issue placed before the SK court by the plaintiff is the 'ultra vires' nature of BILL 35 which any court may decide. This point had never been brought up by the Union, which claimed in 1985 that the imposed BILL 35 by the B.C. government was the 'battle of all teachers'. For example, the term 'current demonstrated ability', the only feature of this act applied to this plaintiff, is undefined in the Act or in law in general. Further, as BILL 35 was in addition to the Schools Act, it did not supplant any provisons of the School Act such as matters of teacher competency

c) insertion by the plaintiff: The arbitration exposed that there was not one but two versions of the 'Report on Teacher' by West Vancouver Principal, John Williams; one being positive and the other marked negative. My whistle blowing to the Ministry in Victoria apparently led to the enactment of BILL 35 -the Roger Callow Act -according to one Union lawyer. The SK Court is competent, it is submitted here, to deal with this aspect of a BILL since withdrawn before this case was resolved. However, As SK is not qualified to give a determination as to the propriety of the lay-off, the proper course is to order the plaintiff back on salary (including unpaid back salary plus interest dating from 1985 which belongs to him apart from judicial findings) until a finding or outside settlement is reached. Leaving the plaintiff without any recourse as Megaw j. would have it, is not an option for SK and why the matter is under Appeal. The rules of SK decree that either a matter is transferred or the SK courts make a judicial finding (apart from 'not being involved') For example, the SK Legal Society acted properly by forwarding my complaints about the legal conduct of the B.C. Employer's Harris & Co. to B.C. where that Company is licensed to practice law. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has requested that the Employer appoint new Counsel, preferably from SK, to present any further SK cases including this one relating to a 'Motion to Dismiss' should it materialize so that SK rules, not B.C. ones are applicable.

 N.B. The key to this and all hearings for the past 30 years is the disclosure of the 'secret missing memo notes' from Southin j. in 1986.

Yours truly

Roger Callow  December 27-2015

 

 

PLAINTIFF REPLY TO THE FACTUM OF THE RESPONDENT dated DECEMBER 17-2015  CACV2783 (SK APPEAL COURT)

 

1) Reference is made to a 6 page letter to the Board of School Trustees (December 21-2015) included here which states in part:

REFERENCE: RESPONDENT SECOND APPEAL FACTUM CACV 2783 of SK APPEAL COURT WITH SELECTED PASSAGES FROM THE FIRST APPEAL FACTUM. A COPY OF THIS LETTER IS INCLUDED TO THE COURT UNDER REPLY TO HARRIS & CO. SECOND FACTUM RECEIVED DECEMBER 19-2015 BY FED-EX

 

2) Of interest is that this second factum no longer has the signature of Litherland's esq. paralegal, Christine Millar, swearing as to the authenticity of this document. Previously, she has signed many documents in this case.

 

3) That question may be pertinent as it relates to a letter from the B.C. Legal Society dated December 14 included here on questions related to the conduct of G. Litherland of Harris & Co. I wouldn't put it past this body to claim that as Millar is not a member of the Legal Society and it is her signature on these previous  factums, Mr. Litherland's conduct is not in question. A preposterous assertion, I know, but this case has become preposterous due to the conduct of various legal bodies.

 

4) Considering as part of the 'perfection' order for CACV 2783, I spent 8 hours indexing 500 pages - most of them the usual 'billable time nonsense' - with an interesting addendum; namely a point by point rebuttal of the FIRST FACTUM of the Respondent. This is the first time that such an opportunity has been given this plaintiff and I include it here as it is conspicuous by its absence from the SECOND FACTUM

 

 

FOLLOWING IS A POINT BY POINT REBUTTAL TO THE SECOND FACTUM

Part 1 - Introduction

 

3. The Respondent submits that the Chamber's Judge's exercise of discretion is owed deference and there is no basis to justify this court interfering with that exercise of discretion.

RESPONSE (R)

A) Conspicuous by its absence was any reference by the court that the 'Cullen Creed' expelled this litigant from the B.C. Courts for 'reasons best known to himself'. Without the all important may proceed only with the permission of a judge(missing link), that action usurps the smooth operation of the justice system. That observation was made directly to Megaw j. in court.

B) For over 30 years, this case has been about disclosure as pointed out to Megaw j. How, in all good conscience, can any court pass judgment without seeing the 'secret missing memo notes' from Justice Southin detailing the meetings held in June of 1985 where BILL 35 was discussed and the matter of the lay-off of this senior teacher. She asserted that nowhere did the Board demonstrate an intention to lay off a teacher under the conditions of BILL 35. The letter from the Superintendent to that effect, therefore, was fraudulent as was the apparent 'after-thought' of an Order purporting to be from the Board but, in all likelihood, written in the office of their Harris & Co. lawyer. This is the alleged perfidy that she covered up just as every court became part of this conspiracy by rejecting a call for this disclosure. Megaw j. and later Ottenbreit j. (surety) became part of this conspiracy with their refusal to call for that necessary disclosure. To date, the Appeal Court has not recognized my request for a preliminary one hour hearing to discuss this disclosure and whether or not Harris & Co. should be permitted to represent the Employer in a SK court; particularly considering the fact that Litherland is being investigated by the B.C. Legal Society in this case

C) Megaw j. made no reference to 'tranference' in the event of a dismissal which is detailed in the Second Factum. He found the Reference to 'Natural Justice' laughable. His argument on 'inherent jurisdiction' made no note of the 'missing link' and remains a central feature of the appeal by this plaintiff.

 

Part II - Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

 

5. The standard of review applicable to an appellate Court's consideration of an appeal from a decision involving a judge's excercise of discretion is decidedly narrow. Before an appellate Court will intervene in such a case, it must conclude that the judge of first instance:

(c) overlooked or misapprehended some material evidence;

R. Disclosure of the 'secret missing memo notes' has already been discussed as was the 'missing link'. No mention is made by Megaw j. as to 'transference' or 'natural justice' (other than he found it laughable).

The Rebuttal to the First Factum includes copious references to 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice'.

 

(d) failed to act judicially; or

(e) was so clearly wrong that the decision will result in an injustice.

R. Megaw j.'s failure to acknowledge that this Plaintiff is in limbo due to an unresolved legal issue once ordered back to arbitration by the B.C. court when the Employer refused to return employment as recommended by the court is at the heart of his perfidy, particularly considering that no compensation has been paid (includes pension rights as the Board refused to recognize my retirement at age 65 (currently, I am 74). Hence the exercise of discretion in this case is not nearly as narrow as Harris & Co. would assert.

 

Part III - Summary of Facts

 

6. The Appellant has been litigating the lay-off from his employment as a teacher with the West Vancouver School District since 1985 and since that time has appeared before nine separate courts, over 30 judges and various times before the British Columbia Labour Relations Board.

R. I have never appeared before the BCLB although there were a number of applications by me to do so. The point to be made here is that Harris & Co. (see letter enclosed) were vociferously prepared to argue that as this case was not under the collective bargaining code, the BCLB had no right to intervene. The Harris & Co. letter asserted that the conditions of the imposed BILL 35 were the operant laws. The failure of the Supreme Court of Canada to hear this constitutional argument of national importance in 1997 (Chief Justice Lamers (d) / B. McLachlin (incumbent Chief Justice) / Cory) rejected a hearing without giving reasons as is the pattern under such circumstances of the SCofC.

 

8. The Appellant has been declared a vexatious litigant by both the B.C. Supreme Court and the Ontario Superior Court. As such, he is precluded from commencing any action in either of those courts without first obtaining leave.

R.  A) A major condition of litigants so afflicted by the above charge is that they must make a prima facie case which is not a problem here.

B) The conditions under which such a charge may be made must be accompanied by a detailed background of events leading up to that charge. The Williamson Order (2003) before the second unsuccessful Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004 and the MacKenzie Order of October 1, 2010 and the Cullen Order of July 23-2013 do not comply with that dictum as Harris & Co. well know which possibly explains why no reference is made to B.C. in this regard preferring to base all their arguments in this respect on the Ontario McKinnon j. Order 13-59060. Apparently Harris & Co. would resurrect this B.C. reference.

C) The Reference of the McKinnon j. Order dated September 15, 2014 refers to the highly questionable second decision of Justice McKinnon without any reference to the first Decision dated April 23-2014 which is the basis of the Quebec case in this matter now under appeal. It is also the essence of the letter from the B.C. Legal Society of December 14-2015  included here questioning this dichotomy. Until that matter is settled, Harris & Co. should not, it is submitted here, be permitted to appear in a SK court room.

