JUMP TO HOME PAGE

February 13-2015

 

TO: Board of School Trustees                                         FROM: Roger Callow 

(S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.) (WVST)                   1285 Cahill Drive West #2001

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9    Ottawa ON K1V 9A7

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                        tel/fax: 613-521-1739                 

SENT BY FAX  (15 pages)  Rebuttal to 2 Briefs to follow

                                                                       

REFERENCE: employescasecanada.ca  'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance'  employescasecanada.ca  REPLY - NOVA SCOTIA  458698

 

MESSAGE:

1) Two briefs plus accompanying letters were received by courier on February 10-2017 in which your B.C. representative, Harris & Co. unilaterally set two 'quick-deed' dates for Nova Scotia courts on February 21 (Surety) and March 8 (Constitutional Question). I was not consulted on these date selections by either the court or yourself as the Defendant.

2) Those dates do not conform with my action which was designed to focus solely on the constitutional question where no case specifics were to be used. That has been changed by your representative's approach which copies the usual pattern plaguing a resolution of this unresolved  labour case from 32 years ago where no compensation has been paid.

3) Please cancel these dates as other litigation in N.S. in terms of the Nova Scotia Barristers Society must first adjudicate the alleged fraudulency of Harris & Co. and their representatives; Geoff Litherland esq. and Christine Millar (paralegal) which you were warned against using should you feel the need to challenge the constitutional question.

4) Regrettably, your factum lacks two prime ingredients, namely, any reference to the constitutional features of imposed legislation vis a vis court oversight which is of prime interest to 35 million Canadians and to which I was willing to confine this case apart from any findings on the case proper. The second item relates to disclosure which the Employer refuses to divulge for 32 years as exacerbated by the courts which have brought the course of justice 'into disrepute' in this lead civil case.

5) This disclosure would amount to the copious discussions held in June of 1985 by the WVST regarding the imposed BILL 35 and the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow. Justice Southin who quashed the arbitration returned these notes to the Employer and Union 'because she did not use them' (note: Why return them?) She stated in her Order that nowhere did the WVST intend to lay-off a teacher in June of 1985 thus putting the lie to the Superintendent's letter of that date as well as the arbitrator's assertion whom she ruled patently unreasonable. He had converted 16 new hires into 16 lay-offs with this senior teacher as the only lay-off as he well knew.

6) This disclosure challenge is now being turned over to the Nova Scotia Barrister's Society for adjudication before either of the two cases filed by the Defendant may proceed:

Cogswell Tower

800-2000 Barrington Street

 Halifax NS B3J 3K1 

 T: 902 422 1491  F: 902 429 4869

7) It is now incumbent on the NS Barrister's Society to check out the alleged fraudulent actions of Harris & Co. in league with ON Hicks, Morley et al (whom dropped out for unstated reasons) and QC Lavery de Billy along with the accompanying judicial actions.

8) This disclosure request is a necessity now that the Employer has chosen to take a stand apart from the constitutional question plus the failure of oversight legal society bodies in B.C., SK (Harris & Co.) , ON, QC which refuse to accept their responsibilities in this matter. That has got to stop. This disclosure also bears on the conduct of various court personnel attached to this case which, again, goes without investigation. In brief, it is a test of Premier McNeil's court system just as the court systems of QC Premier Couillard and SK Premier Wall's were tried and 'found wanting'. Of interest here is that Premier Wall is complaining about imposed legislation as it relates to a carbon tax. Ironically, his province plus others are also challenging the Federal Government on the same grounds regarding the Health Departments.

9) The 'fraud' aspect for which I have unsuccessfully called the RCMP for action is well known but without the necessary disclosure, the matter will not stand up in court. It is submitted here that two former WV Union presidents and friends of Principal, John Williams, where we all taught at West Vancouver Secondary (Williams was a former teacher in the school) approached Superintendent Ed Carlin to invoke the neophyte BILL 35 (effective July 01-1985; lay-off letter June 26-1985) after I had mailed damaging information regarding a key alteration in my professional teacher's Report to Deputy Minister, Jim Carter; himself the former principal at WV Secondary and chum of Williams. Carter was no stranger to controversy himself with the firing of a senior teacher in 1978 under dubious conditions. Carlin was the Superintendent at that time as well. He departed the WV District in 1986 never to serve in the public education field again.

10) The scheme was to use BILL 35 to circumvent the collective bargaining process so that I would have to foot the bill for the arbitration which, as a young father, I could ill afford; but that was the point. That way, my whistle blowing could be buried with no action taken against Williams whom went into a quiet retirement 5 years later.

11) Considering that the central Union, the BCTF, called on all teachers to challenge this imposed legislation (similar to Nova Scotia in November of 2016), they could ill-afford not to finance the arbitration although administrators were part of the Union (until 1988). By failing to place the School Trustees on the stand by either the Board or the Union to testify to lay-off numbers i.e. to risk perjury, no doubt convinced the arbitrator that he was - not incorrectly - looking at a sweetheart deal and, therefore, would not have his decision challenged.

12) I changed lawyers and successfully appealed before Justice Southin. The Union latterly offered to pay for that appeal. Unfortunately, the replacement legal firm which I fired and therefore lacked the necessary authority to represent my interests (Bruce Laughton QC whom insists that representing the Employer against my interests is ethical behaviour after representing both sides. He still represents the Union.), chose to illegally represent me in the unsuccessful Appeal launched by the Employer. No mention is made in either of Southin's judgment or the Appeal Court as to the Employer's contention that BILL 35 does not permit of court oversight. In brief, that appears to be an argument latterly developed by the School Board in order to create confusion from which they could avoid any compensation which is mine under BILL 35 conditions or the collective bargaining terms or some other contractual arrangement. That is the sole purpose of the NS case; to establish the relationship of the courts to imposed legislation under the aegis of Premier McNeil. Should they permit this action to be subverted by Harris & Co. in a manner outlined above, all citizens of Nova Scotia will be negatively affected in a major way with ramifications to be felt throughout the Canadian justice system which leaves Canadians nowhere to turn for Justice. The situation is just that dire. That is why a public response is required from Nova Scotia teachers apart from their Union leaders.

13) Accompanying this letter to the Nova Scotia Barrister's Society is material reinforcing the above position. Considering Harris & Co. action complete with detailed information, the proper course would be for the Society to bar this outfit from appearing in NS courts; advice I earlier conveyed to the Employer. Should the Employer  choose local Counsel, I would drop my opposition providing they do not retain fraudulent actions from the Harris& Co. factum which was the case in ON and QC. In brief, what respectable legal firm, no matter how hungry, is going to represent this Employer anywhere in Canada other than Harris & Co?

