JUMP TO HOME PAGE

 

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION (ontario)

 

Court File NO.

FORM 61B

 

               GENERAL HEADING IN PROCEEDINGS IN ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (OTTAWA)

 

BETWEEN:

Roger Callow

APPELLANT

 

and

 

'ex parte APPLICATION

(regarding a constitutional question)

 

 

FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT

(Court seal)

TO THE DEFENDANT    Not  Applicable - see Nova Scotia reference included here for                                                                                      information only

      A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff, The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.

      IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff’s lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario.

      If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days.  If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.

      Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.  This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.

      IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.  IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.

(Where the claim made is for money only, include the following:)

      IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM, and $ ACCORDING TO COURT  for costs, within the time for serving and filing your statement of defence you may move to have this proceeding dismissed by the court.  If you believe the amount claimed for costs is excessive, you may pay the plaintiff’s claim and $400 for costs and have the costs assessed by the court

Date ....APRIL 16, 2018.......................................................................        Issued by ...........................................................................

                                                                                                                                                                Local registrar

.....................................................................

 ROGER CALLOW (APPELLANT)       Address of court office OTTAWA SUPERIOR  COURT

                                                                                                    REGISTRY

                                                                                                     161 ELGIN STREET

                                                                                                     OTTAWA ,ONTARIO  K2P 2K1

                                                                                                     f:(613) 239-1274

61B (PAGE 2)

ROGER CALLOW  self-represented APPELLANT

1285 CAHILL DRIVE W. #2001

OTTAWA, ON K1V 9A7

fax:  613-521-1739

 

(signed)  ___________________ Roger Callow APPELLANT  April 16, 2018

 

N.B. Included here is a bank draught in the amount of $220.00 to cover fees

 

 

 

PREAMBLE TO ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

A) As this ex parte Application repeats a similar unsuccessful appeal in Nova Scotia, an OCTOBER 2017 overview is included here for the purpose. In the event that a court decision is to send this matter directly to judges through the Referencing process, no preliminary hearing is necessary.

 

ORAL ARGUMENT - Nova Scotia employeescasecanada. ca   Oct.2017 (469918 Nov.29-2017)

 

1) The constitutional question raised in this court case is the single most important challenge to the operation of government as it relates to the judiciary in Canada.

2) This hearing is limited to only the constitutional question which should be conducted by Referencing with the appropriate specialists. Any attempt to thwart that challenge by the Nova Scotia Courts will not only heavily redound against Nova Scotia courts but the entire Canadian judicial infrastructure.

3) While this case is in the form of an ex parte application (without a defendant); an earlier action listing the B.C. Employer was thwarted by Justice Suzanne Hood (458698 April 2017) in which Hood j. did two things; a) she made a sworn affidavit a meaningless piece of paper calling into question the value of precedent law in Canada, b) her apparently innocuous action was sufficient to show that the court for a first time was heavily biased in favour of the Employer; an extant condition for 32 years in many other courts of law although not 'proven in court' until now. (Earlier, the Nova Scotia Barrister's Society refused an examination of this patently fraudulent  Employer's 'Book of Authorities' ('B of A') leaving that chore to Hood j. She failed to conduct that examination and was reported to the NS oversight body concerned. The 'error of omission'  was effectively supplanted by the 'error of commission' by her. There was no acknowledgment of that complaint. The matter was referred to the Prime Minister of Canada as a consequence. (This B of A with its origins in ON was played out through courts in QC and SK and not heard at the Supreme Court of Canada (36883 QC& 36993 SK)

4) In 458698, the egregious conduct of the B.C. Employer with its B.C. legal counsel, as noted above, asked the court to dispense with this action for no given reason (nor is any cited in Hood j.'s Decision). They did not address the legal concerns posited for that hearing by this plaintiff. That's a disgraceful performance by any defendant hence forcing this revised ex parte application.  The court should not entertain any further attempt by this Employer to put in another appearance.

 

IMPOSED LEGISLATION and court review

5) Imposed Legislation functions on both a Provincial and individual level:

a) The provinces, for example, are subject to imposed legislation from the Federal Government. SK with its resistance to the carbon tax and various provinces with MB being the last hold-out to forced changes in the Health Measures Act; are two such examples. The provinces failed in their endeavor for 'unseen' reasons; probably bullying. A third CUPE case being appealed against the partial sale of HYDRO 1 assets in ON as a 'cash grab' by the Liberal Party was stymied because the court had no precedent regarding imposed legislation. (April 2018 addendum: The court ducked out claiming the matter to be of political and not a legal one as no disclosure on the accusations of fraud were permitted to be considered by the court.)

b) individuals such as this writer whom was laid off in 1985 under B.C.'s imposed  BILL 35 where the Employer refuses to recognize court overview. (other imposed Provincial actions in education were in ON's 2013 and NS's 2016 although only B.C. acted on the matter in this sole senior teacher lay-off in West Vancouver in June of 1985. No compensation (now includes pension rights) has been paid which belong to this plaintiff whether it be under the 'collective bargaining' procedures, BILL 35 conditions, or any other court mechanisms related to the issue.) In brief, there can be no process without judgment but that is what has happened in this 32 year litigation effort leading to the charge of systematic judicial malfeasance.