 

10. On or about April 16, 2015, the Appellant filed a Notice of Motion against the Respondent in the Quebec Superior Court...

R. A) While there were two judges; there has been only one response under this most unusual hearing. I await the response of the first judge. See letter to A. Therrien j. dated December 27-2015. Both judges have been referred by me to the Quebec Judicial Council which is failing to respond.

B) There is no Appeal on file with the court although that has not stopped the court in assigning Lavery, de Billy for the Respondent, a docket number for his 'dismissal' notice, reflective of collusion between the two. Lavery, de Billy has been referred by me to the Quebec Bar Society with a copy of letters going to Premier Couillard and Prime Minister Trudeau.

C) The original motion was solely on the grounds of disclosure of the 'missing memo notes' which pervades all courts. No mention is made in Goulet j.'s (second judge) on this point.

 

11. In his decision declaring the Appellant a vexatious litigant and dismissing his most recent action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, McKinnon j. of that Court stated:

R. A) This bombastic statement appeared on page 1 of the anti-employee Ottawa Citizen on April 28, 2014 which refused to take any rebuttal under 'equal time'.

B) The above statement is a mish-mash. I was the Respondent in an action brought by Hicks, Morley et al  (no longer represent them) for the Employer to discuss all issues; something I certainly was not against. McKinnon ignored that request and settled on the vexatious label with supporting evidence (provided by court services) which I saw for a first time in his April 23-2015 decision. He dismissed an action by me which was on file to be heard without knowing the basis of my approach which was to be conditioned by Hicks, Morley jumping the gun with their own action. I call that 'cowboying' by McKinnon j. and not consistent  with good legal procedure. This whole matter along with a second originally a federally appointed judge wound up in the hands of the oversight bodies (Canadian Judicial Council under the aegis of Hon. B. McLachlin which has never responded to my many complaints against judges in this case). The matter was appealed but 'disappeared' down the rabbit hole with the Ontario Appeal Court of Chief Justice George Strathy merely holding on to my materials leading to much confusion. That is why I advised both SK and QC courts to avoid this contentious material. 95% of the Respondent's argument, according to Goulet j.'s assessment, was based on McKinnon's decision.

 

Part V - Argument

 

1. Did the Chambers Judge err in holding that the Court was without jurisdiction to hear the Appellant's originating application?

 

A. Statutory Scheme

 

15. The applicable statute for determining whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the Appellant's claims is the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SS 1997, cC-41.1 ("CJPTA")

 

16. The relevant sections of the CJPTA are as follows:

 

Proceedings against persons

 

4. A court has territorial competence in a proceeding that is brought against a person only if:

 

(e) there is a real and substantial connection between SK and the facts on which the proceeding against the person is based.

R. Although it was specifically pointed out to Megaw j. that this plaintiff was expelled absolutely from the B.C. Court system (Cullen Creed) in an unresolved labour matter originating in that province, he glossed over that key point in his judgment. Of course, only the Supreme Court of Canada is the only body competent to deal with this matter of systematic judicial abuse and of course in this conspiracy, the lower courts thwart such attempts to reach that level (for a third time). Even McKinnon j. conceded that this was a matter for the SCofC but I was not going to get there through Ontario courts...a rather prophetic statement considering successive appeals further reinforcing my claim of a conspiracy.

 

Real and substantial connection

 

9. Without limiting the right of the plaintiff to prove other circumstances that constitute a real and substantial connection between SK and the facts on which a proceeding is based...

R. One needs read no further in this section as the definition outlined above in Proceedings against persons constitutes 'other circumstances'

although (k) may be applied:

(k) is for the enforcement of a judgment of a court made in or outside SK or an arbitral award made in or outside SK....

R. Justice Southin's statement recommending employment be returned which the Employer turned down has weight in law in that such legal recommendations are to be pursued which didn't follow here when the Employer failed to return to arbitration as so ordered by the court of Southin j. The appeal made by me before Justice Spencer in 1995 was made under the banner of 'abandonment' in which he was asked to change the 'should' return  employment to 'must' return employment with all terms of the contract to apply.

 

17. As outlined in section 10 of the CJPTA, even where the Court finds there is a real and substantial connection between the facts of the case and SK, the Court has a residual discretion to decline to exercise its territorial competence on the basis that another forum would be more appropriate:

10.(2) A court, in deciding the question of whether it or a court outside of SK is the more appropriate forum in which to try a proceeding, shall consider the circumstances relevant to the proceeding, including:

(e) the enforcement of an eventual judgment; and

(f) the fair and efficient working of the Canadian legal system as a whole

R. Megaw j. chose a narrow interpretation of the court's 'discretion' which is not supported by the above provisions. As explained to him in court, clear the path of prohibitions against this plaintiff in B.C. along with the necessary disclosure material, and I would be out of SK courts.

He did neither.

 

B. Case Law in SK

 

As a generalization, no case law applies to an unresolved labour issue no matter where it originates and where no compensation has been paid. In brief, the case law cited by the Respondent Employer is little more than a 'billable time exercise' as reflected in my 8 hour indexing of their 500 page First Factum for Appeal. The employeescasecanada.com is the precedent for all other 'standing cases' in Canada as it relates to the provision of the courts right to leave a litigant in limbo. The serial nature of the charge due to the addition of the word 'systematic' as in systematic judicial abuse relegates this issue to the only court competent to deal with this national challenge: the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

 

 

Application of Legal Principles

 

20. - 27. are the Respondent's conclusions emanating from the faulty analysis as outlined above.

 

22. ...The Appellant is simply forum shopping and attempting to litigate claims in SK because he has been barred from doing so in the Courts of B.C. and Ontario.

R. True assertion as it applies to B.C. but not so in Ontario as McKinnon j. was well aware of including 'may proceed only with the permission of a judge' which Cullen j. did not but escaped censure on that accord by McKinnon j.

 

24. & 25. As stated by Maranger j. in dismissing the Appellant's Ontario civil action:

'A Court of the Province of Ontario does not have jurisdiction to hear a claim  that is inextricably intertwined in all respects with British Columbia.'

R. Maranger j. makes no comment on the Cullen Creed and how I was expelled for 'reasons best known to a judge' nor any reference to an unresolved labour case. His 'non-action' was appealed to the Divisional Court which supported his action in a similarly terse fashion. The Appeal of that decision disappeared in Appeal Court's Chief Justice, George Strathy, where I await - for some time now - for the oversight bodies to investigate. Hicks, Morley et al represented the Employer. In short, these two courts gave short shrift to a matter which affects all clients in Canada under a collective bargaining agreement - and even here we are not sure that it applies to 'imposed' government legislation - which draws into question as to whether the 'sweetheart deal' has now been given court sanction thus destroying the entire Union movement in Canada.

 

27. The Chambers judge did not err...did not overlook any material evidence and acted judicially.

R. He most certainly did err by failing to call for the 'missing memo notes' as the allegation is one of fraud against the original conspirators and the related court processes across 10 court systems and 40 judges. Those charges of fraud were outlined in T-2360-14 (Federal Court) which Vancouver Prothonotary, Roger Lafreniére, would dispose of a case (similar to his earlier actions in T-1386-11) by jumping the gun in a matter slated to be heard before an Ottawa judge. Due to the confusion of the addition of a second judge in Quebec, those charges have now been refiled in that province. The matter of fraud takes precedence over all other legal considerations.

 

2. Other bases for the Chambers Judge's Decision

 

29. The Respondent submits that the following bases provide further support for the Chambers Judge's decision.

 

2.1 Originating Application barred by doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel, and/or abuse of process

 

A. Overview of Legal Principles

 

30. The general principles of law relating to res judicata, issue estoppal and abuse of process are succinctly outlined in Halsbury's Laws of Canada - Civil Procedure (2012 Re-issue):

 

a. '...the courts have acknowledged the possibility that finality may lead to error and injustice but the risk of it doing so must be balanced against the much greater risk of injustice that lack of certainty would create. R. 'bang on' 

 

b. The finality of a court's decision is reflected in such procedural concepts as res judicata, issue estoppal, the prohibition against collateral attack on a judgment and many aspects of abuse of process.

Each is intended to prevent the misuse of court procedure to avoid bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. The scope of the finality of a determination is fixed by the concepts of res judicata and issue estoppal. Except in special cases, the plea of res judicata applies not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point that properly belonged to the subject-matter of the litigation and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.

