JUMP TO HOME PAGE

REBUTTAL  TO  LAVERY DE BILLY'S RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIFF'S FACTUM IN SUPREME COURT OF CANADA #26883 - APRIL 05-2016

de Billy's Account (italics) and my rebuttal (R) as Plaintiff:

In a nutshell, it should be noted that:

(a) Mr. Callow is a former employee of the Board (West Vancouver, B.C. School Board) who was laid off in 1985;   R. Correct

(b) since 1985, Mr. Callow has instituted multiple proceedings in several jurisdictions (listed)....  R. Correct

(c) In the context of these proceedings, Mr. Callow has attempted to obtain leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on two occasions (file numbers 25891 and 30196) after being unsuccessful at all levels. Leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court of Canada.

R. Correct. The SCofC, therefore is at the root cause of leaving a litigant in limbo in an unresolved labour matter where no compensation has been paid. In brief, while I have a battle against the employer; I have a full scale war against the Justice System.

(d) Mr. Callow has already been declared a vexatious litigant in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario;  R. Depends on the interpretation of the term 'frivolous and vexatious' litigant and the ramifications thereto. (i) B.C.; The necessary background for such a charge was not produced by the B.C. Court although 'permission to proceed' was a requirement and was included in S106159 in B.C. Appeal Court  in 2010. Any such litigant so affixed must make a prima facie case which was included along with the necessary permission request. More on this later in the factum. (ii) Ontario; While the necessary background was included in this action launched by the Employer to 'discuss all matters' something with which I was in agreement (13-59060 Ontario Superior Court ) with myself as plaintiff , Justice McKinnon issued two orders; one on April 23-2015, the focus of the enquiry in QC and a second one on September 15-2015 which formed the sole record before Justice R. Scott (14-61592 Ontario Superior Court) wherein Scott j. failed to bring down a decision. The September 15-2015 judgment made no reference to the earlier April 23-2015 decision which was the sole focus of the Employer in SK courts. The oversight bodies failed to examine this dichotomy although it should be noted that the Employer lost their representative in Ontario, Hicks, Morley et al and are unlikely to obtain replacement Counsel in that province.  More on this later in this factum. The central point here is to note that both the lower courts in QC and SK were made well aware of this alleged fraud in Ontario.

(e) Mr. Callow did not even attend the hearing before the Quebec Court of Appeal, although Mr. Callow had been specifically authorized to attend this hearing by telephone.  R. Oh, boo hoo. More on this later in the factum.

 

Considering the preceding, it is submitted that:

R Considering the preceding plus my responses, it is submitted that none of the following merit any attention at all:

(a) there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the judgment rendered by the Quebec Court of Appeal;

R. A quantum leap in de Billy's mind not supported by the facts.

(b) no matter of public or national importance is raised by Mr. Callow

R. The matter of disclosure - the sole reason that I went to QC - is the bedrock of our Justice System. For 30 years, 10 separate court systems and 40 judges have failed to call for the disclosure alleging criminal fraud (outlined elsewhere in these documents) mainly by a process of 'the error of omission' which, in this case, has reduced Canada to Third World status in a process I label as systematic judicial abuse. No bureaucracy can withstand that charge.

(c) the so-called issues raised by Mr. Callow have already been dealt with by appropriate courts; R. No they haven't, otherwise, I would not have been left in legal limbo in this labour case where no compensation has been paid. But merely 'saying a thing is so' by the Employer is tantamount to the judges - that the Chief Justices see fit to appoint to this case - as being 'a done thing'.

(d) Mr. Callow's third attempt to put this matter before the Supreme Court of Canada is frivolous, res judicata, and an abuse of process. R. The two previous rejections, no doubt based on Justice Department recommendations, were performed by three judges each without a docket number assigned. This SCofC Appeal marks the first time that the SCofC is prepared to hear the case although on which basis is not clear. That is why I insist that the disclosure denied to me by many lower courts be provided as a preliminary matter. While 36 Million Canadians may or may not have an interest in QC court peccadilloes, I do not, as the sole purpose for the Quebec hearings was - and still is - this matter of disclosure.

 

signed

 

Roger Callow aka 'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System'                        employescasecanada.ca  where most of my supporting documents may be found.

 

DETAILED REBUTTAL BY THE PLAINTIFF

1) As a generalization, the 3 page letter to SCofC Registery Officer, Suzanne Sarrazin dated April 04-2016 (sent before above factum received) pretty well summarizes the perfidy of QC Courts and the legal firm of Lavery de Billy.

2) That summary points to judicial action accusing the courts of Quebec in conspiring with Lavery de Billy to impede the course of Justice in this matter. Regrettably, the oversight bodies, of which letters from the plaintiff are included here have refused to adjudicate that egregious behaviour which, it is submitted here, should lead to suspensions from the bench and the withdrawal of the licenses of some lawyers from Lavery, de Billy.

3) The above point reinforces my claim that the Supreme Court of Canada is quite within their rights to refuse Lavery de Billy permission to represent the Employer in court.

 

Point 15. dealing with the McKinnon j. frivolous and vexatious in Appendix B page 2 is revealing as this party as the Respondent had no idea what was 'coming down the pipe' until I read his decision.

(a) Callow was a member of the West Vancouver Teachers' Association (the "Association"). Further to Callow's termination, the Association initially went to arbitration. The arbitrator upheld the termination, but new arbitration was ordered by the Supreme Court of British Columbia ("SCBC") and the British Columbia Court of Appeal ("BCCA") R. The Employer appealed the decision on the grounds that BILL 35 had its own provisions for lay-off which did not encompass the Union. Their letter included here of 1997 threatened the B.C. Labour Board that should any hearing be held, they would actively reject the role of the collective bargaining and the Labour Board in that process. No Labour Board Hearing was ever held as the Labour Board saw no reason to challenge a Union 'which had done nothing wrong'. (Question: Did they do anything right?)

(b) The Association decided not to arbitrate again the termination of Callow but rather to negotiate a settlement with the Board. No settlement was ever reached.

R. Without my agreement, any signed agreement with the Board by the Union would expose them to a lawsuit in which this 'sweetheart deal' could be revealed. I gave them an opportunity to turn the matter over to me (although, according to the Board, it was always my matter) to continue at my own expense. They refused.

(c) Callow applied to the SCBC in 1995 for an order requiring the Board to rehire him. That application was dismissed. R. The Union was not included in this hearing. On the grounds of abandonment by the Employer to re-institute arbitration as earlier ordered by the court, I request that the should return employment to this plaintiff by Justice Southin in 1986 be converted to must return employment to this plaintiff. In law, a recommendation has legal significance. Neither Southin j. nor Spencer j. (1995) saw fit to return me to salary in this ongoing legal matter otherwise we would not be here today. Spencer j. was the first one to declare that the Union had sole power over this dismissal thus altering the Union landscape forever. Which Union client is going to hold membership in an organization where the courts have, in essence, sanctioned the 'sweetheart deal'. That is a vital national question under the 'universality of Unions'  which was rejected for a hearing by the SCofC in the first trip in 1997.

Regrettably, every ensuing B.C. judge bought into the Spencer Decision.