14) For the sake of the credibility of the NS courts, this is the first major challenge which could lead them into the implosion of the Premier McNeil Justice System if they duck this request based on the all-important disclosure. Without that, nothing makes any sense in this submission by that of the Employer.

15) It is not too late for the Employer to withdraw the Harris& Co. submission and proceed solely with the constitutional question as I set out in my initial request. They may also appoint local counsel which is more closely subject to the laws of Nova Scotia and not those of  a decadent B.C. Legal Society.

16) The above explains why the government of Premier McNeil and the NS professional teachers are 'on trial' as the outcome does little in itself to forward my cause as once I have a NS decision on the constitutional question, I pursue this matter elsewhere. That is what the Employer would thwart. Will the province of NS be sacrificed on the altar of judicial chicanery and teacher indolence? Time will tell.

 

Addendum

17) The focus of the fraud charges outside of B.C. relate to two ON cases; 13-59060 (McKinnon j. April 23-2014 and September 15-2014 where the second decision makes no reference to the existence of the first - authorities should see Employer's factum for details and my response). The first case launched by the Employer raises the same constitutional question which I have raised in NS (so why the about face of the Employer?). The second ON case launched by me 14-61592 (no judgment as Scott j. brought in a 'stay of proceedings' in this highly irregular court where Hicks, Morley et al , without filing a Notice of Appearance, walked into court amid my protestations and slapped the second McKinnon Decision into the eager hands of Scott j. whom promptly stated that this was the only document he would consider thus obviating my stated written rejections of the first McKinnon Decision. Because there was no lower court decision, the Appeal Court would not accept an appeal of Scott's importune action. The oversight bodies (Canadian Judicial Council under President B. McLachlin (SCofC) since both judges were originally Federal Court appointees) did not acknowledge the complaint nor did the ON Legal Society. One outcome, however, was that Hicks, Morley dropped representation of the Employer.

18) The McKinnon-Scott 'bobbsey twin' caper played out in QC and SK, both cases being unresolved by the SCofC in 2016 by a rejection for a hearing by the same 3 person SCofC panel - Coté / Wagner and an Atlantic judge now in retirement.

 

Enclosures

(i)  NEWSLETTER employescasecanada.ca   DECEMBER 05-2016 (excerpts)

 

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

 


MESSAGE:

1) When Attorney Generals mess up, I turn to the Premier of the Province.

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) ...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 oral 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.

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 question 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.)

signed

(Roger Callow)

 

ADDENDUM:

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 description.

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 ignored 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 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 written 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) ...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?

(signed)

The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance     

 

(ii) page (x) & (y) It would appear that the Employer would drown the court in paper work in these two sections to obviate that the date for the first McKinnon judgment of April 23-2014 (x) is followed in (y) with the second decision dated September 15-2014 which makes no reference to the first decision. That dichotomy should be sufficient to order Harris & Co. out of NS courts until the Barrister's Society fully examines their conduct including why no disclosure is included in their factum.

(iii) The Quebec Court is not without its sleaze in its duality and duplicity as two lower court justices sat on this case with the second re-opening this matter and writing an account which makes no reference to the existence of the first hearing judge. The reference page from the second Gatineau Goulet j. is found at (vv) where, under Factual Content, Goulet recites the background of this case omitting the very important feature of  the fact that the arbitration was quashed by the court with the arbitrator being ruled as patently unreasonable along with an order to return to arbitration when the Employer refused re-employment as recommended by the court. In short, I am still an employee of the WV School District albeit an unpaid one.

(iv) I could make extensive arguments and have done so on my web site for all the points made by the Employer here whose aim appears to be 'let's bury them in paperwork which will never be read.' The above inconsistencies in the Employer's factums should be sufficient to bar Harris & Co. from proceeding in NS courts. Their bid for 1/2 hour chamber meetings for both issues is reflective of possible corruption in Premier McNeil's Justice System.

 

19) The Justice System appears to believe that if they ignore a problem; it just goes away. Not so, as now the Office of the Prime Minister is called in to invoke his executive powers; the first P.M. in that list, Justin Trudeau, choosing to duck his responsibilities. In effect, Canada is without a viable Justice System until the aberrant handling of this lead 'standing case' is addressed by a future Prime Minister.

20) So all eyes are now on the NS Barristers Society where NS can succeed or fail in the most absolute sense of the word.

 

 

SECOND BRIEF - MOTION FOR 'SURETY' AS MEANS OF DISPOSING OF THE MAIN CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE

21) Harris & Company have successfully used this surety ploy to frustrate legal proceedings in the past. No competent judge would ever grant posting these costs based on this past experience, but then I don't get competent judges appointed to handle any aspect of my case.

a) The first instance was in 2010 when, on the last day before the court closed for Xmas (December 22), the Employer filed a request for the assignment of a $10,000 surety (the dead beat law) before Appeal Court Justice KC MacKenzie. When the judgment was delivered to me by the Employer (no copy from the court) about January 12, the time to pay that fee was past due although through other means, I uncovered this perfidy and paid in a timely fashion. Earlier, my Ottawa legal Counsel blasted the B.C. Court claiming that I had always been current with my bills and that, as such, this type of shaming was unnecessary abuse. What had upset the conspirators so badly was the case currently being filed in the B.C. Appeal Court claiming, in essence, that as the Employer cited the BILL 35 conditions as only being operant while the courts decreed that only the Union could act on my behalf through the collective bargaining rules, that the court should re-assign me to salary while the three forces 'duked it out'. While paying the surety, the court case was sidetracked and due to the later Cullen Creed which expelled me from B.C., I was unable to go to a B.C. Court to have that monies returned. It probably ended up in the judge's Xmas fund.

b) The second instance was in SK with the appeal of the lower court's Megaw decision which made no mention of the disclosure requested or the constitutional issue of BILL 35 being ultra vires. which was thwarted on Appeal by Appeal Court's Ralph Ottenbreit whom demanded an $8,000 surety which was paid. The laws on 'surety' were quite specific condemning the actions of the Employer in this regard, but Ottenbreit turned the laws on their head by declaring this matter a 'special case'; not a usual application of this term. Later, the court distributed the funds without a request from the litigant leap-frogging the usual process of the two parties negotiating for a lower price which is quite common in law. More importantly, Ottenbreit's crude actions were replicated with the ensuing Appeal Court hearing which held a secret ex parte meeting with Harris & Co. in which they agreed that he would not participate in the trial and answer to questions of fraud that I had prepared. The lead justice further squelched the other two judges from dealing with issues that I raised from an 8 hour indexing of the Employer's factum whom had failed to do that task but was assigned to me as part of the perfection process. The SK Appeal Court merely provided a one-liner by stating that they agreed with the lower court. The SCofC Appeal 36993 was rejected in 2016 leaving the Office of the Prime Minister to use his executive powers against a despicable SK court system of systematic malfeasance. That position holds for the rest of the 21st century with Canadians not being able to trust to any court decision in the interim.