R. Where is that 'reasonable diligence' by the Respondent and the courts in producing the 'missing memo notes'?

 

c. Issue estoppal is a distinct form of res judicata. Issue estoppal means that a litigant is estopped because the issue has clearly been decided in the previous proceeding.

iii. The estoppal extends to the issues of fact,  law and mixed fact and law that are necessarily bound up with the determination of that "issue" in the prior proceeding.

R. The courts and the Respondent ignore the original issue of an unresolved labour case where no compensation has been paid claiming such procedural nonsense as only the Employer and Union (which, in recent years, has joined forces with the Employer) may litigate this 'sweetheart deal' in B.C.  By law, they must either return to court or sign an agreement. They did neither (as then, the Union could be sued by me for 90% of the settlement...and that would never do as the whole conspiracy would come out including that of the judiciary).

 

Supreme Court of Canada Authority

 

31. ...the SCofC discussed the finality principle and, in particular, the doctrines of issue estoppal and abuse of process, as follows:

 

(27) ...Binnie j. emphasized the importance of finality in litigation... Parties should be able to rely particularly on the conclusive nature of administrative decisions, he noted, since administrative regimes are designed to facilitate the expeditious resolution of disputes. (para.50) All of this is guided by the theory that "estoppal is a doctrine of public policy that is designed to advance the interests of justice" (para. 19)

R. Someone should tell that to all those judges that the Chief Justice chooses to hear this case.

 

(34) At their heart, the foregoing doctrines exist to prevent unfairness by preventing "abuse of the decision-making process".

R. While this plaintiff has a battle with the Employer in this regard, he has a full-scale war with the courts.

 

C. Application of Legal Principles

 

34. The B.C Supreme Court has recognized this (frivolous and vexatious actions) many times and has issued three separate Orders (2003,2010 and 2013) preventing the Appellant from accessing the Court process without leave. The 2010 and 2013 Orders have declared that any document the Appellant files with the Registry is a 'nullity' and warrants no response by the named defending/responding party.

R. On their own recognizance, without taking legal argument nor quoting specific laws, the 2010 and 2013 judges, for 'reasons best known to themselves' chose to greatly restrict the Appellant in this unresolved labour case. Harris & Co. are remiss in failing to note that while the MacKenzie Creed of 2010 includes the all-important 'may proceed with permission of a judge'; the Cullen Creed is conspicuous by its absence.

36. It is clear that the grounds and issues litigated and re-l;itigated in B.C., and Ontario Courts were simply been rolled over and repeated by the Appellant in the Originating Application.

R. Not so as each court is devoted to a central cause. For example, the SK court is asked to define the 'ultra vires' nature of BILL 35 (since withdrawn in typical banana republic fashion) in that 'current demonstrated ability' is undefined in the Act or in law in general although we know, for structural reasons, it cannot apply to teacher competence. In Justice Southin's words in 1986, the Board used the Act for the wrong reason. Any court in Canada can decide on the use of this term. The court in Quebec was originally focused on acquiring the 'missing memo notes' for which no court hearing has credibility in this issue without them as, it is submitted here, those notes reflect a fraud on a scale hitherto unknown in Canadian jurisprudence. In Ontario, I was the Respondent in the McKinnon j. court where the Employer asked for all issues to be discussed so I can hardly be accused of re-litigating anything there.

 

2.2 Originating Application vexatious and well beyond limitation period

A. Overview of Legal Principles - Vexatious Claims

40. Further, the following principles have been enunciated by both the B.C. Supreme Court and the Ontario Court of Justice:

a. the bringing of one or more actions to be determine an issue which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious proceeding.

R. The "issue" of the propriety of my lay-off has never been decided hence compensation cannot flow. All that has been decided are jurisdictional processes which impede the solution of the issue.

 

d. in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action.

R. Only the Mckinnon j. decision from Ontario approaches the above conditions which have been undermined by reporting them in a bastardized manner and are the topic of a B.C. Legal Society investigation. See enclosed letter.

 

C. Application of Legal Principles

44. 'denigrating' comments by this Plaintiff.

R. Consider SK Appeal Court's R. Ottenbreit j. (Surety) comment on the internet: 'I have no interest in Internet materials in court'

 

45. In addition to being vexatious, the Appellant's claims in this matter are barred by the applicable limitation statutes. The true cause of action on which the Appellant bases his claims (and in respect of which he seeks relief) arose over 30 years ago. Under any measure, the Appellant's claims are decades out of time.

R. At which point did I become responsible as an individual in this case as differentiated by sole Union control which the B.C. courts assigned them, probably erroneous? Further, as I should have been under salary as provisions of the contract provide and which exist apart from judicial outcomes, are not the Employer the author of their own demise by failing to return to re-arbitration as so ordered by the court? Granted Justice Southin should have ordered salary continuance as a means to finalize this issue ( a 'stunt' she could not get away with, according to my legal counsel, Harry Rankin (d) ) Those monies belong as 'deferred salary' to this plaintiff apart from judicial outcomes.

 

Part VI - Relief

48. The Respondent submits that the appeal should be dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

R. That request is contingent on whether the SK courts accept Harris & Co. to represent the Employer. A SK legal firm, as the Employer has chosen in Ontario and Quebec is recommended although a preliminary hearing of one hour has been called by this plaintiff to discuss 'disclosure' and representation should the Employer insist that Harris & Co. be their choice.

 

signed

 

 

Roger Callow  Plaintiff/Appellant January 03, 2016  CACV 2783 SK Appeal

                                                                                           C.A.M. 500-09-025753-153

 

 

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO MONTREAL APPEAL COURT ORDER

#500...H.D. Jan. 18-2016  Decision - Jan. 19-2016

QUOTES:

1) Lady Macbeth: " What needst we fear it for who can call us to account?

2) If a legal issue falls in the middle of the proverbial forest where there is no-one to hear it, does it make a sound? ANSWER: Not if it is heard only by Montreal Appeal Court judges, J.Chamberland  J.A. / G. Marcotte J.A. / E. Parent J.A.

3) 'Forgive us our sins, for what we have done and what we have failed to do.'

 

ARGUMENT

3) In ordering the single most important issue in Canadian jurisprudence to be dismissed for being 'frivolous and vexatious'; the arrogance of this court knows no bounds explaining why these three judges must be expelled from the bench in this fraudulently designed  hearing if Premier P. Couillard and Prime Minister J. Trudeau whom were kept fully informed as events unraveled, are to have any credibility. Otherwise Canada and Canadians are living in a state of anarchy.

4) This is the first time an Order to me is accompanied by a minute by minute definition of the hearing: 11:31 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel.

                 11:31 The Court will recess for 10 minutes to allow Mr. Callow to call in.

                 11:31 Recess

                 11:45 Resumption of the hearing

                 11:45 Submissions by Mtre Warin

                 11:46 Recess

                 11:49 Resumption of the hearing

                 11:50 By the Court: judgment - see page 3

Robert Osadchuck  Clerk

5) If the above is not frivolous and vexatious, I don't know what is...and I mean the conduct of those 3 judges and not this plaintiff.

6) If I had phoned in, an additional minute could have been added as it related to Disclosure which the Court did not provide and which was the sole reason for going to a Quebec Court in this 30 year - 10 separate courts - 40 judges - escapade as they well realized. So add one minute  and subtract 17 recess minutes from a total of 29 minutes and we are left with the grand total of 12 minutes of what? Judicial Cover-up on a scale never before witnessed in Canadian jurisprudence.

7) And it does not stop there as Mtre Warin's submission consists of one minute wherein no considered questions were asked regarding their alleged fraudulent behaviour in launching their case which was detailed in earlier letters by this plaintiff to the court as the court acknowledges.

8) Of greatest interest is the publication of the Order on page 3 at 11:50. Presumably, this Order was pre-written as almost all Judicial Orders are in this conspiracy unless, of course, these 3 wonders were able to write the response in the 4 minute recess after getting Mtre's one minute submission. Even Mozart in his one minute waltz would feel challenged by the 'two-step' song and dance number of this Montreal's Appeal Court here.