(j) Callow attempted to institute proceeded before the SCBC despite the order preventing him from doing so without prior leave. Those proceedings were dismissed That decision was itself appealed by Callow before the BCCA.

R. That would be S106159 laid in September 2010 in which permission was indeed sought contrary to the assertion above. The essence of that Appeal was that, considering the court would not recognize my claims apart from the Union, then I invited the court to place me back on salary (with all back remuneration as 'delayed salary' which existed apart from judicial outcomes) while the court worked out a final resolution between themselves, the Employer and the Union.

Panic set in among the conspirators and the 'A. McKenzie Creed' of October was invoked; namely, on her own recognizance, without taking legal argument nor stating pertinent laws, and for reasons best known to herself, she dropped S106159 from the docket. The only person, it is submitted here, with that power should have been the hearing judge. Of course from there, the pathway to the SCofC would be open...and that would never do....

 

Conspicuous by its absence from this list is any mention of the 'Cullen Creed' (BCAC) of July 2013 which quoted CA038538 as its base point and similar to McKenzie j., expelled me from B.C. courts for 'reasons best known to himself'. It is that document which is on file here without my rebuttal (my factum includes the rebuttal). In many ways this discrepancy reflects the intent of de Billy trusting to the courts to go solely by the defective judicial record. No court outside of B.C. will make reference to this Cullen document which explains why all judgments in Federal Court, Ontario Courts, Quebec Courts, Saskatchewan Courts are deficient in their rulings on the question of inherent jurisdiction.

 

The failure of the oversight bodies is the key to this legal debacle. Included are letters to the various bodies concerned wherein there is not even an acknowledgment of the complaint. It would appear that the Justice System of Canada has taken to heart this public statement: '...Unlike other comparable jurisdictions, Canada has no ongoing legal reform. There is no permanent independent body to examine whether our laws are being applied as intended and if our laws are effective... From what I have seen, even passing such legislation would make no difference to a legal system which has sunk into the abyss.

 

p.4  FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE (QC APPEAL COURT - December 9-2015) TO:

GRANT the present Motion to Dismiss the Appeal;

DISMISS the inscription in Appeal;

THE WHOLE with costs

 

R. a) The appeal was never assigned a docket number so how can it be dismissed?

b) Why would de Billy seek to expunge the inscription in Appeal which the court granted him in order to sanction his Q.C Appeal Court Hearing unless, of course, he is seeking to cover-up the perfidy of himself and the courts? Justice Southin did much the same thing with her Disclosure by returning materials to the Board and the Union so that the court would be in a position of deniability. Normally, the court merely comments on materials that they do not use in a very general sense without returning anything. That is what is being covered-up by the Justice System which is willing to sacrifice its entire credibility on the altar of the Employee's Case (Canada).

 

SUMMARY

     My apt blog caption describes the situation in Quebec best: 'Lavery de Billy tail wags Quebec judicial courts'. The general tenor of this de Billy factum is to claim that '90,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong' (World War I if you don't know your history.) Symbolically, in this case, 90,000 Canadian judges can't be seen to be wrong...but they are, for arguments developed above. The over-all appeal of the Lavery de Billy argument is not incorrectly based on the supposition that a major attack by this plaintiff is being made against the judicial record, a summary of judicial findings on which precedent law is based. That is the essence of our judicial system which this case has cracked wide open showing the hypocrisy of that record where 'due process' has come to mean 'duly processed' in Canada. In short, similar to China, we have courts of law, but no justice. In the broader realm, this challenge may be epitomized by SCofC Chief Justice Hon. Beverley McLachlin (also President of the Canadian Judicial Council which has never acknowledged the many complaints that I have made against judges under their control) as the CEO representative of the Justice System versus Prime Minister Justin Trudeau whose Office has the ultimate over-sight control of the nation...if he chooses to exercise those executive powers. By now, he should have invoked the 'Notwithstanding Clause' or the 'Peace, Order & Good Government Clause' of the Constitution. Or he could simply send in the RCMP such as former P.M. Stephen Harper did in the Senator Duffy criminal trial. Until Chief Justices are removed for 'not doing their job', there will be no change in a country crying out for major legal reform. As to the SCofC Hearing? If judged controversial, there will be a split Decision in  which, for example, 4 judges will be pre-assigned to the 'Nay' side while 3 other judges will be pre-assigned to the 'Yea' side...if one is lucky.

 

ACTION REQUESTED

1) Provide the necessary Disclosure

2) Reject Lavery de Billy as a representative for the Employer in the SCofC

3) Cancel all QC court cost awards made to de Billy

 

INCLUSIONS:

1) 3-page letter addressed to SCofC Registry clerk dated April 04-2016 pp.7-9

2) 4-page letter addressed to Canadian Judicial Council Sept. 25-2014  pp.10-13

3) A compendium of Newletters focusing on individual themes on the employeescasecanada.com (up to 2015) and the employescasecanada.ca (2016)

February 2016 (synopsis of January 2016)                                                    pp.14-17

February 21-2016 (willful blindness of the 'Judicial Record')                 pp.18-19

March 01-2016 (Letter to Legal  Society of Saskatchewan)                     pp.20-21

March 07-2016 (Letter to Prime Minister J. Trudeau)                              pp.22

March 27-2016 ('Walking Back the Cat' -A review of this government conspiracy)

                                                                                                                                      pp.23-24

April 01-2016 (March 22-2016 Letter to Quebec Law Society)                          pp.25-28

April 10-2016 (Teacher Lay-off: Not an issue in 1985; but an issue in 2016)

                                                                                                                                       pp.29-31  

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

 

SEPTEMBER 25-2014

 

TO: Canadian Judicial Council

       'Higher levels of Provincial Court Judicial conduct'

       15th Floor - 150 Metcalfe St.

       Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W8

       PHONE: 613-288-1566         FAX: 613-288-1575    

and

      Ontario Judicial Council

      P.O. Box 914

      31 Adelaide St. East

      Adelaide P.O.

      Toronto, ON M5C 2K3

      FAX: 416-327-2339

and

     Chief Justice - Osgoode Hall

      Law Society of Upper Canada

      130 Queen St. West

      Toronto, ON   M5H 2N6

      Tel (416)327-5020  Fax:(416)327-5032

 

SENT BY MAIL TO ABOVE 3 PARTIES plus Hicks Morley et al      

 

FROM:  Roger Callow - APPLICANT #14-61592    H.D. September 23,2014

               208 - 2220 Halifax Drive

               Ottawa, Ontario  K1G 2W7

               PHONE/FAX: 613-521-1739   web site: www.employeescasecanada.com

 

TOPIC OF COMPLAINT:  

        1) Charles Hofley esq.  

             Hicks, Morley et al

             #2000-150 Metcalfe St.

             Ottawa, ON K2P 1P1

             FAX: 613-234-0418

        2) Ottawa Superior  Court Justice Colin McKinnon

        3)                            ditto                       Robert Scott

 

COMPLAINT

1) The Respondent Employer did not file a 'Notice of Appearance' within the requisite time limits so it was with some surprise that I received an e-mail on September 22-2014 from Hicks Morley et al notifying me of his intention to appear in court the following day.