 

Form 5.02 (page 1)

                                                                                                                                    No.

 

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

 

Ex Parte Application by ROGER CALLOW - self represented plaintiff

 

Applicant(s), for an order

Ex Parte Application

 

Order applied for

The applicant is applying for an order that decides a legal point in law

 

Ex parte

This application is made without notice to any other person because the question raised is one raised at different times by the Union and the Employer but was ignored by the judiciary. The plaintiff is now raising this key legal question in order to break the log-jam in this 32 year unresolved labour matter in which no compensation has been paid.

 

Grounds for order

The applicant is applying for the order on the following grounds: No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid in a matter which is required by law whether it is under B.C. BILL 35 (1985) conditions (Employer position), the collective bargaining rules (court position (1995) although the status of the Union is not clear on this point or under some other mechanism in law under the general terms of contract. The Nova Scotia court here is to be limited to the legal question posed as future litigation will take place in a venue outside of Nova Scotia.

 

 

Evidence supporting application

The applicant offers the following affidavits in support of the application: affidavit of   Roger Callow in 39.08 which contains the necessary background to make that decision. Further information, should it be required, is available on request.

 

N.B. One action against the Employer in which they were listed as Defendant, NS 458698 (April 06-2017) has been referred to the oversight bodies for highly irregular treatment. There has been no response.

 

Hearing

The applicant will appear by telephone before the judge in chambers at selected by court (Sept. 23?) ADDENDUM: Hearing held on Nov. 29 in the Halifax Court at Nova Scotia.

 

 

 

Form 5.02 (page 2)

 

Contact information

The applicant designates the following address:

 

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

f. 613-521-1739

 

Documents delivered to this address are considered received by the applicant on delivery.

Further contact information is available from the prothonotary in Halifax

 

(signed) __________________ (Roger Callow)  June 26-2017  & April 16-2018

 

(01-05 omitted)

6) The Canadian Judiciary imploded in 2006 when the SCofC failed to hear a second challenge under the provisions of ultimate remedy (SEE web employeescasecanada.ca) 'You have exhausted all remedy under the law' wrote my legal counsel. Since that time, the courts have been operating on 'judicial air'; an untenable position for any Justice System and government in the developed world. An inclusion of this letter to 'Mr. Donald Trump' is on the 'individual' level as I believe that all international influences should be forewarned about the desultory nature of the Canadian justice system.

7) There was court review of an arbitrator's decision in the above case in which the 1985-6 arbitration was quashed with the arbitrator being labeled patently unreasonable. The point here is that this Employer refuses to recognize court oversight. While the Employer enunciates their arguments  regarding the stand-alone nature of BILL 35 in many courts of law; no court of law has seen fit to include their argument in its decision. It just doesn't exist in this kafkaesque world of judicial cupidity. The chicanery of the Canadian Judiciary on this latter level is something to behold in many different courts as outlined on this litigant's web site: employeescasecanada.ca

8)It is submitted here that if the court in its wisdom does not rule in favour of imposed legislation being subject to court overview; then what is the purpose of having courts of law at all as capricious governments will impose all legislation. Under these conditions, Parliament will have no meaning. I have likened the situation to the Fall of the Roman Empire just before the generals took over. Lady MacBeth says it best...'What needst we fear it when none can call us to account?'

9) A copy of this oral argument is being sent to the PMO. No copies are being sent to the Chief Justice of the NS Supreme Court or Premier McNeil ...what's the point?

10) The conference telephone call should be very brief: the presiding justice is going to forward this matter to Referencing or not.