9) For whom, then, was this purloined document written? Why none other than the Supreme Court of Canada for which I promised in writing to appeal should this court fail to provide the necessary Disclosure. The rest of the legalities were of no interest to me (although they should be of interest to 35 million other Canadians)

10) That SCofC Appeal goes to Chief Justice B. McLachlin whom looms large in this case. She was part of the panel in 1997 which refused to hear this appeal and was Chief Justice in 2004 in a second attempt to be heard where my state of 'permanent limbo' was reinforced. She is also President of the Canadian Judicial Council which has failed to acknowledge complaints against a number of judges in this case. In short, the 'gang of 3' see her as a 'slam dunk' on the Appeal Court tarmac.

11) Considering that Prime Minister Trudeau has not seen fit to establish Parliament as the Supreme Ruler in Canada by dismissing Chief Justice B. McLachlin , the Montreal judges are not too far wrong in second-guessing where the real power in Canada lies.

12) Of course the  details - where the devil resides - are conspicuous by their absence; particularly why the court would cover-up why two judges were assigned this case; the second one writing the Lower Court Order without reference to the sitting judge of whom I requested his version of events on December 27-2015. I will mail him a 2nd Request to that effect. As matters now stand, it appears that it takes two QC judges to screw in a light bulb; one to hold the bulb in the socket while the other twists him from below.

 

Following is a response to the specious one page account of the 'gang of 3'

(1) By mentioning only the one judge of the two in this case; the gang of 3 have perverted the course of justice in an irremedial way not only in QC but all of Canada. Considering that was the court's intention then that is fraud of the highest order deserving of their expulsion.

(2) ...Mr. Callow indicated that "his presence would merely be redundant as all arguments have been made in letters to the court." They got that one right and could have also included the fact that Lavery de Billy for the Employer's appearance was also redundant as all his arguments were in writing and his court appearance amounted to a token one minute. Add to that an obviously pre-written judgment and we have a complete picture of this fraud in which the Lavery 'tail' is seen to wag the Montreal Appeal Court 'dog'.

(4) These assertions by Gatineau's second judge, Justice Goulet which the Appeal court unequivocally accepts without reservation requires re-examination...Mr. Callow has since been precluded from introducing any further legal proceedings without prior authorization in British Columbia....That is the key to the entire fraud being perpetuated in every court outside B.C. since the 'Cullen Creed' of 2013 expelled me from B.C. absolutely. There is no 'prior authorization' in that Creed. The Lower Court in SK with Megaw j. also committed to that lie as did Goulet j. as I specifically pointed out to the both of them that flaw explaining my presence in courts outside of B.C. The reference to Ontario events is nonsensical and does not deserve mention as 95% of the case before the first judge, Therrien j. was based on the false information of Ontario's McKinnon j. Further, I am not banned from Ontario courts.

(5) 'The Quebec Superior Court judgment stops short of ordering that Mr. Callow be prohibited from introducing further legal proceedings in Quebec, although it does not exclude this possibility should he persist to attempt to litigate in relation to his past dismissal in Quebec.'

That threatening language is designed to complete the cover-up of the 'two-judges' question. Extend this type of legal casuistry across Canada and you can kiss the Justice System 'good-bye'. The Appeal Court has to give an Order to desist otherwise how can this point be contested in Appeal?...or is that the entire nature of this fraudulent statement? Forbidding something which does not exist or 'pretend to exist' falls in the nature of denying a negative; which is an impossibility. The Supreme Court of Canada must attend to this bogus point.

 

THE LETTER WHICH HANGS THE QUEBEC JUDICIARY

Court d'appel du Quebec

Montreal, December 16,2015

BY MAIL AND EMAIL    N.B. Heading only annotated

Mr. Roger Callow

RE: Callow v. Board of School Trustees

       500-09-025753 (Gatineau) / 550-17-008208-157 (Montreal Appeal)

 

Dear Sir,

We acknowledge receipt of your inscription in Appeal received at the Court of Appeal on November 30, 2015, your letter dated December 14, 2015 and your Reply of Appellant to Lavery de Billy Motion to dismiss the appeal received on December 15, 2015.

 

Unfortunately, the documents titled Factum of the Appellant and Book of Authorities attached to your inscription in appeal are not filed in conformity with the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the Court of Appeal of Quebec in Civil Matters. Therefore, the Office of the Court will accept (my underlining R.C.) the filing of your proceeding as an inscription in appeal only.

To help you in that process, we urge you to consult the Checklist for the conformity of factum and an example of the Appellant's Factum on our web site at the following address http://courdappelduquebec.ca/en/.

 

Regarding your letter dated December 14, 2015, we inform you that the Court cannot fix a date for the hearing of the appeal at this stage. Indeed, the Clerk of the Court has not yet declared the file ready to be placed on the roll as the factums have not yet been filed.

 

Finally, we hereby advise you that your  Reply of Appellant to Lavery de Billy Motion to dismiss the appeal  was given to the judges seized (? RC.) of your file on January 18, 2016. Furthermore, could you please inform the undersigned if you will be present at the Court of Appeal for the hearing of the motion to dismiss the appeal presented on January 18,2016 by the respondent?

 

Once again, we strongly suggest that you contact a lawyer in order to protect your rights. The coordinates of the Quebec Bar Referral Services are 1(866) 954-3528

 

Yours truly,

                                                            Mtre Catherine Dufour  Assistant Legal Coordinator

 

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS LETTER?

SEE employescasecanada.ca  JANUARY-2015 under JANUARY  19-2016

By the Plaintiff, Roger Callow

1) At first glance, nothing. The factum is incomplete so it has to be revised before a docket number is assigned...a common procedure.

2) So why was a docket number assigned to Lavery, de Billy to file a Notice to Dismiss with no reference in my account to any docket number being assigned. Collusion between Lavery and the Court is suspected.

3) How can de Billy request a dismissal of something that is not listed on file? Denying a negative is an impossibility, even in French Quebec (disclosure: my wife is French Canadian). Apparently the answer is the filing of a second factum by de Billy which omits the all important question as to why two judges acted in tandem on this case which the oversight bodies have failed to rule ever since my complaint dating from August 01-2015? Again, collusion is suspected, particularly as the judges for this January 18-2016 hearing are being notified ahead of time as to this most significant short-coming. It would appear as though the Office of the Chief Justice is instrumental in these machinations.

4) It would appear that de Billy is seeking to limit his Order to Dismiss to the second judge's (Goulet jsc) published Order as we have not heard from Justice Therrien as to when we can expect his Order. I wrote him on December 27-2015 to that end.

5) To be sure in a political trial of this sort, the QC premier and Prime Minister would be consulted. For example, a few years back when 'Arar' was deported from a NY in transit lounge at Kennedy Airport, 10 days elapsed before he was taken by the CIA for a little S&M in Syria where torture is a cottage industry...just enough time to get back door sanction from P.M. Martin and Defence Minister Bill Graham. Hence the $10 million later paid him by Harper was, I submit, 'hush money' in which Martin and Graham promised to leave politics as a consequence. Attempts by Arar to reveal this skulduggery in the U.S. was sidetracked by such specious arguments as the 'in transit lounge was not U.S. territory' therefore his claim was denied so we never found out what happened. Similarly, any delay currently in the Employee's Case is a matter of providing time for the 'green light' to be given by Couillard and Trudeau.

6) Considering that both the QC Premier and Prime Minister were kept apprised on a daily basis of events leading up to the SK Jan. 18-2016 hearing, then the outcome  is to be construed as a directive from these two politicians.

THE JUDICIAL RECORD

7) The myth of precedent law which is the backbone of our legal system in which case studies are referred to as giving guidance in trials, is just that in Canada, a myth. The assumption here is that the presiding justice has given due process to the arguments for both sides and writes a judgment reflective of that process which appears on the judicial record sans the arguments from the litigants. In effect, the judge oftentimes drowns one of the litigants; usually the weaker one whom lacks power to appeal his decision, through the process of omission...Remember the prayer: Forgive me my sins for what I have done and what I have failed to do.

8) This is what is happening here as Lavery, de Billy, in his second Factum would make no reference to the existence of two judges on the same case nor other negative reflections on the law in this case clearing, he hopes, the judicial path for a clear registration of the (false) situation in a 'clear' manner.

9) What has actually happened here is that the court has willingly committed themselves to a fraud by approving 'dismissal' and in such manner that precedent law has been imperiled.

PRECEDENT LAW

10) Strike 1 for the Justice System is the failure to acknowledge that this writer is in a state of limbo without a judicial ruling in a labour case from whence compensation may flow. That is why this is a 'standing case' enabling me to directly challenge the Justice System for 'finality' is the keystone to our courts of law.