c) To be sure, Harris & Co. would not utilize this approach without first testing the waters behind the scene. As NS Premier McNeil is fully cognizant of these events as they unfold, it is his government which is on the line at this Surety hearing (plus Barrister's Society).

d) The $15,000 surety requested is excessive for a case which Hicks, Morley et al claimed  $30,000 and was settled for a significant discount. In SK, the court assessed the Megaw hearing at $2,500 for essentially the same work. Of interest here, I have not received further bills from Hicks, Morley et al before they dropped out, and never any from Lavery de Billy nor Harris and Co. for SK. As these lawyers do not work for nothing, whom paid them? The West Vancouver School Trustees? If so, why? That question was set to the anti-employee right wing editor of the North Shore News to investigate. There was no response.

e) The point to be made here is that the notion of 'unpaid bills' is so much codswallop without a clarification of the gratuitous(?) payments made by the WVST.

f) In short, the NS courts on surety should throw this case out but, due to past experience. That is unlikely to happen unless NS teachers at large MAKE NOISE. Should the court act against hearing the main event, justice for all residents of Nova Scotia is at an end.

 

RESPONSE of the Plaintiff to the two briefs above

22) The mere fact of the presence of Harris & Co. in NS courts should be cause for alarm by the McNeil government considering their past depredations. If the Employer is serious about mangling this case, they should do so with NS Council which is more closely bound to NS law. It is not too late for the Employer to withdraw these two briefs and permit this matter to proceed on the initial basis of solely the constitutional question which they do not address in either of their briefs repeating an ad nauseum pattern of the past where the processes of the law are being brought into disrepute with technicalities.  Is that to be the fate for NS which will be the biggest loser as I have options elsewhere? Nova Scotia does not.

 

Overview

The events of the Employee's Case, it is submitted here, are not atypical. I enclose a summary of pertinent parts of a lead article from the Ottawa Citizen's National Post inclusion dated February 09-2017 entitled Liberals blasted for trying to stall ruling / Want to discuss settlement in 60's Scoop case  (Read 'WV Employer' for 'Federal government lawyers' for a similar perspective)

...To opponents of PM Trudeau's government, it is the latest example of Ottawa saying it wants to advance reconciliation with  indigenous Canadians while appearing to do precisely the opposite....

...the last minute move by the federal lawyers was a "clear attempt" to sidetrack the victims....

...just another government delaying tactic to avoid accountability for its actions....

...When it come to a court process, they have not acknowledged the wrongs, the detrimental history, that they have committed....

p.3 Plaintiffs urge judge to reject Liberal government's request

...They are trying to circumvent that legal process through political maneuvering....

...This unprecedented, unilateral request ...shameless audacity, impudence, gall, or effrontery...

...The federal government has fought tooth and nail against the plaintiffs, arguing it has no liability....

...It is unconscionable  it (govt.) would argue that it had no legal obligation to prevent it....

...the judge showed little appetite for wading into the fray....

 

Yours truly, (Roger Callow - Plaintiff)

N.B. The following day, the government lawyers stood down after media publicity

 

 

cc Premier McNeil / NS Barrister's Society / NS Superior Court  458698 / RCMP

 

Complete rebuttal of 2 briefs EXHIBIT A & B will be faxed & mailed to the above first 3 parties as well as the Respondent WVST. (RCMP excluded as the material is available on request) This matter will also be posted on the website: employescasecanada.ca under NOVA SCOTIA 458698

 

15 page e-mail to WVST (includes title page) (Feb. 13-2017  11 page letter to WVST plus EXHIBIT A (first 2 pages only) & EXHIBIT B (2 pages-'surety')

 

TO: NS Barrister's Society: This case deserves the most careful attention from your organization as your response is a harbinger as to which type of Justice System Nova Scotia is to have...if any at all under Premier McNeil.     Roger Callow

 

Addendum

17) The focus of the fraud charges outside of B.C. relate to two ON cases; 13-59060 (McKinnon j. April 23-2014 and September 15-2014 where the second decision makes no reference to the existence of the first - authorities should see Employer's factum for details and my response). The first case launched by the Employer raises the same constitutional question which I have raised in NS (so why the about face of the Employer?). The second ON case launched by me 14-61592 (no judgment as Scott j. brought in a 'stay of proceedings' in this highly irregular court where Hicks, Morley et al , without filing a Notice of Appearance, walked into court amid my protestations and slapped the second McKinnon Decision into the eager hands of Scott j. whom promptly stated that this was the only document he would consider thus obviating my stated rejections of the first McKinnon Decision. Because there was no lower court decision, the Appeal Court would not accept an appeal of Scott's importune action. The oversight bodies (Canadian Judicial Council under President B. McLachlin (SCofC) since both judges were originally Federal Court appointees) did not acknowledge the complaint nor did the ON Legal Society. One outcome, however, was that Hicks, Morley dropped representation of the Employer.

18) The McKinnon-Scott 'bobbsey twin' caper played out in QC and SK, both cases being unresolved by the SCofC in 2016 by a rejection for a hearing by the same 3 person SCofC panel - Coté / Wagner and an Atlantic judge now in retirement.

Enclosures

 

(i)  NEWSLETTER employescasecanada.ca   DECEMBER 05-2016 (excerpts)

 

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

 

MESSAGE:

1) When Attorney Generals mess up, I turn to the Premier of the Province.

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) ...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 oral 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.

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 question 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.)

signed

(Roger Callow)

 

ADDENDUM:

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 description.

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 ignored 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 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 written 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) ...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?

(signed)

The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance     

 

(ii) page (x) & (y) It would appear that the Employer would drown the court in paper work in these two sections to obviate that the date for the first McKinnon judgment of April 23-2014 (x) is followed in (y) with the second decision dated September 15-2014 which makes no reference to the first decision. That dichotomy should be sufficient to order Harris & Co. out of NS courts until the Barrister's Society fully examines their conduct including why no disclosure is included in their factum.

