TO: Superior Court of Justice FROM: Roger Callow
ATTN: 'Elizabeth' self represented plaintiff
393 University Avenue 1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001
Toronto, ON M5G 1E6 Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7
fax: 416-327-9470 sent by fax 5 pages employescasecanada.ca
1) In December of 2016, I sent a 'Notice of Action' with a detailed 'Notice of Claim' to the wrong legal address in Toronto including a bank draft for the applicable fee
2) The Appeal Court where it was mistakenly sent noted this incorrect filing in returning both the Action and the bank draft.
3) Regrettably, the form sent with the return checked off a box stating that 'due to the complexity of this case, an oral hearing must be slated' as opposed to the written 'party by party' decision which I requested as the plaintiff. Presumably the Action was acceptable for filing on all other accounts.
4) I forwarded a 3-page letter to Premier Wynne on December 05-2016 which is included here detailing my objection as to why the Appeal Court had to comment on the complexity of the case as opposed to merely returning the documents with the noted incorrect address. In that regard, it is noted that oral hearings in this matter - including those in Ontario - are fraught with fraud which go uninvestigated to this date. A written judgment gets around the problem although if the Respondent insists on a hearing (by teleconferencing) my request on this level remains moot.
5) The Action was returned and received by me on January 04-2017 just after I filed a 'Second Request' to the Premier. The form attached listed two conditions:
(x) Filing fee of $220 for issuance of claim; $160 for motion required to the Minister of Finance...
(x) Due to the complexity of this matter personal attendance suggested/required.
6) I can use either a debit card or Mastercard to pay the fee by telephone if acceptable or if not, by a bank draft. Please provide me with the total amount required.
7) This case is not complex as it is limited to a very narrow matter relating to disclosure. ( 'Due to the complexity of this matter personal attendance suggested/required'...I select the suggested option for the following reasons:
a) In the event that the Respondent Employer willingly provides disclosure which they have been most reluctant to do for 32 years so a resolution may be reached outside of Ontario courts, then I drop this action;
b) In the event that the Employer does not produce disclosure, the court is asked to give an order to that effect in this unresolved labour matter where no compensation has been paid.
8) Of course in that assessment, the court must call for that disclosure in order to determine what it is that is being accepted or rejected giving me the very thing that I request. In brief, in the absence of the Respondent providing disclosure , the Ontario courts and the Wynne government, by not ordering disclosure ,become inextricably tied up in the alleged conspiracy that this Employer has successfully waged by suborning the justice system in this regard. That charge includes earlier courts in Ontario.
9) I trust the above information plus the 3-page letter to Premier Wynne is sufficient to have you assign a docket number and leave it to the Respondent Employer to decide whether or not an oral hearing is called for.
Roger Callow plaintiff
P.S. This account is in addendum to the voice message that I left Elizabeth today.
DECEMBER 05-2016 JANUARY 04-2017 SECOND REQUEST by fax - please do not ignore. RC
TO: ON Premier K. Wynne FROM: Roger Callow (aka 'The Outlawed Canadian')
Legislative Building #2001 - 1285 Cahill Dr. E.
Queen's Park Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7
Toronto, ON M7A 1A1 fax: 613-521-1739
Registered Mail TOPIC: employescasecanada.ca
1) When Attorney Generals mess up, I turn to the Premier of the Province.
2) I am inclined to agree with former military ombudsman and Tory candidate, André Morin, that the last 3 ON A.G.'s were deficient; particularly your apparent heir apparent, Yasir Naqvi, whom has shown himself to be 'less than competent' with the Employee's Case file of this litigant.
3) Included in this account, therefore, is a 3-page letter to Naqvi dated July 20-2016 and a second 3-page letter to him dated August 6-2016 relating to very serious deficiencies in the operation of ON courts in the above legal matter.
4) Conspiracies such as evidenced in the above legal matter operate on the Maginot Line mentality (WW1) that 90,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong. In short, the more people that say the same thing, the more true becomes the proposition in propaganda terms.
5) In the Employee's Case, to place it in a nutshell, fraudulent actions by Ottawa Superior Court Judges Colin McKinnon and Robert Scott, (both originally Federal Court appointees = Canadian Judicial Council overview which was non-existent) created the situation which subsequently played out in the Supreme Court of Canada in QC 36883 and SK 36993 in 2016. Both cases were not given leave to be heard by the same panel of judges (much to my vehement objection as to conflict of interest - 25C previously rescinded) leaving the Prime Minister with the responsibility to deal with obvious fraudulent actions by these two judges as detailed in the two letters to Naqvi. That is my first complaint to you.
6) The current complaint relates to an action for $20 million dollars against the B.C. Employer in Toronto Superior Court which I inadvertently mailed the Action plus fee to the wrong address; namely, the Appeal Court/Divisional Court at Osgoode Hall. It was returned with the fee. Due to the difficulty with an earlier fee sent to the Appeal Court of Chief Justice George Strathy which disappeared down the rabbit hole along with the Appeal factum, I forwarded the factum to a corrected address with evidence of the fee draft awaiting the assignment of a docket number before the original draft fee is sent. SEE Registry clerk response & my Reply - 3 pages NOV.27. I have just received the factums back again without a docket number with the same box 'ticked' stating 'Due to the complexity of this matter, personal attendance at court is required.' Why should this statement obviate the assignment of a docket number? Granted my request was for a written party by party judgment; but that is a request which the court, and not the Registry, can modify. In brief, the Registry is usurping the role of the court by not assigning a docket number. That is my second complaint to you.
7) As outlined in the Action, the $20 million is a default claim which is why I have asked for a written decision which would avoid the hi-jinks of every court hearing for the past 30 years in which the presiding judge believes 'pulling a rabbit out of a hat' is the way to go leaving this case in inexplicable limbo. That's why a 21st century Prime Minister is involved; Trudeau currently passing on using his executive powers if only to call in the RCMP. The Montreal RCMP branch is being kept apprised by me of developments.
8) Why do I label this current action a 'default' action? For 30 years, every court hearing this matter refuses to examine the question of disclosure which, in the Employee's Case, would permit me to lay a charge of fraud against the B.C. Employer in British Columbia (fraud pre-empts other laws such as 'frivolous & vexatious' behaviour).
9) Hence the court is faced with a two tier question:
a) Will the Employer voluntarily produce the necessary disclosure?
b) In absence of such a voluntary production, will the court order those documents to be produced?
c) In absence of a) or b), the court should mandate the paying of the $20 million fee requested
d) In the event of a production of this disclosure or the assignment of the default fee, I have finished with the Ontario court.
e) In the event that a judge attempts to call for an oral hearing, no doubt on the grounds of jurisdiction or 'frivolous & vexatious' behaviour - two specious excuses, then I invite them to apply the laws of transference to B.C. which would include an examination of the Cullen Creed of 2013 by which I was expelled from the B.C. legal system 'for reasons best known to a judge' in this unresolved labour matter. No court to date will mention the Cullen Creed. Further, no quest of jurisdiction was raised when the Employer laid an action in 13-59060 claiming that they owed no compensation in this matter as they did not recognize court overview which quashed the arbitration in 1986 ruling, as it did, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. My argument was also ignored by McKinnon j. that compensation - in whatever amount - is owed whether it is under the terms of the neophyte imposed BILL 35, the collective bargaining rules (if applicable) or the general application of contract. (No compensation, which includes pension rights, has been paid in this legal matter.)
f) As far as Ontario courts and your personal reputation is concerned, the larger question raised in this current action by me will see if Ontario is to be thrown directly into the conspiracy if any more judicial concupiscence is evidenced.
10) Please assign an officer to expedite this case into receiving a document number. I return the materials to you by registered mail for the purpose.