11) Strike 2 is the failure to acknowledge that this litigant has been expelled from B.C. by the 'Cullen Creed' of July 23-2013 in an unresolved legal matter forcing this case into other venues under the laws of inherent jurisdiction, natural justice, and transference. Judicial findings on this level are sloppy such as with Megaw j. of SK Queen's Bench being appealed CACV2783 to be heard February 09-2016; again with a specious second factum by the Employer trying to sweep judicial excesses under the carpet similar to QC de Billy. McGaw treated the SK list of applicable rules for case handling in an 'exclusive' fashion; that is, as soon as he collected those items under inherent jurisdiction that suited a narrow interpretation of his decision, he ignored the other rules which encompassed handling an out of province case. He found the reference to natural justice 'laughable' . There was no reference to transference which courts are obliged to do in matters such as this: e.g. if B.C.is the appropriate forum for this case, they must take those steps which would permit this litigant to re-enter the B.C. legal forum.

12) Strike 3 is the refusal of 10 separate court systems and 40 judges to order Disclosure; namely those secret memo notes dealing with meetings of the West Vancouver School Trustees in which the discussion of BILL 35 and the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow, was discussed. The quashed arbitration would suggest that no sanction was given by those Trustees to the lay-off of this writer in June of 1985 as quoted in the Superintendent's letter to that effect. In brief, that is fraud and the court system is guilty of cover-up as this disclosure is a precursor to any legal enquiry which is why I am on record as saying that failure to disclose in both QC and SK will lead to an automatic appeal.

13) The judicial excesses are so extreme here, that these proceedings make a mockery of precedent law, which is the 'legal billable time nonsense' in many cases for the legal fraternity. For example SK Appeal Court's Ottenbreit j. turned the law on its head in a surety hearing by declaring the matter a 'special case'. I can only wonder about the calibre of the 3 SK Appeal Court justices assigned by Chief Justice Robert Richards. Ottenbreit j. is a harbinger of justices sidetracked from traffic court where they have taken one too many gavels to the head.

14) While Disclosure operates in both QC and SK, the SK case is centered on the ultra vires nature of Bill 35 for which the Employer must provide rebuttal otherwise my contention stands and everything transpiring from that imposed B.C. Act is 'null and void'.

THE 'LOW DOWN'

15) The School Trustees would dearly like an end to this case as it has destroyed Canada. To that end, they are willing to pay $6-1/2 million dollars in settlement if the court orders them to do so which it won't for the courts do not want to be blamed for 30 years of procrastination. The B.C. government, considering their nefarious role in this caper, would be honour bound to bail out the School District.

16) To this end, the Employer is 'playing both ends of the stick against the middle' by, on the one hand, feeding me the information by which I may pillory the courts while on the other hand, 'setting up' legal firms in Ontario and Quebec. They lost Hicks, Morley et al in Ontario and are highly unlikely to get another legal firm there. Lavery, de Billy was also sucker punched and has compromised themselves, the QC Justice System and through it, the entire Justice System of Canada for their caper will be known clear across the land. Canadian Jurisprudence will never be the same with the QC court dismissal on Jan. 18-2016.

17) I am trying to get Employer SK  representation for the Appeal on Feb. 09-16 as an investigation of B.C.'s Harris & Co. is being conducted by the B.C. Legal Society at the behest of the SK Legal Society since Harris & Co. is domiciled in B.C. Transgressions in SK, I submit, should be examined in SK by interests familiar with SK laws which the B.C. Legal Society is not.

18) SK Premier Brad Wall is being kept fully apprised of developments in that province.

PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU - a personal message

19) Considering that your reputation is irreparably tarnished along with that of QC Premier Couillard until such time as you expel QC Appeal Justices, Chamberland J.A., Marcotte J.A., Parent J.A. from the bench; you might consider three courses of action: a) In World War II, Canadian lads bombed the bejeezes out of good Germans in order to expel the heinous Nazi Party. Perhaps those self-same good Germans can return a missile or two on Canada and  its corruptocracy;

b) Canada led the legal battle against apartheid in South Africa with S.A. making a return visit to our native Indian reserves as a yardstick to our hypocrisy. Perhaps it is time for them to visit the 'Outlawed Canadian' on yet another visit.

 c) Should the Pope accept the P.M.'s invitation to look over his shoulder while he apologizes to our native people; perhaps the Pope may return the favour by looking over Trudeau's shoulder while the P.M. apologizes to the 'Outlawed Canadian'.

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow

 

cc P.M.  J.Trudeau / Premiers QC P. Couillard / SK B. Wall / SK Appeal Court

RCMP - Montreal Fraud Division

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE LETTER WHICH HANGS THE QUEBEC JUDICIARY

Court d'appel du Quebec

Montreal, December 16,2015

BY MAIL AND EMAIL    N.B. Heading only anontated

Mr. Roger Callow

RE: Callow v. Board of School Trustees

       500-09-025753 (Gatineau) / 550-17-008208-157 (Montreal Appeal)

 

Dear Sir,

We acknowledge receipt of your inscription in Appeal received at the Court of Appeal on November 30, 2015, your letter dated December 14, 2015 and your Reply of Appellant to Lavery de Billy Motion to dismiss the appeal received on December 15, 2015.

 

Unfortunately, the documents titled Factum of the Appellant and Book of Authorities attached to your inscription in appeal are not filed in conformity with the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the Court of Appeal of Quebec in Civil Matters. Therefore, the Office of the Court will accept (my underlining R.C.) the filing of your proceeding as an inscription in appeal only.

To help you in that process, we urge you to consult the Checklist for the conformity of factum and an example of the Appellant's Factum on our web site at the following address http://courdappelduquebec.ca/en/.

 

Regarding your letter dated December 14, 2015, we inform you that the Court cannot fix a date for the hearing of the appeal at this stage. Indeed, the Clerk of the Court has not yet declared the file ready to be placed on the roll as the factums have not yet been filed.

 

Finally, we hereby advise you that your  Reply of Appellant to Lavery de Billy Motion to dismiss the appeal  was given to the judges seized (? RC.) of your file on January 18, 2016. Furthermore, could you please inform the undersigned if you will be present at the Court of Appeal for the hearing of the motion to dismiss the appeal presented on January 18,2016 by the respondent?

 

Once again, we strongly suggest that you contact a lawyer in order to protect your rights. The coordinates of the Quebec Bar Referral Services are 1(866) 954-3528

 

Yours truly,

                                                            Mtre Catherine Dufour  Assistant Legal Coordinator

 

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS LETTER?

SEE employescasecanada.ca  JANUARY-2015 under JANUARY  19-2016

By the Plaintiff, Roger Callow

1) At first glance, nothing. The factum is incomplete so it has to be revised before a docket number is assigned...a common procedure.

2) So why was a docket number assigned to Lavery, de Billy to file a Notice to Dismiss with no reference in my account to any docket number being assigned. Collusion between Lavery and the Court is suspected.

3) How can de Billy request a dismissal of something that is not listed on file? Denying a negative is an impossibility, even in French Quebec (disclosure: my wife is French Canadian). Apparently the answer is the filing of a second factum by de Billy which omits the all important question as to why two judges acted in tandem on this case which the oversight bodies have failed to rule ever since my complaint dating from August 01-2015? Again, collusion is suspected, particularly as the judges for this January 18-2016 hearing are being notified ahead of time as to this most significant short-coming. It would appear as though the Office of the Chief Justice is instrumental in these machinations.

4) It would appear that de Billy is seeking to limit his Order to Dismiss to the second judge's (Goulet jsc) published Order as we have not heard from Justice Therrien as to when we can expect his Order. I wrote him on December 27-2015 to that end.

5) To be sure in a political trial of this sort, the QC premier and Prime Minister would be consulted. For example, a few years back when 'Arar' was deported from a NY in transit lounge at Kennedy Airport, 10 days elapsed before he was taken by the CIA for a little S&M in Syria where torture is a cottage industry...just enough time to get back door sanction from P.M. Martin and Defence Minister Bill Graham. Hence the $10 million later paid him by Harper was, I submit, 'hush money' in which Martin and Graham promised to leave politics as a consequence. Attempts by Arar to reveal this skulduggery in the U.S. was sidetracked by such specious arguments as the 'in transit lounge was not U.S. territory' therefore his claim was denied so we never found out what happened. Similarly, any delay currently in the Employee's Case is a matter of providing time for the 'green light' to be given by Couillard and Trudeau.

6) Considering that both the QC Premier and Prime Minister were kept apprised on a daily basis of events leading up to the SK Jan. 18-2016 hearing, then the outcome  is to be construed as a directive from these two politicians.

THE JUDICIAL RECORD

7) The myth of precedent law which is the backbone of our legal system in which case studies are referred to as giving guidance in trials, is just that in Canada, a myth. The assumption here is that the presiding justice has given due process to the arguments for both sides and writes a judgment reflective of that process which appears on the judicial record sans the arguments from the litigants. In effect, the judge oftentimes drowns one of the litigants; usually the weaker one whom lacks power to appeal his decision, through the process of omission...Remember the prayer: Forgive me my sins for what I have done and what I have failed to do.

8) This is what is happening here as Lavery, de Billy, in his second Factum would make no reference to the existence of two judges on the same case nor other negative reflections on the law in this case clearing, he hopes, the judicial path for a clear registration of the (false) situation in a 'clear' manner.

9) What has actually happened here is that the court has willingly committed themselves to a fraud by approving 'dismissal' and in such manner that precedent law has been imperiled.

PRECEDENT LAW

10) Strike 1 for the Justice System is the failure to acknowledge that this writer is in a state of limbo without a judicial ruling in a labour case from whence compensation may flow. That is why this is a 'standing case' enabling me to directly challenge the Justice System for 'finality' is the keystone to our courts of law.

11) Strike 2 is the failure to acknowledge that this litigant has been expelled from B.C. by the 'Cullen Creed' of July 23-2013 in an unresolved legal matter forcing this case into other venues under the laws of inherent jurisdiction, natural justice, and transference. Judicial findings on this level are sloppy such as with Megaw j. of SK Queen's Bench being appealed CACV2783 to be heard February 09-2016; again with a specious second factum by the Employer trying to sweep judicial excesses under the carpet similar to QC de Billy. McGaw treated the SK list of applicable rules for case handling in an 'exclusive' fashion; that is, as soon as he collected those items under inherent jurisdiction that suited a narrow interpretation of his decision, he ignored the other rules which encompassed handling an out of province case. He found the reference to natural justice 'laughable' . There was no reference to transference which courts are obliged to do in matters such as this: e.g. if B.C.is the appropriate forum for this case, they must take those steps which would permit this litigant to re-enter the B.C. legal forum.

12) Strike 3 is the refusal of 10 separate court systems and 40 judges to order Disclosure; namely those secret memo notes dealing with meetings of the West Vancouver School Trustees in which the discussion of BILL 35 and the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow, was discussed. The quashed arbitration would suggest that no sanction was given by those Trustees to the lay-off of this writer in June of 1985 as quoted in the Superintendent's letter to that effect. In brief, that is fraud and the court system is guilty of cover-up as this disclosure is a precursor to any legal enquiry which is why I am on record as saying that failure to disclose in both QC and SK will lead to an automatic appeal.

13) The judicial excesses are so extreme here, that these proceedings make a mockery of precedent law, which is the 'legal billable time nonsense' in many cases for the legal fraternity. For example SK Appeal Court's Ottenbreit j. turned the law on its head in a surety hearing by declaring the matter a 'special case'. I can only wonder about the calibre of the 3 SK Appeal Court justices assigned by Chief Justice Robert Richards. Ottenbreit j. is a harbinger of justices sidetracked from traffic court where they have taken one too many gavels to the head.

14) While Disclosure operates in both QC and SK, the SK case is centered on the ultra vires nature of Bill 35 for which the Employer must provide rebuttal otherwise my contention stands and everything transpiring from that imposed B.C. Act is 'null and void'.

THE 'LOW DOWN'

15) The School Trustees would dearly like an end to this case as it has destroyed Canada. To that end, they are willing to pay $6-1/2 million dollars in settlement if the court orders them to do so which it won't for the courts do not want to be blamed for 30 years of procrastination. The B.C. government, considering their nefarious role in this caper, would be honour bound to bail out the School District.

16) To this end, the Employer is 'playing both ends of the stick against the middle' by, on the one hand, feeding me the information by which I may pillory the courts while on the other hand, 'setting up' legal firms in Ontario and Quebec. They lost Hicks, Morley et al in Ontario and are highly unlikely to get another legal firm there. Lavery, de Billy was also sucker punched and has compromised themselves, the QC Justice System and through it, the entire Justice System of Canada for their caper will be known clear across the land. Canadian Jurisprudence will never be the same with the QC court dismissal on Jan. 18-2016.

17) I am trying to get Employer SK  representation for the Appeal on Feb. 09-16 as an investigation of B.C.'s Harris & Co. is being conducted by the B.C. Legal Society at the behest of the SK Legal Society since Harris & Co. is domiciled in B.C. Transgressions in SK, I submit, should be examined in SK by interests familiar with SK laws which the B.C. Legal Society is not.

18) SK Premier Brad Wall is being kept fully apprised of developments in that province.

PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU - a personal message

19) Considering that your reputation is irreparably tarnished along with that of QC Premier Couillard until such time as you expel QC Appeal Justices, Chamberland J.A., Marcotte J.A., Parent J.A. from the bench; you might consider three courses of action: a) In World War II, Canadian lads bombed the bejeezes out of good Germans in order to expel the heinous Nazi Party. Perhaps those self-same good Germans can return a missile or two on Canada and  its corruptocracy;

b) Canada led the legal battle against apartheid in South Africa with S.A. making a return visit to our native Indian reserves as a yardstick to our hypocrisy. Perhaps it is time for them to visit the 'Outlawed Canadian' on yet another visit.

 c) Should the Pope accept the P.M.'s invitation to look over his shoulder while he apologizes to our native people; perhaps the Pope may return the favour by looking over Trudeau's shoulder while the P.M. apologizes to the 'Outlawed Canadian'.

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow

 

cc P.M.  J.Trudeau / Premiers QC P. Couillard / SK B. Wall / SK Appeal Court

RCMP - Montreal Fraud Division

 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA - JANUARY 26,2016

PART 1 - MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT

1) The following excerpt taken from a similar heading dated October 08-2012 which was rejected by the SCofC Registry for technical reasons is still applicable for events up to that date:

(1) For 27 continuous years, the plaintiff has initiated actions to deal with the propriety of his lay-off from his senior teaching position in West Vancouver, B.C. on June 26, 1985 under 'BILL 35' which became law on July1, 1985. The first two actions - namely, an arbitration and the subsequent court appeal - were supported by the Union. Since that time, the petitioner's action has been unitary and without judgment for jurisdictional reasons before over 30 judges including three inconsequential appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC). No compensation has flowed. The collective judicial action utilized appears to be one in which the plaintiff's complaints are diminished in scope as a means of dismissing them.

(2) The most recent rejection of a hearing for this case for a third time by the SCofC in December of 2011 illustrates the type of legal filibustering that this plaintiff has encountered for the past 27 years. Here, the Federal Court of Canada has acted in a highly questionable fashion. Unfortunately, the Administrative arm of the SCofC would base their rejection by making, I submit, an administrative decision to supplant a proper judicial response to Section 40. The use of the word 'may' reflects the weakness of these two letters dated January 11 and 26-2012.

2) Fast forward to July 23,2013 and the 'Cullen Creed' by Associate Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Appeal Court dated July 23,2013 which is included here along with my rebuttal. It is clear that, as the targeted litigant, I am expelled from the B.C. Judiciary for reasons 'best known to a judge'. It is that absolute declaration which accounts for my presence in other court systems as my path to the SCofC was truncated by this aberrant action. Also included here is my rebuttal to that precipitate Order. Acceptance of that expulsion is central to all ex-B.C. hearings and yet no court outside of B.C. has recognized the impossible legal situation in which this litigant has been placed as a consequence of Cullen j.'s Order.

3) The current debacle in Quebec which is being contested in this factum grows out of the conditions of earlier court hearings typical of the above problem but exacerbated by a clear case of fraud involving two Gatineau judges #500-09-025753, Lavery  de Billy for the Employer, and three Montreal Appeal Court judges #550-17-008208-157. Copious materials in that regard are filed here in terms of pertinent letters with copies to Premier Couillard, Prime Minister Trudeau and the RCMP fraud division in Montreal.