(iii) The Quebec Court is not without its sleaze in its duality and duplicity as two lower court justices sat on this case with the second re-opening this matter and writing an account which makes no reference to the existence of the first hearing judge. The reference page from the second Gatineau Goulet j. is found at (vv) where under Factual Content, Goulet recites the background of this case omitting the very important feature of  the fact that the arbitration was quashed by the court with the arbitrator being ruled as patently unreasonable along with an order to return to arbitration when the Employer refused re-employment as recommended by the court. In short, I am still an employee of the WV School District albeit an unpaid one.

(iv) I could make extensive arguments and have done so on my web site for all the points made by the Employer here whose aim appears to be 'let's bury them in paperwork which will never be read.' The above inconsistencies in the Employer's factums should be sufficient to bar Harris & Co. from proceeding in NS courts. Their bid for 1/2 hour chamber meetings for both issues is reflective of possible corruption in Premier McNeil's Justice System. If contemplating surety charges, the court is advised to first read my original factum on file with the court: SEE employescasecanada .ca  NOVA SCOTIA 458698 The proper course for any 1/2 hour chambers hearing request made by the Employer is to dismiss these oral hearings and continue with the written Plaintiff factum on the constitutional Question by Referencing unless the Employer produces disclosure.

 

19) The Justice System appears to believe that if they ignore a problem; it just goes away. Not so, as now the Office of the Prime Minister is called in to invoke his executive powers; the first P.M. in that list, Justin Trudeau, choosing to duck his responsibilities. In effect, Canada is without a viable Justice System until the aberrant handling of this lead 'standing case' is addressed by a future Prime Minister.

20) So all eyes are now on the NS Barristers Society where NS can succeed or fail in the most absolute sense of the word.

 

SECOND BRIEF - MOTION FOR 'SURETY' AS MEANS OF DISPOSING OF THE MAIN CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE

21) Harris & Company have successfully used this surety ploy to frustrate legal proceedings in the past. No competent judge would ever grant posting these costs based on this past experience, but then I don't get competent judges appointed to handle any aspect of my case.

a) The first instance was in 2010 when, on the last day before the court closed for Xmas (December 22), the Employer filed a request for the assignment of a $10,000 surety (the dead beat law) before Appeal Court Justice KC MacKenzie. When the judgment was delivered to me by the Employer (no copy from the court) about January 12, the time to pay that fee was past although through other means, I uncovered this perfidy and paid in a timely fashion. Earlier, my Ottawa legal Counsel blasted the B.C. Court claiming that I had always been current with my bills and that, as such, this type of shaming was unnecessary abuse. What had upset the conspirators so badly was the case currently being filed in the B.C. Appeal Court claiming, in essence, that as the Employer cited the BILL 35 conditions as only being operant while the courts decreed that only the Union could act on my behalf through the collective bargaining rules, that the court should re-assign me to salary while the three forces 'duked it out'. While paying the surety, the court case was sidetracked and due to the later Cullen Creed which expelled me from B.C., I was unable to go to a B.C. Court to have that monies returned. It probably ended up in the judge's Xmas fund.

b) The second instance was in SK with the appeal of the lower court's Megaw decision which made no mention of the disclosure requested or the constitutional issue of BILL 35 being ultra vires. which was thwarted on Appeal by Appeal Court's Ralph Ottenbreit whom demanded an $8,000 surety which was paid. The laws on 'surety'were quite specific condemning the actions of the Employer in this regard, but Ottenbreit turned the laws on their head by declaring this matter a 'special case'; not a usual application of this term. Later, the court distributed the funds without a request from the litigant leap-frogging the usual process of the two parties negotiating for a lower price which is quite common in law. More importantly, Ottenbreit's crude actions were replicated with the ensuing Appeal Court hearing which held a secret ex parte meeting with Harris & Co. in which they agreed that he would not participate in the trial and answer to questions of fraud that I had prepared. The lead justice further squelched the other two judges from dealing with issues that I raised from an 8 hour indexing of the Employer whom had failed to do that task but was assigned to me as part of the perfection process. The SK Appeal Court merely provided a one-liner to stating that they agreed with the lower court. The SCofC Appeal 36993 was rejected in 2016 leaving the Office of the Prime Minister to use his executive powers against a despicable SK court system of systematic malfeasance. That position holds for the rest of the 21st century with Canadians not being able to trust to any court decision in the interim.

c) To be sure, Harris & Co. would not utilize this approach without first testing the waters behind the scene. As NS Premier McNeil is fully cognizant of these events as they unfold, it is his government which is on the line at this Surety hearing (plus Barrister's Society).

d) The $15,000 surety requested is excessive for a case which Hicks, Morley et al claimed  $30,000 and was settled for a significant discount. In SK, the court assessed the Megaw hearing at $2,500 for essentially the same work. Of interest here, I have not received further bills from Hicks, Morley et al before they dropped out, and never any from Lavery de Billy nor Harris and Co. for SK. As these lawyers do not work for nothing, whom paid them? The West Vancouver School Trustees? If so, why? That question was set to the anti-employee right wing editor of the North Shore News to investigate. There was no response.

e) The point to be made here is that the notion of 'unpaid bills' is so much codswallop without a clarification of the gratuitous(?) payments made by the WVST.

f) In short, the NS courts on surety should throw this case out but, due to past experience, that is unlikely to happen unless NS teachers at large MAKE NOISE. Should the court act against hearing the main event, justice for all residents of Nova Scotia is at an end.

 

RESPONSE of the Plaintiff to the two briefs above

22) The mere fact of the presence of Harris & Co. in NS courts should be cause for alarm by the McNeil government considering their past depredations. If the Employer is serious about mangling this case, they should do so with NS Council which is more closely bound to NS law. It is not too late for the Employer to withdraw these two briefs and permit this matter to proceed on the initial basis of solely the constitutional question which they do not address in either of their briefs repeating an ad nauseum pattern of the past where the processes of the law are being brought into disrepute. Is that to be the fate for NS which will be the biggest loser as I have options elsewhere? NS does not.

 

Overview

The events of the Employee's Case, it is submitted here, are not atypical. I enclose a summary of pertinent parts of a lead article from the Ottawa Citizen's National Post inclusion dated February 09-2017 entitled Liberals blasted for trying to stall ruling / Want to discuss settlement in 60's Scoop case  (Read 'WV Employer' for 'Federal government lawyers' for a similar perspective)

...To opponents of PM Trudeau's government, it is the latest example of Ottawa saying it wants to advance reconciliation with  indigenous Canadians while appearing to do precisely the opposite....

...the last minute move by the federal lawyers was a "clear attempt" to sidetrack the victims....

...just another government delaying tactic to avoid accountability for its actions....

...When it come to a court process, they have not acknowledged the wrongs, the detrimental history, that they have committed....

p.3 Plaintiffs urge judge to reject Liberal government's request

...They are trying to circumvent that legal process through political maneuvering....

...This unprecedented, unilateral request ...shameless audacity, impudence, gall, or effrontery...

...The federal government has fought tooth and nail against the plaintiffs, arguing it has no liability....

...It is unconscionable  it (govt.) would argue that it had no legal obligation to prevent it....

...the judge showed little appetite for wading into the fray....

 

Yours truly, (Roger Callow - Plaintiff)

N.B. The following day, the government lawyers stood down after media publicity

 

cc Premier McNeil / NS Barrister's Society / NS Superior Court  458698 / RCMP

 

Complete rebuttal of 2 briefs will be mailed to the above first 3 parties (RCMP excluded as the material is available on request) as well as the Respondent WVST. This matter will also be posted on the website: employescasecanada.ca under REPLY-NOVA SCOTIA 458698 FEB.13-2017

 

This 11 page e-mail is a precursor to those rebuttals.

 

TO: NS Barrister's Society: This case deserves the most careful attention from your organization as your response is a harbinger as to which type of Justice System Nova Scotia is to have...if any at all under Premier McNeil.   Roger Callow

 

BRIEFS - EXHIBIT  A & B

 

EXHIBIT A                     FEBRUARY 13-2017

REPLY OF PLAINTIFF, ROGER CALLOW to HARRIS & CO. LETTER (quoted in full below with my Response (R) DATED FEBRUARY 08 - 2017 ACCOMPANIED BY  2 LEGAL BRIEFS

 

BRIEF ONE

Dear Mr. Callow

Re: Callow v. The Board of School Trustees (#45 West Vancouver, B.C.)

       Halifax Action No. 458698, Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

We are counsel for the Board of School Trustees (#45 West Vancouver, B.C.) in connection with the above- noted matter. We enclose the following for service upon you:

1. Notice of Motion to dismiss the action for want of Jurisdiction, filed February 6, 2017, and set for hearing on March 8, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

R. a) When the Employer launched Ontario 13-59060 (Decision(s) April 23-2014 and September 15-2014 in which the second decision made no reference to the first decision, a fraud which the oversight bodies still have not acknowledged for investigation, there appears to be a basic contradiction as to the Employer's actions from Ontario where they initiated the action and Nova Scotia where I have initiated the action. Ironically, the action is based in both jurisdictions as to the constitutionality of  imposed  legislation as it relates to court conduct. That's why I had asked the Employer not to file a Reply as I was not asking for action on the issue regarding my lay-off in June of 1985 where no compensation has been paid (now includes pension rights for ten years). The outcome would further an eventual resolution of this 32 year unresolved labour matter, as well as define the future of Canada for all employees plus employers such as SK Brad Wall's Carbon Tax and various Provincial Health Ministers with a vested interest in the outcome here in the single most important legal case in Canadian civil jurisprudence. In brief, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. The court should reject outright the claim of 'want of jurisdiction'.

b) When was this hearing set for March 08, 2017 and by whom? The courts have always insisted I keep the opposition notified of pending events which I always do although the Employer has been known to play 'fast and loose' with the rules. Apparently in 10. Copy of our letter to the Court Registry, dated January 31, 2017, requesting to appear by telephone at the above-noted hearings, we have a case in point as I gave no such approval for the March 8, 2017 hearing on the jurisdiction question for the simple reason that I was not informed nor was I informed in 6. Notice of Motion for security of costs, filed February 6, 2017, and set for hearing on February 21, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. As I have not signed the confirmation of the Appearance Forms; please cancel both dates in order that I may fit my actions into your responses.

2. Brief of Written Argument of the Defendant (Jurisdiction), filed February 6, 2017

3. Brief of Authorities of the Defendant (Jurisdiction), filed February 6, 2017

4. Draft Order;

5. Affidavit of Christine Millar (3 volumes), filed February 6, 2017

6. Notice of Motion for security of costs, filed February 6, 2017, and set for hearing on February 21, 207 at 9:30 a.m. (noted above)

7. Brief of Authorities of the Defendant (Security for Costs), filed February 6, 2017;

8. Brief of Authorities of the Defendant (Security for  Costs), filed February 6, 2017

9. Draft Order; and

10. 'Court Registry letter of January 31,2017' noted above

 

The above considerations will be dealt with in the following submission although it would appear the game-plan of the Employer has not changed over the past 32 years; namely, to conspire with un-named parties in the judiciary and elsewhere to arrive at a legal conclusion not found in law. In short, 'no legal answer' may become  'a legal answer' without destroying the very credibility on which the justice system of Canada depends. At this stage, public response by Nova Scotia professional teachers on behalf of not only all professional teachers in Canada but 35 million Canadians as well is all that stands between Canada and anarchy. Regrettably, the communication that you have had with the Nova Scotia judiciary is not conducive to fair dealing as it repeats a pattern in other provinces which is why Premier McNeil is being kept fully apprised of these events. I find it highly suspicious that the Employer is able to dispose of this matter inside of a half-hour or less on March 8-2017; the pertinent point being that he is calling for an oral hearing of 1/2 hour which in the past in this case, permits the presiding justice to obviate any discussion of the issue(s) at hand.

 

Notice of Motion (for March 8-2017 - 1/2 hour requested)

Motion

The Board of School Trustee (#45 West Vancouver, B.C.), the Defendant in this proceeding moves for the following orders:

1. The Plaintiff's Action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4.07 for want of jurisdiction

R. This is the key term as all others e.g. 'abuse of process' are irrelevant arcane rules permitting a weak judge to 'duck out' which many in the past have chosen to do. I supply Rule 4.07 in its entirety below:

 

 

 

 

Lack of jurisdiction

4.07

(1)

A defendant who maintains that the court does not have jurisdiction over the subject of an action, or over the defendant, may make a motion to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.

 

(2)

A defendant does not submit to the jurisdiction of the court only by moving to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.

 

(3)

A judge who dismisses a motion for an order dismissing an action for want of jurisdiction must set a deadline by which the defendant may file a notice of defence, and the court may only grant judgment against the defendant after that time.