2) As matters stood before their appearance, it was clear that this action was laid alleging - for a first time in this 29 year unresolved labour matter- the matter of fraud. That fraud functioned on two levels although the two are intertwined:

a) matters pertaining to the original lay-off in which the arbitration was quashed leaving this target in a perpetual state of limbo with no compensation paid.

b) concomitant systematic judicial abuse over 8 separate courts in Canada and over 30 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada whose failure to hear this matter in 2004 ('ultimate remedy') is the source of the current imbroglio which involves the courts of Ontario. Justice Colin McKinnon and I were in agreement on one point; only the Supreme Court of Canada is in a position to resolve this matter but, and this is the crux of the matter, how do I get it there when I am thwarted at every turn by actions of the lower courts. McKinnon j. was quite specific stating that I was not going to use Ontario courts to get to the SCofC.

3) An earlier complaint to the Law Society regarding Hicks, Morley whom, rather than filing a defense to #13-58607 laid by me; chose instead to lay their own action #13-59060 in tandem arranging, as they did, to have that hearing held on April 10-2014 before Justice McKinnon in which my case to be heard May 15 was not only knocked off the docket ('cowboying' in that McKinnon j. second-guessed my approach which was folly due to the fact that in #13-59060, the Employer asked - for a first time in 29 years - for all claims to be discussed.) McKinnon's judgment made no mention of that point by Hicks Morley in his judgment. A complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council (McKinnon j. was a federal appointment) has received no response to date for this alleged egregious behaviour. The Law Society vindicated C. Hofley's actions.

4) #14-61592 was the replacement action alleging fraud which would have been the case for #13-58607 if it had not been canceled by McKinnon's Order. That action has been completely derailed by Justice Scott's application of a 'variation' of the McKinnon Order which is the basis of this current accusation of fraud.

5) Included here are 10 pages regarding correspondence with Hicks, Morley in September regarding the signing of McKinnon's j's Order 'according to form' which, to my knowledge in all other cases, should be a replication of the Order signed by him on April 23-2014.

6) As I felt that this Order was so egregious, I sent Hicks, Morley back their form with this annotation: 'It would be folly to sign this Order as to Form considering that I expect it to be quashed with the costs to be reversed. An Appeal is under way as well as notice to the Canadian Council of Judges (McKinnon j. was a federal appointment) where the usual 'judicial bias' has been supplanted by 'judicial malfeasance' (Roger Callow) September 05-2014.

7) I have no way of knowing if McKinnon j. saw this form before signing his new Order on September 15 as Hicks, Morley was not forthcoming on that point. That newly signed Order contained point (6); an addition to the form that I was asked to sign 'as to form'.

8) It would appear that McKinnon j. was knowledgeable of my factum - probably handed to him by Hicks, Morley -  which explains his new signature.

9) I was puzzled as to why Scott j. refused the entry to court records as to my annotated response outlined in 6) as it did not have McKinnon's signature. It now seems clear that Scott j. whom was only too willing to accept this Sept. 15 Order from Hicks, Morley with alacrity as it formed the basis of why he disposed of my case (final decision pending), was cognizant of the change from the original Order.

10) Legal Counsel Charles Hofley of Hicks, Morley had to be aware of the change and yet was prepared to file this new document in evidence without noting that it differed from the April 23-2014 Order. In short, he set out to deceive the court in a significant way with the apparent complicity of the two judges named above. I call that fraud.

ADDITIONAL COMPLAINT AGAINST JUSTICES MCKINNON AND SCOTT

11) Central to my presence in Ontario Courts is the 'Cullen Creed'; a highly specious B.C. Supreme Court Order in which this litigant is barred from B.C. courts; a point McKinnon j. would seek to imitate in Ontario courts although he does include the all important 'with permission of the judge to proceed'; a feature entirely lacking in the more absolute Cullen Creed. My appeal under 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice' - I have to have a court source to finalize this unresolved legal matter - were ignored. Indeed, it would appear that the intention of the lower courts is to keep this matter out of the hands of the SCofC.

12) Both judges sought to apply a rationalization to the Cullen Creed which does not exist in that Creed. We do not know why Justice Cullen acted the way he did. In their failure to authenticate (see inclusive notes on this point) this Creed, both judges have given de facto credence for any judge to act in any fashion that he or she wishes quite apart from the law of the land. That is anarchy. As the Ontario Courts (4 Ottawa courts at any rate) are not up to the task of dealing with this question of anarchy; the point needs be directed to the Supreme Court of Canada providing the Ontario Appeal Courts don't follow in the footpath of the above two judges.

13) The conduct of the three parties noted above would seem to reflect a shared opinion with this writer of judicial review bodies in general; that they are more useless than tits on a bull. These review bodies appear to have only one goal; namely, to keep matters out of the media and out of Parliament (another totally useless body). As such, Prime Minister Harper's 'law and order' program is little more than a bad joke. It would seem that the wrong people are behind bars.

 

ENCLOSURES

A) 2 page excerpt from #14-61592 pp. 7 & 8 'Preamble to Supreme Court of Canada June 2004'

B) 3 page handwritten 'pending' judgment of Scott j. of #14-61592

C) 3 page Disposition excerpts from April 23-2014 judgment of McKinnon j. for #13-59060

D) 3 page Order 'as to form'  filed by Hicks Morley with addition (6) from McKinnon dated Sept. 15-2014

E) 6 page communications entry into court record of #14-61592 from Callow to Hicks, Morley outlining sequence of signing 'as to form'

F) 1 page annotated Sept. 5-2014 signature 'as to form' which Scott j. would not accept in filing because it did not have McKinnon's signature.

G) 1 page 'Notice of Appearance' from Hicks Morley on September 22 in my e-mail account.

H) 2 page excerpt (pp.18 & 21) of Callow's detailed response to McKinnon j. inaccuracies such as imputing motivation to the MacKenzie Creed which, similar to the Cullen Creed does not exist in those documents.

I) 2 page Cullen Creed and Callow's response.

J) 5 page Newsletter to PMO October 01-2014  which includes above documentation.

 

ACTION? You tell me.

 

Yours truly

Roger Callow aka 'The Outlawed Canadian'  www.employeescasecanada.com

 

FEBRUARY - 2016

FEBRUARY 01-2016 - CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY

A SYNOPSIS OF JANUARY - 2016

 

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.employeescasecanada.com (30 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' teacher lay-off) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. Sask. 2015-SKQB-308 (H.D. Sept. 24) & APPEAL CACV2783 has, as its focus, the ultra vires nature of BILL 35 as 'current demonstrated ability' is undefined in the Act or in law in general hence anything flowing from it is 'null and void'. The SK court did not order up the 'missing memo notes' (minutes of School Trustees meetings in June of 1985 where they heard from government officials on all aspects of BILL 35) from Justice Southin (1986) which hold the key to this government fraud. The SK decision to duck out for jurisdictional reasons is being appealed CACV2783 to be heard February 09. 3 legal precedent setting conditions now exist: 1) Any judge may 'go off the farm' with little fear of repercussions. 2) The 'sweetheart deal' between Employer and Union leaders has been legally sanctioned (places an end to Unions). 3) Courts no longer have to make a ruling (No legal answer  is a legal answer). = anarchy .What's better than one judge?...why two judges on the same case in QC 550-17-008208-157 which is called 'running a court within a court' , These two judicial tag-team wing-nuts are now referenced to the Supreme Court of Canada. Premier Couillard's government is in tatters as Quebecers no longer have anywhere to turn for justice. The Trudeau Gov't. appears to be caught by being 'pit lamped' and are the new target of these newsletters considering the abject failure of Gov. Gen. David Johnston to, in the void created by Parliament in this issue during the election, to act on the behalf of Canada and 35 million Canadians.