11) I would not assign any more money to the courts in Canada including sums Naqvi has assigned in Ontario for the purpose considering the intolerable judicial mess due to 'legal billable time bullshit' which pervades the judiciary including the Employee's Case.
12) The simple question above has always been the central question in this case; namely, does imposed legislation supplant statute law where it is not explicitly stated? It is the key question relating government to courts but in the Employee's Case, the Judiciary is marching to the tune of a different drummer although what that tune is defies explanation.
13) The Employer's stand is that imposed legislation obviates overview such as the courts or labour board (in this case); a proposition which the courts have denied in failing to give a decision for 31 years. Next June, due to declining enrolment, to be sure School Board lawyers are going to quote the unchallenged BILL 35 (B.C. 1985, since rescinded) as a precedent in future cases thus, it is asserted here, making a mockery of the Justice System.
14) As to efficient courts, Justice Scott, unpropitiously projected the type of hearing (14-61592 Sept. 23-2014) which should characterize all courts as a means of efficiency: 'Mr. Callow, I will only hear argument as to any appeal of the 'frivolous & vexatious' charge earlier made against you.' As the Respondent in 13-59060 (April 23-2014 decision), McKinnon j. ignored the constitutional question presented by the Employer to discuss 'all issues' leaving me to read in his judgment the application of the frivolous and vexatious charge of which details appeared to be prepared by the court offices as opposed to the Employer, the latter being the normal procedure. In any event, I had a complete rebuttal set for the September hearing which was still-born due to the fraudulent actions of McKinnon j., Scott j. and Hicks, Morley et al for the employer (since dropped out for reasons 'best known to themselves').
15) Unknown to me, there was collusion between the three parties mentioned above in September, wherein McKinnon would write a second Order a few days before the September hearing which made no mention of the first Order although it was essentially the same; the point being that my written arguments were robbed of any value. Hicks, Morley et al whom had not filed a 'Notice of Appearance' bounced into court on September 23-2014 slapping this bogus second Order into the ready hands of Scott j. amid my most vociferous objection. Scott further muddied the waters when he entered a 'stay of proceedings' so that the Appeal Court returned my documents because 'there was no decision'.
16) The oversight bodies including the Supreme Court of Canada are MIA leaving this matter, as explained in other documents, in the hands of a 21st century Prime Minister; P.M. Trudeau apparently choosing to take 'a pass'. In brief, these two judges should not be sitting on the bench hearing other cases until this matter is cleared up.
17) Expediting this current factum for fraud against the B.C. Employer, therefore, is axiomatic if the Ontario courts and now the Office of Premier K. Wynne are not to be accused of systematic judicial abuse. I view with great suspicion as to why two Registries wish me to approve an oral hearing without knowing the wishes of the Respondent. Will it be that some sort of judicial stunt will be perpetuated e.g. a third party request for 'intervener status' to run up a huge judicial bill for which I will be eventually dunned? The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance
STATEMENT OF CLAIM - Ontario
1) The Appellant accuses the Respondent School Board of malicious intent to deprive this target of his senior teaching position in West Vancouver, B.C. in June of 1985 for spurious motives (as would be outlined in the disclosure documents requested above). No compensation, which is the focus of this action has been paid which is contrary to BILL35 (the only legislation recognized by the Respondent in this matter), the collective bargaining rules (if applicable) or any other form of labour contract rules.
2) The effect of that illicit action turned out to be a career ending decision for this Appellant as teachers on senior salary are unable to acquire permanent status in other school boards in Canada.
3) While the fraud was revealed in the succeeding Arbitration; all mention of such activity was concealed from the Arbitrator's Report. For this reason, the disclosure requested above is central to this case.
4) In the event that the disclosure requested above is not provided - either voluntarily by the Employer or as ordered by the court - the court is requested to assign the full amount requested by this Appellant in settlement.