 

B) As my Ontario legal representative was unable to acquire the NS Registered judgment on the above case to compare it with the one that I received, I am left with the same suspicion as that in Ontario where it is shown that three separate Decisions emanated from Ottawa Supreme Court Justice, Colin McKinnon 13-59060 none of which recognized the existence of the others. Regrettably, the oversight body (Canadian Council of Judges as McKinnon was originally appointed as a Federal Court judge) failed to acknowledge the complaint let alone examine it. That complaint not only raised its ugly head in Nova Scotia where it was similarly ignored but was played out in QC (Supreme Court of Canada 26883) and SK (SCofC 26993) in which the incumbent SCofC Chief Justice, Richard Wagner,  sat on both panels much to my vehement objection. The SCofC did not proceed in either case. (The former Chief Justice and President of the Judicial Council, Beverley McLachlin sat on the first SCofC Appeal in 1997 along with then SCofC Chief Justice Antonio Lamers before she became Chief Justice) These details, while not germain to the constitutional question being raised are included to reinforce my argument that a Canada-wide judicial conspiracy exists through the offices of the Chief Justices designed to keep me from obtaining a resolution in an unresolved labour case since 1985 where no compensation has been paid against any number of laws and the general conditions of justice under Canadian Law.

 

C) In brief, the scope of the constitutional question raised here is not case sensitive as those matters will be resolved elsewhere hopefully, with the Ontario court finding in order to put an end to this interminable state of 'limbo' in which this case finds itself. While not excusing the original conspirators - the B.C. Government (the imposed BILL 35), the Employer - the Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver, B.C.), the Teachers Union, in what is obviously a 'sweetheart deal'; the malfeasance beginning with the original arbitrator (later ruled patently unreasonable when the arbitration was quashed for failing to show a causal factor) continues right through to the present time before over 50 judges demonstrating, as it does, a pattern of systematic judicial malfeasance.

 

D) The above background Preamble is only of significance should the court seek to obfuscate the asking of the single most important question for any democratic society as it relates to how the government and courts interact.

 

ONTARIO - APRIL 2018

E) In the event that a preliminary hearing is requested, I will attend in person in Ottawa Superior Court in which I will invert the process of my oral argument as the traditional approach of presenting an oral argument is not just working. In that endeavor, I do not blame myself as the repeated failure of the many courts assigned this challenge have given de facto recognition to an Employer not, in my opinion, deserving to escape their legal obligations which are clearly spelled out in law but unenforced by a court system which apparently considers the  'error of omission' as valid legality in an unresolved  B.C. Labour Case where no compensation has been paid by the Employer. Understandably, the Employer require a court decision to justify paying out any sums. Hence an ex parte application makes sense in Ontario as it is limited to the constitutional question as future action will take place outside Ontario's jurisdiction. This hearing, in short, has national value to all Canadians - both individuals and corporate identities alike. It does not get any bigger than that.

 

F) In the event that a preliminary hearing is required by the court, I will invert the process in which I present a case with no or very little commentary from the presiding justice only to read in the judgment that the central question remains unanswered; namely, how do I collect compensation owed to me as deferred salary (includes 12 years of pension rights) after 33 years of futile judicial appeals?

 

G) My approach this time will be to exhort the Chief Justice of the Ottawa Superior Court to appoint a justice whom will directly address the question as outlined in F) assuming a preliminary hearing is held.

 

H) Due to the complexity of this case, the entire portfolio is being provided to assist the court to, hopefully, give an honest interpretation this time in order to finalize this long festering sore

 

I) In the event that the court decides to proceed directly to handling the constitutional question, I will proceed to notify the appropriate government offices concerned as per regulations for the holding of constitutional questions.

 

J) As the Nova Scotia courts have a specific form for ex parte Applications, I include it here for your information.

 

Yours truly,  Roger Callow  Appellant

cc  Minister of Justice/  ON Premier on behalf of the ON Attorney General / Columnists

 

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

f: 613-521-1739

Appellant  (self represented)

 

(signed) Roger Callow  Appellant  April 16-2018

 

______________________________

 

 (This notice must be served at least thirty days before the question is to be argued

 

 

TO BE SENT UPON RECEIPT OF FILE NO.

 

TO: The Attorney General of Ontario (as required by section 109 of the Courts of Justice Act) Constitutional Law Branch 4th Floor 720 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5G 2K1  fax:(416)326-0415 

 

TO: The Attorney General of Canada (as required by section 109 of the Courts of Justice Act)  234 Wellington Street  Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8  fax: (613) 954-1920

 

 

 

 

 

FORM 4B

 

GENERAL HEARING OF DOCUMENTS - APPLICATIONS

 

                                                                             (Court file no.)_____________

 

GENERAL HEADING IN PROCEEDINGS IN ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (OTTAWA)

 

BETWEEN:                                                                                      ROGER CALLOW

APPELLANT

and

 

ex parte Application

 

NOTICE OF APPLICATION (CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION)

 

APPLICATION UNDER (statutory provision or rule under which the application is made) RULE 14A  FORM 4F - Referencing in writing only RULE 14 E.1 (possibly a Toronto Court reference) RULE 4F - Constitutional Question

AFFIDAVIT - 4D 

 

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS

Where a constitutional question is raised in a proceeding in a

court as to the constitutional validity or constitutional applicability of an

Act of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or of a regulation or

bylaw made there under, the Act, regulation or bylaw shall not be

adjudged to be invalid or inapplicable unless notice of the constitutional

question has been served, in accordance with subsection (2), on the

Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Justice and Public Safety

and Attorney General of Ontario.

