MANITOBA - 'legal apology'
November 15-2017 DEC.11-2017:2nd Request FEB.01-2018: 3rd Request plus addendum
TO: Premier Brian Pallister FROM: Roger Callow aka 'The Outlawed Canadian'
PERSONAL 1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001
204 Legislature Bdlg. Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7
450 Broadway web: employeescasecanada.ca
Winnipeg MB R3C 0V8
t. 204-945-3714 f. 204-949-1484
A) Aug.28-2017 Letter from Ginette Le Sann MB Provincial Registrar to Callow - 1 page
B) July16/2nd Request August 03-2017 Letter to MB Premier B. Pallister from Callow - 2 pages plus l page 'Bastille Day' No Response
C) August 14-2017 ACTION (14A) - 8 pages c/w Bank Draft for $225 with Sept. 08-2017 Letter to Legal Education Association from Callow as per Le Sann letter. No response.
1) A) This legal cliché letter is of no value considering no follow-through was received from the MB legal system. Compare that with the Registries in Nova Scotia (a) #458698 April 07-2017 and (b) 469918 November 29-2017 which shows what can be done when there is a will from Registries. Considering that this result follows on earlier accounts to Premier Pallister, what shows up is best summarized as 'incompetency'.
2) B) What is Premier Pallister prepared to do in order to make his court system more responsive? The past failures do not augur well for either the Premier or the courts in the province of MB.
3) C) As such I am returning the 8 page factum with the bank draft for $225 as I believe that they are properly constituted to Premier Pallister to be forwarded to the court for processing.
4) The MB premier would rail against the federal government for setting matters up 'to fail' with the provinces. How is he any different in the above case?
5) Granted, the case is an unusual one requesting a federal government apology for 32 years of judicial abuse in an unresolved labour matter where no compensation has been paid due to judicial malfeasance. Is this the type of justice which you would like to be directly linked to?
6) The case is modeled on the Arar case with this difference; I am merely asking for a token $1 in settlement; not the $10 million that he received. As such, it requires an imagination which few premiers and court officials appear to have and yet I am doing the heavy lifting from which all premiers may benefit.
Addendum - February 01-2018
1) The bid for a constitutional hearing in Nova Scotia (458698 Nov. 29-2017) largely because I did not have the all-necessary intervener support from outside sources as cases like this can easily go either way although why the Justice System would rule against themselves having oversight powers over imposed legislation deserves definition:
a) The Justice System of Canada committed themselves to defeating this one individual suborning themselves in that process to which they find it impossible to extract themselves. Further they are wedded to billable time exercises which my 'Model T' version would deny.
b) The Union leaders are sensitive to losing any power to their clients as protection of the 'sweetheart deal' is central in dealing with employers. Hiring your own legal counsel to double track the Union lawyer is most upsetting to them.
c) The Union approach to imposed legislation is much the same as your own; it is case specific such as the CUPE win recently in ON for $57 million after 5 years of litigation.
d) MB's approach to imposed Health Measures and SK's approach to the imposed carbon tax are also case sensitive actions to proceed under the same conditions as CUPE above with this difference; both provinces will lose and be left with big legal bills as the Federal Government can merely modify the imposed legislation and apply it under a new Bill.
e) My 'Model T' version is based on an actual case where the West Vancouver, B.C. School Board refuses to recognize court oversight in quashing the original arbitration leaving me in a 33 year limbo. With that much said, my constitutional challenge is case neutral; that is, 'Does the court have oversight powers over imposed legislation? It is the single most important question in Canadian jurisprudence. No specific reference is made to the Employee's Case
f) With a decision on this level, individuals would be free to challenge powerful employers seeking to hide behind imposed legislation and not have to undergo the judicial 'run-around that I have experienced for 33 year and still counting.
g) The advantage for the Provinces is that a lower court judge could also rule on imposed legislation saving considerably on legal costs and time.
h) While the case in Manitoba against the Federal Government is for an apology plus a token $1 (to qualify for registration); it is all in the interest of putting an end to government-judiciary collusion.
i) MB should stay aware of a refiling of the constitutional question as this case has been broached in 8 out of 10 provinces with one down.
2) A personal note from you would be greatly appreciated as for too long, Prime Ministers and Premiers are bent on 'hidey-holes'.
The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance