JUMP TO HOME PAGE

STATEMENT OF CLAIM - AB Resubmission

 

1) Anatomy of a government conspiracy. First invoke imposed legislation. Second appoint a highly partisan adjudicator or arbitrator and ignore any court oversight proceedings on the grounds that the imposed legislation is final and binding. The process  may be used against such employees as former senior West Vancouver, B.C. teacher, Roger Callow, laid off under the imposed  BILL 35 (School Amendment Act) in  June of 1985 or it can be used against provinces such as SK with the imposed carbon tax or against the nation in terms of privatizing such as Ontario Hydro or the Airports and Harbour facilities. In brief, it is dictatorship and what commenced in 1985 in B.C. in one lay-off case is now running rampant across the land due to the failure of Canada's courts to deal effectively with the Employee's Case.

 

2) Hence the constitutional question raised here regarding the relationship between the government and the courts is the single most important question in the operation of Canadian democracy today.

 

3) The failure of over 50 judges in myriad courts across the land including four failed attempts to gain a hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada in an unresolved labour matter where no compensation has been paid, robs the Canadian court structure of any credibility it possesses as an institution.

 

4) Extending that story and it is not too difficult to see that the moribund courts no longer have a purpose in our society except in matters of fraud. That this plaintiff has spent over 30 years in his unsuccessful search for disclosure to prove fraud states legions about the backroom operation of our justice system.

 

Application of imposed legislation in the Employees Case (Canada)

 

5) In an eleven day highly partisan arbitration favouring the Employer, the Union rebuttal was reduced to a half hour stating that B.C.'s BILL 35 (School Amendment Act) dealing with teacher lay-off for economic reasons was 'in addition to' the School Act and did not displace any part of it; a position the courts supported.

 

6) Hence this constitutional question follows: What is the status of court oversight in imposed legislation where that legislation does not state that it is displacing any part of statute law?

 

7) The Employer maintains that as the arbitration is final and binding, the courts which quashed this arbitration had no basis in law.

 

8) Be that as it may, even BILL 35 allowed for compensation which has not been addressed largely due to the bloody mindedness of the courts of law.

 

9) To date, this Plaintiff has been unsuccessful in obtaining disclosure which most certainly would illustrate fraud on the part of the conspirators of which the Employer is a central figure.

 

10) One attempt to get this question of national importance was obviated by the Ratchel Notley government accounting for this re-submission.

 

ACTION CALLED FOR

 

11) For the Court to order the Respondent Employer to produce disclosure; namely, the minute notes of the Board meetings in June of 1985 where BILL 35 and the Callow matter were discussed extensively. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Southin whom quashed the arbitration ruling, as she did, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable had called for those memo notes only to return them later 'because she did not use them'. It is submitted here that she covered up a mammoth government conspiracy and all subsequent court hearings 'covered up the cover-up' to a degree and extent where Canada is bereft of a credible justice system.

From that disclosure, this court is better able to define the constitutional  question as it applies to the Employee's Case.