 

INDEX

Exhibits                                                                                                                    PAGES

A) ex parte APPLICATION - FORMS 61B and 4B (01j) includes

PREAMBLE with reference to Nova Scotia (information only)                         01a) - 01j)   

B) INDEX                                                                                                                              02

C) AFFIDAVIT  FORM  4D                                                                                                03 - 04

D) STATEMENT OF CLAIM  FORM 14A                                                                       05 - 07

E) NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION  FORM  4F                                       08 - 09

F) ARGUMENT - BACKGROUND                                                                                   10 - 16       PP. 10 - 53 not included in internet copy

G)         "              - DEEP BACKGROUND                                                             17 - 20

H) Following Documentary Evidence

    (I)  Paul Conlin esq. vs B.C. Labour Board                                                 21 - 24

    (II) Preamble to the Supreme Court of Canada 2004                                        25 - 27

    (III) Charter of Rights & Freedoms excerpts  August 04-2015                      27 - 31

    (IV) The 'Cullen Creed' & Reply  July 2013                                                            32 - 34

    (V) 'Gaming the System'                                                                                             35 - 38

I) Newspaper Clippings  September 1986                                                                39 - 40

J) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE                                                                                                41

K) Southin j. Order  1987 A860607  &  Appeal Court Order  1988                   42 - 49

L) BILL 35 (School Amendment Act) - 1985                                                              50 - 53          

                       

Signature (Roger Callow)_________________________  April 16-2018  

 

 

 

FORM 4D

AFFIDAVIT

Between:

 

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

f: 613-521-1739

                                                                                                                        Appellant (self represented)

 

                                                                                                and:

ex parte Application

 

AFFIDAVIT attesting to validity of documents herein enclosed

 

I, (full name of deponent) of  Roger Callow in the Province of Ontario (Ottawa)

AFFIRM:

1. That the material in this factum signed by the Plaintiff dated April 16, 2018 is an accurate account of the material facts included.

 

AFFIDAVIT of FACTS

I, Roger Callow of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, swear and affirm the following is true:

1. I turned 65 on August 24, 2006, which brought into play my pension rights;

2. My pension rights are determined on the basis of contributions to the plan, both mine and the employers;

3. The amount of these contributions is dependent on the date of termination of my employment;

4. Because I was a tenured teacher, my employment could only be determined by a proper legal process;

5. In my case the validity of the termination has never been determined. Technically although I was unable to work and was not paid, I remained a teacher under the employment of the Board;

6.I require that a proper termination date be determined in order to provide me with appropriate compensation which would include pensionable service benefits; No compensation has been paid to date.

7. The recent pension inquiries caused me to examine how I could get compensation or a termination date determined. There is no other remedy I can pursue other than as requested in this petition as a first step towards any resolution. The Employer has successfully obfuscated the issue by declaring that the courts have no oversight over imposed legislation. The courts, to date, have ignored that central argument.

8. Whatever approach is made, disclosure as outlined above is at the root of any successful remedy although that is not asked for here in this petition.

9. This current action is limited to a determination of  the constitutionality of B.C.'s  imposed BILL 35 (School Amendment Act) as a first step in acquiring compensation in other courts, hopefully B.C. courts if an outside agreement cannot be reached.

10. In 2013, the B.C. Courts expelled this litigant 'for reasons best known to a judge' explaining why I turned to other venues. No court would adjudge the propriety of that B.C. Court action (Cullen Creed) although it is noted that a new filing in B.C. under the Hogarth government  ignored that injunction.