5) The pattern of this case is repetitious and is outlined in this excerpt from Saskatchewan:
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1) The facile arguments raised by the Respondent Employer since July 2013 in courts outside of B.C. by the West Vancouver School Trustees S.D. #45 against former senior teacher, Roger Callow, laid-off in June of 1985 under the neophyte conditions of BILL 35 (effective July 01-1985) and where no compensation has been paid are reduced to three central arguments (quoted from SK action QBG 1902/15):
a. This honourable Court lacks any jurisdiction to hear and decide the Applicant's claims or to grant the relief he is seeking;
b. The matters raised in this application are precluded from being heard under the doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppal and abuse of process; and
c. The matters raised in this application are vexatious and beyond all applicable limitation periods.
2) REBUTTAL by the Plaintiff Employee to the above:
a. The jurisdictional dispute falls flat when one considers that it was the 'Cullen Creed' of July 2013 which expelled the plaintiff from B.C. in an unresolved labour matter where no compensation has been paid contrary to the imposed BILL 35, the collective bargaining rules (if applicable) or any other labour statute regarding compensation. (This Creed is referred to as 'issue estoppal' in b.) The word 'facile' is used as no court - and there were many outside B.C. - would rule directly on the obvious ultra vires nature of an action which was passed by a B.C. judge on his own action, without taking legal argument, without quoting pertinent laws, and for 'reasons best known to himself' in an unresolved legal action. Nor would any court refer the matter back to B.C. for resolution taking a parochial stand best summed up as 'not our department'. Finally, the payment of compensation in labour matters is a central tenet in law for all provinces and this case serves as a very dangerous precedent as governments can void court oversight for both employers as well as employees with imposed legislation if this arbitration decision is permitted to stand.
b. res judicata refers to 'matters already settled' according to the Employer. Their argument here is that BILL 35 accepts the arbitration finding in favour of the School Board as final and binding rejecting the court and Appeal Court actions of quashing the arbitration ruling, in that process, the government appointed arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. In 1995 in an action launched by this plaintiff, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Spencer ruled this matter to be a Union action to be resolved under the collective bargaining rules which all subsequent B.C. Courts supported. The Employer does not recognize the collective bargaining rules. While the Union may act according to the legitimacy of the lay-off, their authority does not extend to compensation which has not been paid no matter which scheme is selected for the purpose. Here is where all courts have fallen down badly including the Supreme Court of Canada and why this case now rests in the executive powers of a future Prime Minister considering Justin Trudeau remains inactive on this vital question affecting the welfare of all employees in Canada. As to 'abuse of process'; that term is being used as a catch-all for many items.
c. If there are limitation periods on compensation, the Employer never quotes any. Further if the Employer in this 30 year bid for disclosure or habeas corpus which is the basis of all law had provided the information requested- or alternatively, the court had ordered these minutes of the School Board for June of 1985 where BILL 35 and the Callow case were extensively discussed - then in all likelihood a charge of fraud would be laid. There is no limitation on charges of fraud. These matters are hardly 'frivolous and vexatious'
3) Constitutional Question: Does 'imposed' government legislation obviate court overview when such legislation makes no reference to replacing parts or all of particular statute laws. i.e. that the imposed legislation is 'in addition to'. In this case the School Amendment Act (BILL 35) has produced contradictory results in this case if the Respondent Employer's interpretation above is to be accepted. It is to be noted, in that regard, that compensation is operant in all forms of the Act noted above and exists apart from these legal machinations. The Employer raised this question in their action about issue constitutionality in Ontario (13-59060 Colin McKinnon j. April 23-2014 Decision which he completely ignored). The plaintiff here is now raising the same question. The only change is the reversal of the Plaintiff-Respondent relationship which has no significance to the issue raised.
4) For the Court to order disclosure from the Respondent Employer as a means of establishing fraud. It is clear that the Employer is not voluntarily going to produce these documents. Once I have received these documents, all future legal actions will take place in B.C.
5) The default settlement should neither the Respondent Employer or the Court provide disclosure is for $20 million .