 4) Due to the withdrawal of Form 25 C (conflict of interest), I must request that Chief Justice McLachlin voluntarily withdraw from this case including the appointment of the three judges reviewing the 'application for leave to appeal'. All other SCofC judges are acceptable.

5) While not approving of Lavery, de Billy's machinations with the court; nonetheless, it is one thing to present a case and quite another for the Justice System, as in this case, to condone obvious fraudulent actions . I have called for the expulsion from the bench of the three Montreal Appeal Court judges whom no doubt wrote their order with SCofC Chief Justice B. McLachlin in mind.

6) I have no idea how a Justice System deals with the term systematic judicial abuse as the current legal construct would only deal with the alleged current excesses of one lower court and not, as is the case here, in a multitude of courts stretching across the country.

7) It is the word systematic which plagues this case as it invites the court structure to sit in judgment on itself due to the abysmal failure of the oversight bodies including Parliament and an anti-employee media. In brief, Prime Minister  Justin Trudeau's credibility is as much on the line as SCofC's Chief Justice B. McLachlin.

8) There may be a possible compromise which I am prepared to offer. The basis of this case is Disclosure without which no hearing has any legal status until my request of 30 years is honoured; namely, providing the necessary 'memo notes' returned by Justice Southin in 1986 regarding Employer meetings in June of 1985 which 'she did not use'. No judge will call for those notes including Quebec and in Saskatchewan where a second Appeal Court hearing is slated for February 9,2016 (CACV2783). That's cover-up and is invariably worse than the original crime. Premiers Couillard and Wall will not call in the RCMP in that regard.

PLAINTIFF PROPOSAL

9) My proposal is that for a non-negotiable without prejudice offer, I will drop my action requesting the missing memo notes in exchange for ten million dollars to be costed to the various parties concerned in this case according to the wishes of the court.

January 26-2015

 

TO: Board of School Trustees (S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001        SENT BY COURIER (with SCofC Appeal)

 

FROM: Roger Callow  1285 Cahill Drive  Ottawa ON K1V 9A7

fax: 613-521-1739

REFERENCE: Montreal Appeal Court Ruling Jan. 19-2016 #550-17-008208-157

MESSAGE: web: employescasecanada.ca

1) No doubt you are jumping for joy at the obvious expected result from the Order to Dismiss based on QC Lavery de Billy's Second Factum which took a scalpel to the First Factum filed by this Plaintiff in what I labeled 'Lavery, de Billy tail' wags 'Montreal Appeal Court dog'.

2) The court, well aware of the duality and duplicity of two separate judges at the lower court level managed, surprise, surprise, to ignore that little sidestep which undermines not only the future course of Justice in Quebec, but the entirety of Canada. Of course it is being appealed.

3) You see, Therrien j. made a mistake. He was supposed to order a dismissal before I presented my case. After I presented my case, the conspirators could ill-afford to have my account on the judicial record so a scheme was hatched to appoint a second judge to 'run a court within a court' in such fashion as to bury my case presented before Therrien j. Of course that level of turpitude smashes the Justice System and the government of Premier Couillard.

4) No doubt it was with considerable chagrin that the Montreal Appeal Court could not slap me in the face by approving the Order to Dismiss while one and at the same time, refusing me permission to speak due to my non-attendance in court. Hence my request for the Disclosure memo notes was, under these circumstances 'never made'. It is a Court of Star Chambers performance without equal I dare say in any Canadian court of law.

5) This judgment takes QC back to the days of the tinpot dictator of that province in the 1950's Duplessis era. Today, Premier Couillard fulfills that role in his failure to dismiss those three Appeal Court worthies from the bench. He was kept fully apprised as to this developing fraud.

6) While I have never advocated violence, nonetheless, Quebecers have nowhere to turn but to the streets for remediation.

7) A similar stunt is expected in SK courts on February 9-2016 and why a copy of this letter is being sent to the court along with a copy of the Supreme Court of Canada Appeal of the QC courts on January 26, 2016.

8) The SK Legal Society I trust; the B.C. Law Society far less so as I expect them to take a leaf out of the QC Legal Society and claim at the last minute that the courts must decide on the 'duality' of the McKinnon Decision. The Montreal court never did.

9) Should Harris & Co. arrive all bright eyed and bushy tailed in SK court with a Bill of travel costs as per the Ottenbreit j. formula (specious surety judge); I will object on a point of Order as the Employer could hire SK legal personnel as they did in Ontario and QC.

10) Of course the scheme of Harris & Co. is to imitate Lavery, de Billy with their Second Factum 'to dismiss' hoping the court will act accordingly so that I do not get to make a presentation. The request for Disclosure and the central issue will be stillborn: 'does an imposed Act of Government (BILL 35) supplant other parts of the Law; for example, the collective bargaining process or the rules of contract?'

11) If my case is stillborn; the judicial record would not be incorrect in stating that no request was made in court for disclosure or on any issue of law. It would be a great joke of the legal bar at the Friday night bar in SK listening to how that dweeb, The Outlawed Canadian, spent 8 hours in perfection indexing the Respondent's 500 pages in the First Factum, all to no avail.

12) Projecting ahead - which the Ottenbreit j. formula has me doing - and this is going to be the result under 3 SK Appeal Court judges.

13) Should the above scenario transpire, Premier Wall will have no choice but to remove those 3 judges from the bench on pain of stepping down himself.

14) I would be remiss if I didn't mention your amazing success in painting a collective yellow streak down the backsides of B.C. Teachers who fail to stand up to their Union leaders and order them to turn over their copy of the 'missing memo notes' requested in Disclosure.

 

Yours truly,

 

 

Roger Callow  Plaintiff   employescasecanada.ca

The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System

 

 

cc Premiers SK Wall & QC Couillard / P.M. Trudeau / Montreal RCMP

     SK CACV2783 (Feb.09-16 H.D.)

 

January 26, 2016

TO: SK Appeal Court Registrar Melanie Baldwin

by fax: 306-787-5815                              SENT BY FAX (1 page)

FROM: Roger Callow  (Ottawa Ontario) Plaintiff  SK Appeal Court CACV2783  H.D. February 09-2016

fax: 613-521-1739   employescasecanada.ca                                                                                   

MESSAGE:

1) I delivered the QC Appeal of C.A.M. 500-09-025753-153 to the Supreme Court of Canada today of which a copy is included to you by regular mail as a reference considering the common ground between the QC case and the case currently filed in Appeal Court in SK slated for a February 09-2016 hearing.

2) The common ground for both cases lies in Disclosure of the 'secret memo notes' of West Vancouver School Board Trustee meetings in June of 1985 dealing with the imposed BILL 35 and the illicit lay-off of senior teacher Roger Callow. No compensation has been paid in this unresolved case.

3) No court, and there have been many - I count 10 separate court systems and 40 judges - has seen fit to call on this Disclosure for 30 years now which is steeped in fraud by both the participants and the allied court processes. The recent debacle in QC is one of the worst examples of what I label as systematic judicial abuse stretching across Canada the most recent which I have labeled 'Lavery, de Billy tail wags Montreal Appeal Court dog'. I have called for the removal from the bench of C.A.M. Chamberland J.A., Marcotte J.A., Parent J.A. Will I be adding 3 more SK Appeal Court Judges to the list? February 09-2016 will tell.

4) The QC court, well aware of the duality and duplicity of two separate judges at the lower court level managed, surprise, surprise, to ignore that surreptitious inclusion of a second judge which undermines not only the future course of Justice in Quebec, but the entirety of Canada. It is a Court of Star Chambers performance without equal in any Canadian court of law.

5) Both Appeal courts have been warned by me in writing that if Disclosure is not included, an automatic appeal will result. QC is now under Appeal.

6) The SK Legal Society I trust; the B.C. Law Society far less so as I expect them to take a leaf out of the QC Legal Society and claim at the last minute that the courts must decide on the 'duality' of the Ontario McKinnon Decision  (two different Orders on two different dates.) The Montreal court never did.

7) Should Harris & Co. arrive all bright eyed and bushy tailed in SK court with a Bill of travel costs as per the Ottenbreit j. formula (specious surety judge); I will object on a point of Order as the Employer could hire SK legal personnel (bound by SK laws) as they did in Ontario and QC. I made that point in court.