QUOTES:

A) First the punishment; then the crime. Alice in Wonderland  Lewis  Carroll

 

IN ANSWER  TO THE QUESTION POSED AT THE END OF 2015: WHOM IS RUNNING CANADA? SUPREME COURT OF CANADA'S CHIEF JUSTICE HON. B. MCLACHLIN (symbol of Justice System) OR PRIME MINISTER, JUSTIN TRUDEAU?

ANSWER: Well, it sure isn't 'Glory Boy'. If he is not going to dismiss her, he should resign himself.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN THE LAY-OFF OF SENIOR WEST VANCOUVER  TEACHER, ROGER CALLOW, ON JUNE 28,1985; THE ONLY TEACHER AGAINST WHICH THE NEOPHYTE IMPOSED BILL 35 (EFFECTIVE JULY 01-1985) WAS USED AGAINST HIM BEFORE IT WAS WITHDRAWN WHILE THIS CASE WAS UNRESOLVED IN THE 1990'S. THIS CASE WAS DECLARED 'THE BATTLE OF ALL TEACHERS' IN 1985 BY THE UNION WHEN IN FACT IT WAS ONLY DIRECTED AGAINST THE ONE TEACHER NAMED ABOVE

 

JANUARY  3

4) I strongly recommend that you (School Board) put an end to this 30-year filibuster of refusing the necessary disclosure of the 'secret missing memo notes'. Those notes detail the meetings of the WVST in June of 1985 in which copious discussions were made regarding BILL 35 and the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow, which were returned by B.C. Supreme Court's Justice Southin in 1986 after quashing the arbitration 'because she did not use them'.

5) Court cover-up of these documents for the past 30 years has led to a charge of systematic judicial abuse. The addition of the word 'systematic' implies that only the Supreme Court of Canada is competent to handle that aspect of this issue.

JAN. 5

5) ...Briefly put, according to the quashed arbitration, the Board of School Trustees in West Vancouver never authorized my lay-off as a senior teacher in June of 1985 under BILL 35 nor, for that matter any other teacher. More briefly, the conspirators acted fraudulently and the courts have continually covered up this vital fact for 30 years....

JAN.10

3) ...Even more regrettable is the fact that SK Appeal Court Justice Ottenbreit had to deny the rules on surety which he did by declaring this matter as a 'special case'....

4)... Hicks, Morley et al for the employer(Ontario) dropped representation of this case after complaints to the Ontario Legal Society which has failed to respond....

5) 1....There has never been any response from the Canadian Judicial Council under the aegis of its President, Hon. B. McLachlin (Supreme Court of Canada)....

5) 2. .; the general theme for the past 30 years has been this Plaintiff trying to get a judicial finding for his 'illicit' teacher lay-off from which compensation (includes pension rights) may flow. The assertion here is that the B.C. Government in 1985 was hi-jacked (imposed BILL 35) and the judiciary co-opted (gerrymandered government arbitrator later ruled patently unreasonable when the arbitration favouring the School Board was quashed) sanctioned a 'sweetheart deal' between the Employer and elements within the local Union....Southin then did those things which would permit the Board to gain through the back door what they could not gain through the front door of the arbitration. The ensuing 30 years in 10 separate court systems and 40 judges, it is submitted here, is proof positive of a judicial conspiracy in which a 'grey eminence' with backdoor access to the Office of the Chief Justice across the Country, is able - through the careful appointment of judges - maintain the biggest fraud ever perpetuated in Canadian jurisprudence... For the School Board, they would dearly like an end to this issue for no thinking B.C. teacher will ever again trust to arbitration and the courts nor will any ethical B.C. administrator write a negative Professional Report on a teacher.

10) The Employer could end this 30 year Disclosure quest by providing this Plaintiff immediately with those 'missing memo notes'. The Union also has a copy. All the RCMP is waiting for is the necessary Order to seize those documents.

JAN.11

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) ... 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....

6) ... 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.

10 c)... How can the QC court proceed without a definition as to the propriety of the duality of judges?....

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.

JAN.15

5) Both QC courts and SK courts were unsuccessfully warned by me not to refer to any events in Ontario which are tied up in oversight bodies which do not respond.

6) The key reference in both cases to Ontario relates to highly specious 'frivolous and vexatious' Orders from Superior Court C. McKinnon j. where this writer was the Respondent : one dated April 23-2014 and a second one dated September 15-2014 which makes no reference to the first. The B.C. Legal Society, on the advice of the SK legal Society, is investigating this dichotomy.

7) In QC, 95% of the Lavery, de Billy case was based on this specious order according to a second Gatineau justice, Goulet j. whom wrote the lower court Order without reference to the sitting judge, Therrien j. in another kafkaesque duality. It is Goulet's Order which is being contested on January 18-2016 as I have not received an answer to my request for Therrien's Order. Lavery, de Billy's second factum to be heard January 18-2016 on an Order to dismiss makes no reference to this duality in what I label as the Lavery, de Billy 'tail' wagging the Montreal Appeal Court 'dog'.

8) While the focus in Montreal Appeal Court is the April 23-2014 McKinnon j. Order; the focus of B.C. Harris & Co. in SK was to quote the September 15-2014 Order....

THE MCKINNON j. ORDER(S)

11) ...This must be stopped. Now.' bawled the Ottawa Citizen page 1 story on April 28-2014 aped by the Montreal La Presse. What exactly it was that was to be stopped is not clear despite all the bombastic rhetoric of McKinnon j. in his April 23-2014 Order. My 'right to reply' was ignored by the anti-employee Citizen.

20) The unresolved Employee's Case where no compensation has flowed has been anything but fair under any conceivable circumstances, as handled by the various courts and tribunals.

21) The key here is whether a court system is credible (the 'fairness' aspect) Indeed, the entire Justice System depends on its credibility which is under attack in this case.

JAN.16

4)...There is no point continuing with any trial until such Disclosure is provided in either court....

7) I have no qualms about the QC court dismissing this case as I have no interest in the future of the Canadian Justice System although I would like to think QC Premier Couillard and P.M. Trudeau would think differently and why a copy of this letter is included to them.

9) For my part, my sole interest in QC was originally to acquire the Disclosure memos from Justice Therrien. Unfortunately, Justice Goulet re-opened the case - apparently in an illicit manner - so that now we have the proverbial 'dog's breakfast'....

14) In the early 1960's, the Big Three Automakers apologized to Ralph Nader (Unsafe at any Speed) for their persecution of him. Where is that apology to the 'Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System' which eclipses Nader's story?

 

JAN.29

1) Included in this account is a 10-page letter to QC Lavery de Billy dated June 03-15 revealing what a complete cock-up has been the Ministry of the Attorney General (2Ministers);the Superior Court of Justice (Ottawa) (2 judges) and the Canadian Judicial Council under President Hon. B. McLachlin as both these judges were originally Federal Court appointments; The ON Appeal Court (Chief Justice George Strathy) and any number of lower court functionaries.

2) The incompetence of the oversight bodies has led to drastic legal ramifications in this issue in courts outside of ON. For example, one case has been filed in the Supreme Court of Canada from QC with a second filing 'on deck' from SK.

3) The situation is so dire for the credibility of the Canadian Justice System, that a further letter of this date has been addressed to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

4) How this body can resolve these difficulties is beyond me as the problem are your bosses.

JAN.29 (Trudeau)

1) The January 2016 Supreme Court of Canada Appeal to the Employee's Case (Quebec Division) as enunciated in a 10 page June 03-2015 letter to QC Lavery de Billy for the Respondent West Vancouver School Trustees, must be the strangest challenge to the credibility of Canada's Justice System ever entertained.

3) Under the circumstances noted in my Memorandum of Argument,(p.14-15)        I offer this unusual means of finalizing a legal matter which has undermined the course of justice in Canada: PLAINTIFF'S 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.

4) The point here is that as the plaintiff , I have no direct interest in the constitutional and otherwise legal questions voiced in this appeal as a revelation of the 'missing memo notes' would force a revision of my case in any event; probably on the basis of criminal fraud. That is not to say that the Prime Minister should be as sanguine.

6) In that latter regard of executive action, the P.M. could revitalize the Canadian Justice System by dismissing justices and chief justices associated with the Employee's Case for exceeding their authority (includes 'doing nothing'). A separate list has been included to the P.M. for this purpose.

JAN.29 (West Vancouver School Trustees)

9) Why should the current West Vancouver taxpayer, it needs be asked, foot the cost of legal chicanery when Prime Minister J. Trudeau can use the executive powers of the Prime Minister's position to handle that aspect of this alleged fraud? His father passed the Charter of Rights in 1982 (the easy part) leaving the son to enforce compliance from the Justice System in 2016 which is why this standing case labeled the Employee's Case Canada is his legacy no matter which course of action he chooses to follow.

10) As matters now stand, the escalating cost of settlement is increasing to seven million dollars as of February 09-2016 if you choose to settle 'out of court'. Most of that money is 30 years of 'deferred salary' which belongs to this plaintiff apart from judicial findings. In brief, I should never have been released from salary until this matter was resolved. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid to date.

 

 

CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - FEBRUARY 21-2016

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' teacher lay-off) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges . This edition is focused on the 'judicial record'; those decisions which form the basis of 'precedent law' on which the practice of law is based. It is a fake as the legal fraternity all know but until the Employee's Case, the Justice System was not exposed on this level. The below scenario seems like someone having to  deal with the billing department of his cable provider.

THE WILLFUL BLINDNESS OF THE 'JUDICIAL RECORD' (J.R.)

1) A key tenet for any legal system is its finality. So how do the conspirators explain how the 'Outlawed Canadian' is in a state of limbo for 30 years? Answer (A.) By making a vague claim that I am merely re-litigating matters which have already been decided. Which matters and which answers remains unknown but the J.R. is satisfied by merely making the claim.

2) Another key tenet is that the judge may not merely pick up the judicial ball and go home leaving a litigant in limbo. B.C. Deputy Chief Justice A. Cullen in 2013 did just that adding, for reasons best known to himself, that I was prohibited from filing any future litigation in B.C. How can a litigant be expelled under these circumstances forcing him into courts outside B.C? A. By other courts claiming that B.C. matters have no place in another jurisdiction. That is the law of inherent jurisdiction in which I argue those points that the non-B.C. courts do have a role while the courts merely look at those points which they claim support an exclusionary role against outside matters. They are wrong but the J.R. is not going into detail on that one.

3) Vital to persistent claims from a litigant by the court is the application of the rule of frivolous & vexatious behaviour. Why so? A. This overworked label is like pinning a yellow star on a litigant and sending him into a Nazi courtroom in order to trivialize a litigant's argument. The difficulty here is that Ontario Superior Court Justice, Colin McKinnon, who wrote the only complete form of f & v, compounded his problem by issuing two orders on two different dates; one used in QC and the other used in SK. On recommendation from the SK legal Society to the B.C. legal Society (Harris & Co. for the Employer  domiciled in B.C.), the B.C. Legal Society (BCLS) asked the right question about the duplicity of McKinnon j. but failed to answer it preferring to direct a diatribe against this  plaintiff. The matter was rebutted and forwarded to the SK Legal Society for a proper examination. I don't expect to hear back so that the J.R. would merely record the BCLS answer. The point here is that the BCLS has 'whitewashed' the concept that a judge may give two different orders without referencing each other. That flies below the radar of the official J.R. but is a major coffin nail in the Justice System.

4) A second matter of Judicial cupidity relates to the fact that two judges were assigned to the QC lower court to write a decision which only came from the second judge without referencing the first. It was as though the first judge did not exist in the J.R. On Appeal in Montreal, the court ignored that glaring deficiency; again, a success for the J.R. with its willful blindness. As far as I am concerned, I am awaiting the Decision from the first duly assigned judge...a long wait indeed as I wait for Hell to freeze over although the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) is charged with explaining a shortcoming which promises to revolutionize how justice is conducted in Canada.

5) So how does Harris & Co. avoid facing my wrath over the duality of the McKinnon Order (f & v) in SK Appeal Court on Feb. 09-16? A. Easy, with a pre-arrangement with the court, they would not present an argument other than for costs. The J.R. would imply that they were heard. The difficulty here for the court and why the matter is being appealed to the SCofC is that the Court abandoned its judicial role and became a direct advocate of the Employer and is therefore responsible for all arguments including shortcomings. That turns the entire Justice System on its head. Again, the SCofC will be asked to adjudicate that piece of subterfuge.

6) So what were the courts in SK and QC thinking knowing that these matters would be forwarded to the SCofC? A. That Chief Justice B. McLachlin will arrange to have these matters left unheard (most civil cases go unheard for no given reason). She was personally involved in 1997 along with Chief Justice A. Lamers (d) and as Chief Justice in 2004 in denying  hearings in this unresolved case. With 3 judges to reject the first hearing followed by a second set of 3 judges to do likewise, 6 judges would be implicated. How would Prime Minister Trudeau deal with that conundrum? The point here is that unless he does, the Canadian Justice System is defunct. Our ability as a nation to deal with such as foreign affairs would be seen to come from a failed state...and that would never do....The authorities here are praying that the media owners hold a tight leash on the media whom are forbidden to report on a legal case which has flushed the Justice System down the toilet leaving this writer as 'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System'. It can't get any worse than that.