 

______________________(signed) Roger Callow - Appellant  APRIL 16-2018

 

 

 

 

 

FORM 14A

STATEMENT OF CLAIM (GENERAL)

BETWEEN:

ROGER CALLOW

APPELLANT 

                                                                                                            AND: 

 

ex parte APPLICATION

 

(4.05.1) Originating Process

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

f: 613-521-1739

Appellant  (self represented)

 

(Court seal)

 Address all correspondence to

Superior Court of Justice

161 Elgin Street

Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2K1

tel: (613) 239-1274

 

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

 

TO THE DEFENDANT       NOT APPLICABLE (INFORMATION ONLY)

 

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the

plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out solely as a constitutional question

 

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or a lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, WITHIN FORTY DAYS (total) after this statement of claim is served on you, and filing your statement of defense in FORM 18B  prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. N.B. It is recommended that  you do NOT oppose this constitutional question as it is the exact same one that you raised in arbitration in 1985; namely, that the neophyte B.C. BILL 35 was in addition  to the collective bargaining (c.b.) scheme and therefore did not supplant any part of the c.b.. The arbitrator ignored that submission but it was the focal point of the succeeding B.C. Supreme Court hearing before Justice Mary Southin whom quashed the arbitration favouring the Employer ruling, as she did, that the arbitrator had been patently unreasonable. In brief, the Union and this Appellant are on the same side of this constitutional question.

 

CLAIM

1. The plaintiff claims:

As no compensation has been paid by the Employer in this June 1985 lay-off of senior West Vancouver senior teacher, Roger Callow,(includes pension rights for the past 12 years) due to the refusal of the Board of School Trustees (S.D. #45) to acknowledge Judicial overview claiming that solely BILL 35 is the applicable rule of law, then a judicial finding must first be made regarding the relationship between imposed legislation and the courts of law. While it is not the province of this court to adjudicate specific compensation claims, it should be aware that this Appellant claims that compensation is due whether it be under BILL 35, the collective bargaining agreement, or some other measure under contract law.

 

(State here the precise relief claimed.)

A ruling limited to the constitutional question: 'Does the court have oversight powers to imposed government legislation where that legislation 'is in addition to' any other statute?

 

(Then set out in separate, consecutively numbered paragraphs each allegation of material fact relied on to substantiate the claim.)

SEE  INDEX  F) & G)

 

(Where the statement of claim is to be served outside Prince Edward Island without a court order, set out the facts and the specific provisions of Rule 17 relied on in support of such service.) NOT APPLICABLE

The 'Cullen Creed' (enclosed here) of July-2013 in which Appeal Court Deputy C.J. ,Justice A. Cullen expelled the applicant from B.C. courts on his own recognizance, without taking legal argument nor quoting applicable laws, and for 'reasons best known to himself' forced this applicant into venues outside of B.C. To date, no court will deal with this obviously ultra vires action. Should a court refer this matter to the B.C. courts as a more suitable forum for this question, it will have to consider the details of the above Creed. The constitutional question, in this regard is of national concern; the Employees Case (Canada) merely being the legalistic vehicle for expressing this challenge.

2.The plaintiff proposes that this action be tried at Ottawa Superior Court

(Date of issue)______________ (request for 'writing only')

 

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001 Ottawa,

Ontario K1V 9A7  f: 613-521-1739

Appellant (self represented)

 

_______________________________ (signed) Roger Callow April 16-2018

 

 

FORM 4F

 

NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

(General heading)

Between:

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

f: 613-521-1739

                                                                                                                          Appellant  (self represented)

 

and

 

ex parte APPLICATION

 

NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

The Appellant intends to question the constitutional validity (or applicability) of (identify the particular provisions of the relationship between imposed legislation and the oversight powers of the court in BILL 35) in an action (or motion, application appeal or as may be) to be heard on (day), (date), at (time), at (address of courthouse).

 

N.B. AS THERE IS NO NEED FOR A PRESENCE BY EITHER OF THE LITIGANTS,   THE COURT SHOULD CONTINUE ON A 'WRITTEN' Reference BASIS (ex parte Application).

 

The following are the material facts giving rise to the constitutional question: (Set out concisely the material facts that relate to the constitutional question. Where appropriate, attach pleadings or reasons for decision.) SEE F) & G) BACKGROUND

 

The following is the legal basis for the constitutional question: (Set out concisely the legal basis for each question, identifying the nature of the constitutional principles to be argued.)

(Date) April 16, 2018

 

 

 

 

(Name, address and telephone number of  party)

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

f: 613-521-1739  

Appellant  (self represented)

 

(signed) Roger Callow  Appellant  April 16-2018

 

______________________________

 

(This notice must be served at least thirty days before the question is to be argued

 

TO BE SENT UPON RECEIPT OF FILE NO.

 

TO: The Attorney General of Ontario (as required by section 109 of the Courts of Justice Act) Constitutional Law Branch 4th Floor 720 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5G 2K1  fax:(416)326-0415 

 

TO: The Attorney General of Canada (as required by section 109 of the Courts of Justice Act)  234 Wellington Street  Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8  fax: (613) 954-1920