8) Of course the scheme of Harris & Co. is to imitate Lavery, de Billy with their Second Factum 'to dismiss' hoping the court will act accordingly so that I do not get to make a presentation. The request for Disclosure and the central issue will be stillborn: 'does an imposed Act of Government (BILL 35) supplant Statute Law; in this case, the collective bargaining process and the rules of contract?'. It is a vital constitutional question.

9) My point is that BILL 35 is ultravires in that current demonstrated ability is undefined in the Act  or in law in general and hence everything that flows from that BILL is null and void.

10) The key here is for the SK Appeal Court to place that onus on the Respondent Employer to make their argument on this level above or else my assertion must stand. To date, the Respondent never has argued 'issues' opting for a mere dismissal of all claims.

11) As stated in the Appeal Court in Quebec which is also applicable in SK, I am not interested in any other court action that the court may wish to take  as long as I am provided Disclosure which would force me to re-orient my legal case in any event.

12) In the event that I am muzzled in SK court, this letter serves as my statement of defense.

 

Yours truly,

 

(signed Roger Callow)

cc Premier Wall / Prime Minister Trudeau / Montreal RCMP

 

January 28-2016

 

FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff  SK Appeal Court CACV2783  (H.D. February 9-2016)

employescasecanada.ca

TO: 

A) The Law Society of B.C. ATTN: Ruth Long Staff Lawyer  Your File: 20160062

B) The Law Society of SK plus 'Long' account

C) West Vancouver School Board Trustees

C) SK Appeal Court CACV2783

D) Prime Minister Hon. J. Trudeau  plus accompanying letter

 

REFERENCE: Acknowledgment of B.C. Law Society 'back-stabbing' e-mail of January 27-2016 is made regarding the behaviour of a B.C. Harris & Co. lawyer...and still the central question regarding the existence of two judgments on the same event of Ontario Superior Court's Colin McKinnon (13-59060) where I was the Respondent has not been answered.

1) The first Order was delivered April 23-2014 and the Second was delivered on September 15-2014 without reference to the first Order. The QC courts focused on the April 23-2013 Decision while Harris & Co. focused on the September 15 account which was the only account to which Ontario Superior Court Justice, R. Scott, made reference (14-61592) in a hearing where the Ontario representative did not file an appearance but leaped into court, amid my protestations, handing the second Order to Scott j. who took argument only on that second Order which I had not seen and for which he wrote no judgment. My defense of the 'frivolous and vexatious' account was based on the first McKinnon Order. My complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council under President Hon. B. McLachlin were not responded to (both McKinnon and Scott were originally Federal Court appointees). Hicks, Morley et al dropped representation of the Employer. There was no response from the Ontario Legal Society as to a complaint on their conduct. This is why I requested that courts in QC and SK ignore those events which was in turn ignored. The McKinnon original Order is the only one that properly provides the necessary development of a 'frivolous and vexatious' labeling using, as it did, court resources rather than those of the Respondent for the charge.

2) The  Quebec Legal Society's response to the above dichotomy given the day before the Appeal Court Hearing did not provide me with any time to produce a response. Their one-liner? Why, this matter was one for the court to resolve. The QC court didn't. Their decision-or lack thereof- is under Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

3) Hence I was dumbfounded to receive Long's 3 page inaccurate dissertation on many accounts a good 10 days before the February 09-2016 hearing date giving me here ample time to appeal to the SK Law Society (the original source of my complaint forwarded to B.C. because Harris & Co. is domiciled there even though the alleged misrepresentation took place in SK under the lower court's Megaw j. QBG 1902/15 (H.D. Sept. 24).) This request was to rectify the original problem relating to the duality of the McKinnon Decision(s). Until there is a proper evaluation on this question, it is submitted here that Harris & Co. NOT represent the Employer in SK Courts. The Employer, the West Vancouver School Trustees, have already been notified on that account.

4) Whomever spoon-fed Long must be aghast at the timing of her delivery  although her detailed account makes for some interesting reading. Her writing style smacks of someone whom must have been called 'princess' in school with visions of a Chief Justice appointment dancing in her head...along with other things.

Detailed Rebuttal of 'Long' letter (included to SK Law Society and P.M. Trudeau

5) '...the (B.C.) Law Society regulates the conduct of lawyers in the province....'

RESPONSE (R) Then why in God's name did you accept this challenge from the SK Law Society?

6) 'It is evident from materials that you have sent to us, and a review of some of the reported decisions, that you have been embroiled in a lengthy dispute with your former employer....'

R. a) The review of reported decisions (the anointed judicial record) is a central problem behind my accusation of systematical  judicial abuse which the oversight bodies would ignore explaining why Canada has devolved to Third World status. The disparity in accounts with the McKinnon actions noted above is a case in point.

7) '...The arbitrator died in November 1989 before further arbitration. Your union, the West Vancouver Teachers' Association, decided it would not arbitrate, but instead attempted, to settle the grievance...'

R. a) Assuming this case was indeed a Union matter which the Employer warned the B.C Labour Board that it wasn't (conditions of the imposed BILL 35 to apply) which in turn was sufficient for the Labour Board to never hold a Section 12 Hearing nor later on, the SCofC to deal with this 'universality of Unions' question in which Hon. B McLachlin was a sitting member along with Chief Justice A. Lamers  (d); then we have a colossal legal cock-up.

b) The Union could have returned under the appointment of a new arbitrator under the legal term 'frustration' in which parties are not to be held responsible for glitches in the law (such as the death of an arbitrator).

c) My Ottawa legal counsel, Paul J. Conlin wrote a number of letters to The Union lawyer, Bruce Laughton now a QC whom, incidentally, never met with WVTA representatives, preferring to deal solely with the legal department of the BCTF as outlined in accusations of fraud in Federal Court (T-2360-14). The essence of Conlin's letter was that the Union - assuming that they held absolute power over this client - could not do nothing leaving this writer in limbo where no compensation has been paid (for 30 years now, this 'deferred salary'  exists apart from judicial findings). Either the Union was bound to obey the court order to return to arbitration or, alternatively, sign an outside agreement - whether I agreed or not - with the Employer. Of course an agreement without my signature would permit me to sue and the whole 'sweetheart arrangement' would be revealed...and that would never do. Hence the Judicial System of Canada is involved in prior and subsequent cover-up to this failure by the Union, to use the words of Long, 'a conspiracy of massive proportions'.

8) '...The courts in B.C. and Ontario have declared you a vexatious litigant, which means you are prohibited from bringing any further legal proceedings in those provinces without leave of the court (my underlining).

R. That is the key to the 'Cullen Creed' of July 2013, In which Cullen j. expelled me absolutely from the B.C. Justice System (no 'without leave of the court') which explains my presence in courts outside B.C. under the terms of inherent jurisdiction, natural justice, and transference.

No court will acknowledge that basic fact of expulsion.

9) '...In addition, you have filed complaints against some of the judges who have heard your cases, as well as certain of the lawyers who have acted for parties in the proceedings....'

R ...and... what happened? It would seem, apart from your own dissertation, no-one will respond to those complaints...and I don't think your boss is any too happy with your precipitate account...did she even see it?

10) '...You have made bald assertions of improper and fraudulent actions by Mr. L., without any facts or evidence which support such allegations....'

R. Who are you, his mother? T-2360-14 (Federal Court) has detailed allegations of fraud against Harris & Co. with sufficient material provided to you by the SK Legal Society whom believed an investigation was warranted. Now they are challenged to do it because you failed to answer the basic question regarding the duality of the McKinnon Order.

11)... Based on the above, we have concluded that there are no professional conduct or competency issues that warrant investigation...Rule 3-5 (3) The Executive Director may (my underling) decline to investigate a complaint...(a) is outside the jurisdiction of the Society (b) is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. (c) does not allege facts that, if proven, would constitute a discipline violation.

12) 'Ombudsperson  One of the roles of the BC Ombudsperson is to investigate complaints about regulatory bodies.

R. I have checked with a number of Ombudsman Offices. They are quite specific in not being involved in legal case matters. (funding problem?) The Justice System gets a free ride on this account explaining why reference is being made to the Prime Minister whom, in this Herculean task, needs to divert the St. Lawrence river to clean out this Augean stable. The people of Canada deserve no less. The additional account addressed to him  suggests how that can be done.

13) Please do not think me ungrateful for your detailed account, Ms. Long, as this is the first oversight committee letter (apart from SK Legal Society voicing a concern) that I have received in 30 years whereas all the other accounts, where given, are one liners or - similar to your account - judicial rulings which deliberately skate around key facts.