 

R. a)The question which needs to be asked here is why this employee is presenting himself in courts of law across Canada in an unresolved labour matter where no compensation has been paid contrary to BILL 35 (1985) under which this senior teacher was the only one to be laid-off for economic reasons in June of 1985 (A cynic would say 'whistle blower' reasons).

b)In July of 2013, Deputy Justice A. Cullen (the Cullen Creed - a copy included in my factum plus response) on his own recognizance, without taking argument, without quoting pertinent laws, expelled this unresolved case from the Province of B.C. forcing me to seek justice elsewhere.

c)Pertinent here are two appeals (of the 4 unsuccessful Supreme Court of Canada appeals: 1997 - universality of Unions; 2004 - ultimate remedy with the last 2 heard in 2016 by the same panel of 3 judges; 26883 QC disclosure 26993 SK disclosure plus ultra vires nature of Bill 35) disclosing why, as the plaintiff, I have to reduce cases to a rudimentary level in the hopes that a resolution may eventually be  reached outside B.C. in such courts as Nova Scotia.

d) The Employer, of course, does not wish to pay any compensation whether it be under the conditions of BILL 35 (the only legal entity they will consider), the collective bargaining process (the only entity that the court will consider in this obvious sweetheart deal) or some other court mechanism. As matters now stand, due to the failure of the arbitrator (later ruled patently unreasonable when the court quashed the arbitration recommending that employment be returned to this plaintiff - in law, a recommendation carries legal weight) to invoke the monetary provisions of BILL 35, then I am to be left in a state of permanent limbo if one follows the Employer's logic. That's unconscionable.

e) Regrettably, the courts - and there have been many - by refusing to address this central concern have brought the conduct of justice into disrepute.

f) Hence what is on trial here currently is the government of Premier McNeil and his courts. Will he and his minions throw the Nova Scotia justice system 'under the bus' in order to protect conspirators as defined above?

g) By asking the court to stay permanently this Plaintiff's Action, the Employer would seek to have the Nova Scotia courts attach themselves to such as the specious Cullen Creed. To date, no court would make any reference to this Creed which they would have had to do if they are to apply the rules of Reference.

h) Regrettably, the courts in the past have acknowledged res judicata without giving any detailed definition in terms of the law. In short, the courts are rewarding procrastination which appears to have become fairly commonplace in other issues in the media. In brief, justice delayed is justice denied. The elephant in the room on this point is that if the matter of my lay-off has been settled, where is my compensation? The basic law of contract has been severely abused on that accord.

Evidence

1. Affidavit of Christine Millar, sworn January 27,2017.

R. a) Millar has sworn to a number of Affidavits in the past which are complete with fraud. These affidavits are circulated  among such legal counsel in Ontario as Hicks, Morley et al  (whom, for reasons best known to themselves dropped representation of this case possibly after my filed objections for apparent fraud with Justices Colin McKinnon 13-59060 and Robert Scott 14-61592 (both Federal Court appointees so referenced to the Canadian Council of Judges with Hicks, Morley  referenced to the Ontario Legal Society. Never has there been any response.) In Quebec, Lavery de Billy was involved in extensive fraudulent activity, it is alleged, which goes uninvestigated by the oversight bodies concerned.

b) The above cases played out in QC and SK with QC focusing on the April 2014 McKinnon Decision while the SK decision, run by Harris & Co. which had full knowledge of this dichotomy, asserting only the September 2014 Scott decision. That is what the SCofC covered-up by refusing to hear these two cases leaving matters to the executive powers of a future Prime Minister (Trudeau remained mute on investigating the accusations. ) Millar is complicit in all these actions.

 

 

Time and place

The moving party has set the motion for hearing in a half-hour or less in chambers.

R. The abbreviated time limit is a 'slap in the face of the judiciary' suggestive of a pre-arrangement of a judge to dispose of the singularly most important case in civil jurisprudence. Success on that level would lead to an indictment of the Premier McNeil government and his courts which will be heard clear across Canada as Employers will have been given carte blanche to ignore the courts of law across the land. In brief, other than fraud which certainly is implied here, the courts of law will become redundant.

Background Facts

2. Roger Callow has been litigating...and the Federal Court of Canada...appeared (a number of times) before the B.C. Labour Board....consumed immeasurable court resources.

R. There were 2 unresolved cases focused on fraud before the Federal Court accusing Harris & Co. and Union Lawyer, Bruce Laughton, who I fired in 1985 but whom still chose to represent my cause on the Employer Appeal of the Southin j. Order in 1986 which quashed the original arbitration. As the court as of 1995 would only recognize my rights through the offices of the Union, I was limited to a Labour Board appeal. That Board ducked every hearing and was roundly condemned by my legal counsel, Paul Conlin, for their perfidy on that account. (SEE web employescasecanada.ca) In other words, there has never been another hearing which ,to be sure, disclosure in terms of the June meeting notes where BILL 35 and my lay-off were extensively discussed would be called for. No court to date will act on calling for that disclosure. My original factum in N.S. does not call for disclosure as a means of focusing on the constitutional question in which the Employer and this employee agree although this latter factum would seek to pursue the same nefarious arguments used in all other courts of law. Is Nova Scotia and the government of Premier McNeil any different? That's why I have called on Nova Scotia teachers to MAKE NOISE. I make no apology - indeed, I believe that I am owed one - for consuming immeasurable court resources

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

R. Of which I do; the limiting factor is that I must make a prima facie case. This legal stunt is over-worked by the justice system as is the frivolous & vexatious term inviting lazy judges to dispose of contentious issues such as this one.

The ON MacKenzie j.  debacle was outlined above. The B.C. Williamson Order is woefully inept as it does not go through the process required and I am surprised to see it here considering that the Employer usually ignores it. In my factum, I provide a rebuttal to the Cullen Creed. The real fly in the ointment is to include  the September 15-2014 (the second questionable ruling not referencing the first from April 23-2014) in a different section from the April 23-2014 Decision as a means of 'whitewashing' the two accounts at the expense of bringing the court into disrepute. Based on this entry, Harris & Co. lawyer, Geoff Litherland, and his paralegal, Christine Millar are knowingly misleading the N.S. Court as pointed out in the SK submission where only the September 15 Order was listed. Regrettably, the SK legal Society has failed to adjudicate this point although I call on the N.S. court to throw out the entire submission of the Employer on this point alone. Included here are letters to the Employer dated JANUARY 8, 16, and FEBRUARY 01-2017 imploring them not to muddle the N.S. constitutional issue with case specifics. Further, considering the above accusation, a copy of this Reply is being forwarded to the Nova Scotia Barrister's Society.