7) For 30 years, I have requested Disclosure regarding the meeting notes of the Employer in June of 1985 regarding my illicit lay-off. For 30 years, the Courts have refused to order that Disclosure which they never even mention unless it is incidentally. It is time for Prime Minister Trudeau to send in the RCMP (Montreal Fraud Division has a record of these Newsletters). From there a criminal charge of fraud could be launched against the original conspirators as well as the court processes (there is no statute of limitations on fraud).

 

CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - MARCH 01-2016

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' teacher lay-off) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. This edition is focused on

being ubered (external threat from an unexpected source) through the interlocked legal proceedings from different courts across Canada. For example, recently the Employer filed a 'Motion to Dismiss' in both QC and SK Courts. In QC, the Motion to Dismiss was heard first without any recognition to my factum which had not received a docket number leaving me to defend a negative which is an impossibility. That matter is now in front of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC). In brief, the court never entertained the amazing fact that two, not one judge officiated at the lower Gatineau Court; the second judge writing the Decision without any recognition of the existence of the first judge. 'Cover-up by any other name.' Thus it was with some surprise that a similar stunt was not pulled in SK where both my original action and the Motion to Dismiss were to be held at the same time. I was further surprised to be told that I would speak first as the Motion to Dismiss usually takes precedence. That surprise turned to shock when in disagreement with the lead judge on 'jurisdiction'; I requested the opinion of the other two. She forbad them to speak. It further turned out that the Employer's lawyer by prior agreement would not speak either. For example, I asked him whether the Employer owes me compensation; the key question in this trial. She would not permit him to speak other than to costs which she assigned to him.  In effect, she made the court fully responsible for the Employer's argument. That is the basis for my request for the removal of these three judges along with the Chief Justice of the SK Appeal Court. That piece of perfidy is now in the hands of the Supreme Court of Canada.The point to be made here is that the 'grey eminence' is only experienced with arranging proceedings in a linear fashion. The Employee's Case has led to bungling on an unimaginable scale with inter-court finagling and is the source of the following letter.

SK COURT OF APPEAL CACV2783 entire judgment (apart from costs which was longer than the decision) (1) The appeal of Roger Callow, against the decision of Megaw J. in Callow v West Vancouver School District No 45, 2015, is dismissed for the reasons set out in that decision.

TO: The  Legal Society of Saskatchewan

FROM: Roger Callow  CACV2783 (SK Appeal Court H.D. Feb. 09-2016)

MESSAGE:

1) The SK Legal Society was the one and only oversight body in the 30 year history of the unresolved Employee's Case to acknowledge the seriousness of judicial excesses in this case.

2) On your own volition, you forwarded material sent to you by this writer to the B.C. Law Society accusing B.C.'s Harris & Co. of seeking to perpetuate a fraud in SK Courts.

3) While the 'crime' was committed in SK courts, due to Harris & Co. being domiciled in B.C., jurisdiction over them fell to the B.C Legal Society.

4) The B.C. Legal Society asked the proper question; namely, how does the court account for the duality and duplicity of the Ontario Superior Court's McKinnon j. frivolous and vexatious Order (14-59060) which has two versions; one published April 23-2014 with the second published September 15-2014 without any reference to the original Order?

5) With the first version being the focus of the courts in Quebec and the second being provided in SK Courts, the allegation here is that Harris & Co. was seeking to inveigle the court system into sanctioning both versions realizing that there is no legal vehicle between provinces to question such perfidy.

6) Megaw j. was made well aware of that dichotomy by me in court. By dropping any reference to frivolous & vexatious action by this plaintiff in the Appeal, Harris & Co. plus by not speaking in court by pre-arrangement with the Appeal Court, they sought to bury any reference to this charge which loomed large in my factum.

7) Unlike Quebec where the Employer perfidy was so-called hidden behind an Order to Dismiss where only that Order was considered (how can the QC Appeal Court dismiss something which did not exist; namely my factum which had yet to be given a docket number so that there is no recognition of any activity in the Judicial Record?)

8) Defending a negative is an impossibility and the fact that the above happened leaves the Couillard government in tatters where Quebecers have only the streets to turn to for justice.

That is the nature of the SCofC challenge now before the courts. In brief, I am still awaiting the judgment of the original Gatineau judge in the lower court; the only judge with the vested authority to write one.

9) The SK Appeal Court 'one-liner' is equally devastating for the Premier Wall government as it too, leaves citizens in SK nowhere to turn for justice.

10) By accepting responsibility for both the 'Order to Dismiss' and one and at the same time, the 'Original factum'; this Appeal Court covered up the cover-up of Megaw j which, in turn is a cover-up of the Harris &Co. cover-up of the duplicitous McKinnon j. frivolous & vexatious Order. (There ought to be a Nobel Prize for that kind of performance!) I have called for the removal of these 3 Appeal Court judges along with the SK Appeal Court Chief Justice in this matter.

11) This matter has now been directed to the Supreme Court of Canada necessitating my earlier request to the SK Legal Society to fill in the gap left by the B.C. Legal Society regarding the legitimacy of the McKinnon Order(s) and the actions of Harris & Co. thereto.

12) That evaluation is an important element in the SCofC case. Will the SK Legal Society 'fold' under that challenge as they should have replied before now?

13) A copy of this letter is being sent to P.M. Trudeau where time is running out for him to assert his hegemony by firing SCofC Chief Justice Hon. B. McLachlin for her machinations as President of the Canadian Judicial Council. He has the power to call in the RCMPP (Royal Canadian Mounted Political Police) to seize the necessary Disclosure for which both Megaw j and the SK Appeal Court failed to call for. Without that disclosure, no court may make any legal argument in this 'castle built on stand' story.

ACTION REQUESTED

FOR THE SK LEGAL SOCIETY TO CONDUCT THEIR OWN EVALUATION (IN LIGHT OF THE FAILURE OF THE B.C. LEGAL SOCIETY TO DO SO) OF THE DUPLICITY OF B.C.'S HARRIS & CO. (AS SUPPORTED BY THE SK COURTS) IN ORDER THAT THEIR REPORT MAY BE ADDED TO THE SCofC APPEAL CURRENTLY ON FILE.

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow

'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System'

 

 

 

CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - MARCH 07-2016

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. This edition is focused on being ubered (external threat from an unexpected source) through the interlocked legal proceedings from different courts across Canada.

LETTER TO Prime Minister J.TRUDEAU

1) Count the cost of your inactivity on the Employee's Case to date: Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice B. McLachlin is the de facto CEO of Canada, not you.

2) You have many choices as an executive officer on this file above which you are ignoring much to the detriment of Canada and Canadians:

a) Invoke the 'notwithstanding clause' (or its older counterpart, the 'peace, order and good government clause' of the constitution)

b) Remove SCofC Chief Justice McLachlin for dereliction of duty and appoint a new Chief Justice with an aim to removing Chief Justices and Justices whom have exceeded their authority in the Employee's Case. That move would go a long way to relieving the stranglehold that the 'grey eminence' has with his backdoor entrance to the Offices of the Chief Justices across the land. Many honest judges and court workers would bless you for that one alone which is a pattern which could be applied to other 'out of control' bureaucracies.

c) Appoint your most experienced PMO individual to examine all aspects of the Employee's Case (Canada)

d) Pick up the phone to the RCMP (Montreal Fraud squad has my dossier) with an order to seize the disclosure material which is currently on request with not one but two Supreme Court of Canada Appeal challenges (QC and SK) in this matter against the West Vancouver School Trustee Employer.

e) More recently, a case has been filed in Prince Edward Island against the Union with the same goal of acquiring those same disclosure materials.

f) Accept my $10 million buy-out offer to drop my disclosure request (and hence all legal challenges).

3) Doing nothing is not an option as you appear as a lame duck leader in this important challenge to the Justice System. In brief, the Justice System has expended its credibility in this case and without that key value, it is reduced to a non-entity. Parliament to date has shown itself to be woefully inept through its silence on this lead Canadian issue.

4) So, Mr. Prime Minister, if you are going to ignore the challenge of the Employee's Case (Canada), the placard I once designed for your predecessor, P.M. Harper, on this matter, will now apply to you: IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LEAD, GET OUT OF THE WAY FOR ONE WHOM WILL.  McLachlin appears quite happy to fulfill that void.

 

CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - MARCH 27-2016 

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 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.

 

WALKING BACK THE CAT - A REVIEW OF THIS GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY

 

1) In March of 1985, I mailed allegedly fraudulent material to the Department of Education under former West Vancouver Secondary Principal, Jim Carter, the incumbent Deputy Minister.

2) John Williams, a teacher under him and his successor, wrote two conflicting professional reports on this target - one positive and one negative - and chose to file the negative one. I caught him in that process.

3) Carter was exposed to the extent that 7 years previously, he dismissed a senior teacher at West Vancouver Secondary School for alleged incompetence based on the obligatory 3 consecutive negative reports over 2 years. Carter had been later successfully sued in this high profile case by the teacher but employment was not returned to him. Carter could ill-afford a second debacle. SEE web ORIGINS .

4) Former Presidents of the local Union also teaching in West Vancouver Secondary School were not only concerned about the plight of their fellow colleague,Williams, but the fact that if it were shown that professional reports on teachers were being 'kited'; not only would the confidence of teachers at large be shaken, but also administrators whom contributed 20% to Union coffers through their membership with which they were growing increasingly restive. (The teachers and administrators were separated by B.C. legislation in 1988 in any event.)

5) The answer to this conundrum? ...the imposed BILL 35 designed to lay-off teachers ostensibly for economic reasons which became effective on July 01-1985. (My lay-off letter was dated June 28-1985.) In brief, the conspirators could not wait 2 years to railroad 2 more negative Professional Reports considering my accusations.

6) The local Union leaders plus the Superintendent, whom had earlier hired Carter as principal, persuaded the School Trustees to support this dismissal on the grounds that the imposed nature of BILL 35 meant that the Union was not involved as the conditions of BILL 35 would pre-dominate wherein I would have to foot the bill for a 11 day arbitration (in which the Union took only a 1/2 hour) which I could ill-afford...a slam dunk for these conspirators... or so they thought.

7) The parent Union, the BCTF, which had promulgated a province-wide campaign against BILL 35 due to its pejorative nature, talked all School Districts planning to make use of BILL 35 (about 6) to decline but left the one in West Vancouver in place. Further, realizing that they would be badly exposed if the Union did not defend my case, the BCTF  told the local Union that they would pay for the expensive arbitration.

8) Hence it was an arbitration that I was meant to lose and the arbitrator picked up all the necessary signals from the legal counsel. The key, of course, was to place the School Trustees on the stand to attest to lay-off numbers. Neither the Board nor the Union's lawyers would do that nor was the government-appointed arbitrator asking for such key testimony. Hence he felt secure in turning 16 new hires into 16 lay-offs adding my name as the necessary 17th knowing full well that I was the only lay-off In June of 1985.

9) I changed lawyers and appealed the matter to B.C. Supreme Court before Justice Mary Southin in 1986. She quashed the arbitration ruling, as she did, the arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable'. The bottom line for me over the next 30 years?...to be left in limbo.

10) There was much litigation in the intervening years culminating in the second failed application to the SCofC in 2004 under the terms of 'ultimate remedy' reflective of the fact that for a Justice System to have any credibility, it must be devoted to finality; in this case, compensation - in whatever amount - must be paid. That's when Canada reverted to being a Third World country.

11) In 2013, the B.C. courts, fed up with this long running soap opera and my bid to  get compensation (now includes pension rights), expelled me from the province - for reasons best known to a judge (the Cullen Creed) - forcing me into other legal venues.

12) That latter process has exposed the Justice System in a way that it has never been exposed before; specifically in terms of a 'grey eminence' (see old web site) whom has back door entrance to the Office of the Chief Justice and his minions appointed to get a desired result. The Appeal Courts are particularly bad in this respect including, as we have seen above, the SCofC under the aegis of Chief Justice B. McLachlin whose personal role looms large in this case.

13) There isn't a day goes by that the media does not report on the ineffectiveness of Canada's oversight bodies including Parliament. The Canadian Judicial Council, under President B. McLachlin, for example, has never acknowledged the many documented complaints against judges that I have made.

14) The past 30 years has been devoted to acquiring the 'missing memo notes' regarding those School Board meetings in June of 1985. Southin j. returned them to the Employer and Union because, as she stated, she did not use them. The Respondent Employer and Union plus courts steadfastly refuse to hand over those notes to me. Without that necessary disclosure, no hearing has any validity. The SCofC is finally willing to hear this case which, I have informed them, must be preceded by this disclosure. The current action in P.E.I. is to obtain the Union's copy of this  disclosure which, as a Union client, I claim ownership.

15) In broader parameters, the conflict is between who is the CEO of Canada...SCofC Chief Justice B. McLachlin or Prime Minister Justin Trudeau whom believes, to date, that doing nothing is an option. If so, it not only marks his legacy as P.M. but sinks 21st century Canada into an abyss from which there is no recovery as a democracy.

16) Already the careers of Premier Couillard in QC and Brad Wall in SK are severely challenged as both have been kept fully informed as to gross  judicial peccadilloes in their province. The legal alternative for citizens in both provinces? ...turning to the streets. Voters may also take note:

 

be ethical - don't vote

 

 

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              1285 Cahill Drive #2001

445, boulevard Saint-Laurent                Ottawa, Ontario  K1V 9A7

Montréal (Québec) H2Y 3T8                   tel/fax: 613-521-1739

 

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

 

CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - APRIL 10-2016 

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. as the Justice System gets 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. This edition is focused on teacher lay-off.

QUOTES:

A) The body parts were having a discussion as to who was boss. Obviously, I am claimed the bureaucratic finger for without opposable thumb- fingers, man could not be distinguished from the animals. The legal lung department then spoke up pointing how if it were not for their power to suck all the air out of the atmosphere, an ice age would be created. The political brain pointed out without an order from their department, nothing could transpire. And so it went, each part of the body arguing large and long, as to their claim for leadership. Then the asshole Justice System spoke up...or at least tried to among the howls of laughter among the other body parts. So the asshole closed down leaving the brain to fog over, the lungs to collapse and the fingers to go limp. All of which it goes to prove, you do not need to be a political brain to be a boss, just an asshole of a Justice System.

B)'The trial was a spectacle, a farce, a ridiculous way to search for the truth. But as I learned, the truth was not important. Perhaps in another era, a trial was an exercise in the presentation of facts, the search for truth, and the finding of justice. Now a trial is a contest in which one side will win and the other side will lose. Each side expects the other to bend the rules or to cheat, so neither plays fair. The truth is lost in the melee.  The Racketeer   John Grisham

TEACHER LAY-OFF

1) In 1985, when B.C.'s imposed BILL 35 was passed, ostensibly to deal with the problem of 'declining enrolment'; as a senior teacher with advanced qualifications, I became the test person for this government legislation which sought to run an end-game around the Union.

2)The end-game, as the West Vancouver, B.C. School Board asserted, was that BILL 35 had its own conditions apart from the collective bargaining procedures, hence the Unions were not involved leaving this victim with very heavy legal costs should he have contested the lay-off. The Unions could ill-afford to be made redundant under these circumstances so they declared this BILL to be 'the battle of all teachers' knowing full well that they would involve themselves in a 'sweetheart deal' with the Employer (most dismissals are of this nature).

3) If one client is successful in challenging a lay-off, then a bumping process is invoked whereby a second teacher is to be laid off and so on and so on until the proper teacher is selected. That is a no-win situation for the Union which has to bear these heavy legal costs with no remuneration.

4) For the Union, it matters little which teacher is laid off (unless it is a Union leader) as one lay-off is expected anyway. Hence an individual client such as myself is at a tremendous disadvantage. That's why the government-appointed arbitrator felt free to convert 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs with myself as the 17th knowing full well that I was the only lay-off in West Vancouver (indeed, the entire province) in June of 1985.

5) I changed from the Union lawyer to one of my own and appealed in which Southin j. quashed the arbitration labeling, as she did, the arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable'

6) Hence began my 30 year sojourn in limbo looking for a judicial decision in which compensation (now includes pension rights) could be collected. No compensation has been paid to date which flies in the face of contract obligations (the essence of the judicial system) due to the chicanery of 10 separate court systems and 40 judges which is currently ongoing.

7) In 1995, as the Employer was not doing anything to re-arbitrate as so ordered by Southin j. after she recommended employment be returned, I returned before Spencer j. against the Employer requesting that the 'should 'return employment be altered to 'must' return employment with all terms of the contract to survive.

8) Spencer j.'s  choice was clear; either return employment due to the Employer's abandonment of this case or order a re-arbitration. He did neither. He created the bogy that this was a Union matter in which the Union controlled all aspects of a client's legal welfare. Succeeding B.C. justices bought into that argument (while the Employer sat quietly by claiming that only BILL 35 conditions applied).

9) The question of jurisdiction reached the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 (Chief Justice Lamers (d) / Beverley MacLachlin-incumbent Chief Justice / Cory) under the all-important question of the 'Jurisdiction of Unions' which is of importance to all Canadian employees. They refused to hear this challenge. No client will hold Union membership under these conditions which explains why the Union movement is moribund.

9) A second challenge in 2004 (MacLachlin the Chief Justice as is the case currently with two SCofC challenges from QC and SK and possibly a third on the way from P.E.I.) under the terms of 'ultimate remedy' which was also rejected for a hearing, dropped Canada to Third World status as the essence of the Justice System is its finality. In contract language, that means money must change hands.

10) Employers are trying to sneak in the 'ability to pay' (condition of BILL 35) which was the focus point in an ON teacher lay-off case (SEE web article of Sun Media's  Alan Shanof regarding how, in one instance, a number of teachers, in being laid off for reasons of declining enrolment, were assigned half their compensation due to the Employer's 'ability to pay'. On appeal in court, those teachers won full compensation.

11) BILL 35 included that 'ability to pay' clause of which the arbitrator accepted the Employer's claim of being short $500,000 for the year (later figures showed a surplus in the same amount) The court threw that claim out as figures (as shown above) could too easily be fudged which had been the judicial stance to date.

12) While years of experience and teacher accreditation are factors (and not in question in my case); the real sidewinder is the inclusion in BILL 35 of such as the term; 'current demonstrated ability' (cda) , a term undefined in BILL 35 nor in law in general. That constitutional  challenge is part of the SK Appeal in the SCofC. The point here, is that the Union - now seeing that BILL 35 was withdrawn in the 1990's (before this sole laid case was resolved) felt it unnecessary to make a constitutional challenge as B.C. courts would only recognize the Union on my behalf. A similar stunt was pulled in Ontario in 2013 with the imposed BILL 115 which was later withdrawn after its purpose was fulfilled. This type of judicial action is known derogatively as 'banana republic justice'. These terms such as cda are indicators by the governments to the courts that these Acts are being used for a political purpose and therefore 'anything goes'.

13) And then a funny - or not so funny - thing happened on the way to the forum; Deputy Justice of B.C. Supreme Appeal Court, A. Cullen drummed me out of the B.C. Justice System telling the Respondent Union  and Employer that they were no longer required to respond to my legal actions against them in this  unresolved legal case. He acted for reasons 'best known to himself' not expecting me to seek out other forums in the Federal Court, Supreme Court of Canada, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, P.E.I. courts in an ubering process which has destroyed the very essence of what a Justice System in a democracy is all about. The individual, as one consequence has been expunged from Canadian society for without an efficacious justice system, there is no democracy. That is now Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's legacy, no matter which course he chooses to take or not take.

14) Regarding lay-offs by School Boards for financial reasons, it makes financial sense to lay-off senior teachers whom receive twice the salary as beginners. This incremental system was set up in the 1950's when teachers were poorly paid and hence there was difficulty retaining them. The deal worked out was that beginning teachers would receive a lower than normal salary which would be topped up should they gain seniority. This explains why part of the teacher bargaining process today by the Union is to shrink increment levels as a means of protecting senior teachers from lay-off.

15) Individual teachers faced with lay-off should study this case. While there may be interest from other teachers when you get your pink slip in June, that interest rapidly evaporates over the summer months and is all but ignored in September when teachers begin a new year.

16) Look at how the media is reeling under lay-offs. For example, in the Ottawa Sun and Ottawa Citizen now jointly managed by a 34 year old editor, there have been wholesale lay-offs of senior staffs as the print media continues to bleed red ink. For every $7 dollars of expenditures, there is $1 of revenue due mainly to technology changes. A whole profession is being wiped out although advertisements for replacement are seen in the media (non-salary internships). Considering government debt, particularly in Ontario, and one has little difficulty prognosticating the future for senior teachers.

17) So while declining enrolment was not an issue in 1985, it is an issue today. While I have every sympathy with laid-off teachers; please do not send me your legal factums or otherwise as they will be returned to you unopened. You may send me up to a one-page synopsis of your concern but do not expect an answer.

18) In conclusion, the significance of the Employee's Case is as a negative harbinger; a laid-off individual cannot trust to the politicians, the anti-employee media, the union, and the most important of all - the Justice System. Hence my following moniker...

 

'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System