6. As B.C. Prothonotary Roger Lafreniere was accused of fraud in the second of two Federal Court actions, I questioned the wisdom of Chief Justice Paul Crampton in appointing him on both occasions particularly as the matter was to be held before a Justice in Ottawa. Even on that level, there were a number of inconsistencies in the handling of both cases by the Federal Court.

7. There were two judges, not one as is implied here; the second one in Gatineau entering the matter by re-opening the case permitting Lavery de Billy 'a second kick at the can'. The second Order made no reference to the first Order which made it the focus of my Appeal which 're-invented' the Appeal process in wondrous and nefarious ways which were reported to Premier Couillard as well as the oversight bodies. That's why the residents of QC have nowhere to turn for justice. As to costs, I did not receive a reply to the question set to the Employer as to whether they were paying legal bills in QC and ON for I did not receive a legal bill. There was no response. (In SK, Harris & Co. claimed in a surety claim that I had $22,000 outstanding in ON.) Earlier in 2010, my legal counsel, Ottawa lawyer, Paul Conlin, wrote B.C. courts that I was always current with my legal expenses.

8. The blatant perfidy of the QC Court is illustrated here in that there is no mention of the B.C. court quashing the arbitration in 1986 leaving me in limbo and yet Goulet j. had all the pertinent material. It is this type of perfidy which characterizes his entire diatribe and should be discounted accordingly.

9. SK's Megaw j. was very well aware of the Cullen Creed which he chose to ignore in explaining my presence in a SK court. Megaw j. was typical of all other judges in cherry-picking those legal provisions which suited his particular interpretation to the exclusion of all else.

10. Whether the parties have observably  absolutely no connection to the province of Nova Scotia as the Employer asserts; is that to suggest that Nova Scotia has no interest in the cause of the furtherance of justice? Drop the case specifics as I asked the court originally to do and keep solely to the constitutional question which has a direct effect on 25 million Canadians including residents of Nova Scotia.

If the courts wish to meddle with the case specific, demand the Employer to produce disclosure as outlined elsewhere and most certainly would reveal a wide scale conspiracy involving government, an Employer, a Union and the courts of law all exacerbated by an ineffective oversight capability in Canada's infrastructure.

12.  Proceedings Transfer Act SNS 2003 c.2 

R. Transfer this case to B.C. if you will. Indeed, I suggested that the Employer lay the constitutional case in B.C. When they didn't, I registered the case in Nova Scotia. Of course, it goes without saying, that a challenge to the Cullen Creed is required, for such a transfer. The flip side of this challenge which the court must address is how a litigant may approach such as a 'proper forum' such as the SCofC if not through the lower courts.

Presumption of real and substantial connection

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

R. Herein lies the nub of the question of jurisdiction. When the Employer did not return employment as Justice Southin recommended in 1986, she ordered the matter back to arbitration. The Employer when they lost their Appeal of her decision, decided to take the stand that the courts had no oversight powers in this case. (No mention of that argument appears in either the Southin Order or the Appeal Court.) As such, the arbitration is not complete and as the affected party, I am still an (unpaid) employee of the West Vancouver School District without, regrettably, access to a proper hearing as to the propriety of my lay-off for economic reasons in June of 1985.

R. Recently N.S. underwent a teacher 'work to rule' situation where imposed legislation was the key.

 

Court may decline territorial competence

The N.S. courts are as competent as any other court in adjudicating the constitutional question here as I ask them to do apart from the case concerns involved. In brief, dismiss the case for the Employer and proceed accordingly.

12. (2) (f) the fair and efficient working of the Canadian legal system as a whole. Based on that proposition, I have received none of this treatment from preceding tribunals. Will the government of Stephen McNeil and his courts act any differently. Let's hope they do. 35 million Canadians depend on them.

 

Application of legal principles

16. I have been barred in a most abhorrent fashion by the Cullen Creed where the court is told to ignore my submissions and the Employer and Union are told that they are not obliged to respond. I have not been barred in any other province as those provinces follow proper procedures where, in bottom line language, I must seek permission of the court to proceed. As a matter of routine, I have being doing that since 2010.

17. '...continued abuse of process against the Defendant' (Employer)

R. That is rich doublespeak language!

18. I wasn't asking ON Maranger j. to hear a claim 'inextricably intertwined in all respects' with B.C. I only ask for those things that judges in other provinces can reasonably be expected to rule on. However, by adding convolutions they muddy the waters.

19. The Divisional Court, in reviewing Maranger's decision, upheld these findings stating: The Superior Court of Justice of Ontario has no jurisdiction to overturn an order of a judge of the B.C. Supreme Court... This one-liner appeared in the judgment without quoting any applicable laws. There was no discussion in court from the bench (in which one of the three judges fell asleep as I so aptly pointed out in this one hour hearing). I presume, a researcher could show otherwise. Presumably, this court was referring to the Cullen Creed. Unfortunately, the Appeal was 'sidetracked' in Toronto and disappeared down a 'black hole' along with my fee.

20. If the court chooses to transfer the case to B.C., they would most assuredly have to evaluate the obviously ultra vires Cullen Creed.

Overview of Legal principles

21.88.01 (3)This rule provides procedure for controlling abuse.

R. Both litigants accuse the other of abuse. The courts to date have supported the Employer on that point in this unresolved case. Will the government of N.S. Premier McNeil ensure that his Chief Justice appoints a jurist of the highest reputation? That is all I ask.

23. The general principles of the common law doctrines of issue estoppal and abuse of process are succinctly outlined in Halsbury' Laws of Canada - Civil Procedure (2012 Reissue)

R. The first section is a general philosophy and bears repeating here:

a. The purpose of a civil proceeding, like any court , is to obtain a determination of the rights and obligations of the parties to that proceeding. Once that determination is made, the matter is conclusively resolved among the parties to the proceeding. But for such finality, the litigation process would potentially be endless. In drawing a line under the dispute that forms the basis of a proceeding, the courts have acknowledged the possibility that finality may lead to error and injustice, but the risk of doing so must be balanced against the much greater risk that a lack of certainty would create.

R. What recourse, it needs be asked, does an individual employee have when the interests of the opposition line up against him or her; namely, the Employer, the Justice system, and the Union? Sweetheart deals are the norm to some degree as both the Employer and Union wish to avoid expensive legalities. In the case of lay-off, a successful petition by the afflicted employee forces the lay-off of a second and third, etc. until the 'proper' lay-off victim is selected. Courts of law are only too aware of the Employer-Union financial interests which explains, in the Employee's Case, an aberrant arbitration. It does not explain subsequent court cover-up for 32 years in denial of the most basic right of a dismissed employee; namely, the right to compensation. In N.S. I do not ask the court to deal with the compensation question as that will be dealt elsewhere. I do ask the court to deal with the constitutional question which underlies the whole relationship between the courts of law and imposed legislation. To do less is a basic denial of justice in Canada as all Canadians would be the poorer if this 32 year conspiracy is not stopped now.

     I also re-iterate my request to conduct this enquiry entirely through the processes of Referencing where an appointed Justice may acquire further argument from court functionaries on this all-important constitutional question. Correspondence between the court and the litigants would be entirely in writing in order to avoid the cheating which has been all too prevalent in this case (and many others which I have read about for which I give an example below.)

 

 

C. Application of Legal Principles

35. R. The Employer incorrectly makes much of the commencement of a legal action currently based on a claim which arose over 30 years ago. The distinction to be drawn is that the matter is continuous with every action relating to that over-all process. The message here would be that a litigant may avoid his responsibilities by continually delaying legal action; something which can only be done with the support of the courts of law. That is not justice; rather it is anarchy.

 

The current constitutional question in N.S. arises out of the abject legal handling of other aspects of this case exposing the root constitutional question asked here. The proper course for the court is to dismiss the Defendant's case as not being central to the constitutional question raised merely being the usual obfuscation which this Employer has used time and time again - with court support - to make a mockery of the Canadian Justice System. The rank and file of Canadians deserve better.

 

(signed) Roger Callow  February 13-2017

 

 

cc Premier McNeil / NS Barrister's Society / NS Superior Court  458698 / RCMP

 

Complete rebuttal of 2 briefs will be mailed to the above first 3 parties EXHIBIT A & B as well as the Respondent WVST. (RCMP excluded as the material is available on request) This matter will also be posted on the website: employescasecanada.ca under REPLY-NOVA SCOTIA 458698

 

 

15 page e-mail (includes title page) (Feb. 13 letter to WVST plus EXHIBIT B (2 pages-'surety')

 

TO: NS Barrister's Society: This case deserves the most careful attention from your organization as your response is a harbinger as to which type of Justice System Nova Scotia is to have...if any at all under Premier McNeil.   Roger Callow

 

 

EXHIBIT B  REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S 'SECURITY for COSTS'  458698

FEBRUARY 13-2017

1) Affidavits signed by Paralegal Christine Millar in the past in this matter have been shown to be fraught with fraud. The court should be so advised.

 

2) The definition for 'security for costs' appears similar to other provinces such as Saskatchewan where the Employer successfully received Surety costs as outlined in the Notice of Motion (for lack of jurisdiction). In my 10-page REPLY to the Employer, the West Vancouver School Trustees dated February 13-2017, I detail how specious that enquiry was as the 'rules' appeared to be turned on their head by Supreme Appeal Court Justice Ottenbreit by declaring this issue a 'special matter'. The actual following Appeal Court was consistent with his aberrant action. However the Supreme Court of Canada 36993 Sept.-2016 did not see fit to allow an Appeal so the matter of fraudulent activity on both the parts of the court and the Employer's counsel, B.C.'s (Harris & Co.) were referenced to the PMO. There has been no acknowledgment of these very serious charges. While I do not agree with the Employer in the case that they have presented which is our right, I reserve the bulk of my opprobrium against those judges selected by the Chief Justice to adjudicate these matters.

 

3) Indeed, there is no need for the Employer in this case to attend this matter limited to solely the constitutional issue and I invited them to stay away as we both have enunciated this constitutional question before. Regrettably, we do not get a judicial finding. That is the nub of the matter. Even here, the Employer has not included any constitutional arguments nor the all important disclosure defined elsewhere leaving any appointed Justice in the dark with any decision of either their two motions without the production of that so-named disclosure.

 

4) In light of the above and based on the current facts, this court should  refuse court admittance to Harris & Co. and their filibuster which does not add anything to a very important civil question relating to the courts and imposed legislation.

 

5) The pertinent section on surety is found in the Defendent's Brief of Authorities  Security of Costs at TAB 2 on page 3; the rest of the filed material not even approximating the elements of this case:

30  A security for costs motion involves the balancing of competing principles. On the one hand the court strives to insure that people of modest means are not denied access to the court ...on the other hand, the court recognizes that the interests of justice are not properly  served if a plaintiff is artificially insulated from the risk of a costs award.These competing principles are referred to in...Wall v. 679927 Ontario Ltd. et al. (1999) 176 N.S.R. (2d) 96 (C.A.)...paragraph 49:

            Throughout the law relating to security for costs, there is tension between   access to justice and avoidance of abuse...The difficulty is that the effect of         an order for security may be to deny the plaintiff access to the courts...If      the plaintiff is unable to pay the security ordered, the action will effectively        come to an end....'

Material included in both factums illustrates that past sureties have indeed been used unsuccessfully to drive this litigant out of court. Regrettably, the courts have been complicit in that regard. The 1/2 hour chambers hearing request by the Employer is consistent with a court with a pre-determined answer and why I have called on the Barrister's Society to examine this question in order to keep the legal system of Premier McNeil from making similar mistakes. As I earlier warned the Employer against using the services - if they so chose to take an interest in this case which I discouraged - of B.C.'s Harris & Co. Unfortunately, other legal firms in Ontario (Hicks, Morley et al) and Quebec (Lavery de Billy) have wittingly or unwittingly as the case may be, used materials fraudulently taken from Harris & Co. which now have to be sorted out by the Prime Minister's Office due to the SCofC defeat in 2016 of 36883 QC and 36993 SK (Harris & Co.)

 

6) If contemplating surety charges, the court is advised to first read my original factum on file with the court:SEE employescasecanada .ca  NOVA SCOTIA 458698 The proper course for any 1/2 hour chambers hearing request made by the Employer is to dismiss these oral hearings and continue with the written Plaintiff factum on the constitutional Question by Referencing unless the Employer produces disclosure.

 

7) It is bad enough to be a senior teacher laid off for economic reasons jeopardizing any future in the profession due to the higher salary cost. However, when the Employer is able to game the system - with judicial 'collusion' - to deprive any teacher so afflicted from receiving his or her rightful compensation (now includes pension rights) then all law is at an end. Shame on Canadians and Canada to permit such a travesty unequalled in the  judicial history of Canada.

 

(signed) Roger Callow   February 13-2017