PREMIER McNeil (Nova Scotia) Oct. 15-2018
TO: N.S. Premier S. McNeil FROM: Roger Callow private litigant
P.O. Box 726 1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001
Halifax, NS B3J 2T3 Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
REFERENCE: 469918 Nov. 29-2017 employeescasecanada.ca
A) 'The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 has transformed both the practice and theory of Canadian politics...Judges have abandoned the deference and self-restraint that characterized their pre-charter jurisprudence and become active players in the political process... (All the more reason to hold them responsible for their perfidy - R.C.) But I (columnist Lorrie Goldstein of the O.S. Sept. 16-2018 p.7) do not believe judges should twist the charter (or ignore it altogether - R.C.) into pretzels to justify rulings that inappropriately interfere with the legitimate powers of the legislature. (Or cover up government malfeasance - R.C.)
B) classic definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results = judicial porn in the Employee's Case (Canada). It implies an implicit counsel of despair - 'the problem is just too big for us to take on'.
C) 'Cheating, you only hurt yourself; snitching hurts everyone involved.' Y is for Yesterday Sue Grafton (d. Dec. 2017)
D) "It's the new journalism"...Some call it the democratization of journalism, others might call it anarchy. The problem is there's no accountability...there is no editing process to separate fact from mere rumor....' The Cartel Don Winslow
REFERENCES: 16 pages plus web reference.
E) RED NECK MEDIA - Halifax Examiner Nov. 03-2017 4 pages annotated article by me
F) ORAL ARGUMENT Oct. 2017 (469918) Hearing Date Nov. 29-2017 2 pages imposed legislation and Employer's refusal to recognize court overview (BILL 35 B.C. 1985)
G) 'SECURITY FOR COSTS' 458698 (Hood j.) Feb. 13-2017 (Hearing Date: April 2017) 2 pages
H) NOVA SCOTIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL April 12-2017 3 pages Implosion of NS court (Rosinski j.)
I ) HUMAN RIGHTS CODE August 4-2015 2 pages
J) STATEMENT OF CLAIM (DEC.14-2016) 3 pages Arguments in support of an ex parte constitutional question before Rosinski j. (469918)
K) Supreme Court of Canada Conspiracy January 2017 sub-heading 9 pages due to length, the reader is referred to the web site: 2017 SCofC Conspiracy
Dear Premier McNeil
1) Have I got a unique offer for you which would bring praise to you from the Canadian citizenry from coast to coast!
2) Take those steps which would see my 'model T' constitutional challenge in the Employee's Case placed before judges with constitutional expertise. That is why 469918 (Nov. 29-2017) was laid as an ex parte motion without any need for litigants to be involved although I have myriad materials available if the court so chooses: Constitutional Question: Does 'imposed' government legislation obviate court overview when such legislation makes no reference to replacing parts or all of particular statute laws. i.e. that the imposed legislation is 'in addition to'. In this case the School Amendment Act (BILL 35) has produced contradictory results in this case if the Respondent Employer's interpretation above is to be accepted. It is to be noted, in that regard, that compensation is operant in all forms of the Act noted above and exists apart from these legal machinations. The Employer raised this question in their action about issue constitutionality in Ontario (13-59060 Colin McKinnon j. April 23-2014 Decision which he completely ignored). The plaintiff here is now raising the same question. The only change is the reversal of the Plaintiff-Respondent relationship which has no significance to the issue raised.
3) Other enclosures show how expensive constitutional challenges are in current day Canada. For example, Premier Ford has set aside $30 Million to battle the Federal government's imposed Carbon Tax. That is why the legal fraternity views with abhorrence any such 'model T' challenges to the legal status quo. What if everyone did that? Lawyers and judges could be left in the street begging.
4) ON legal counsel was unable to unearth the filed record for Rosinski j. 469918 Nov. 2017 hence my appeal to the court (Second Request unanswered) Details are included in this letter to Premier McNeil. My guess is that a Decision does not exist considering the malfeasance involved as illustrated in the enclosed documents above.
5) In the event that you choose to send this constitutional question for review by constitutional judges and they decide that disclosure is important to this case; they will have to invoke an Order for the moribund RCMP to seize the pertinent documents. They do not listen to me. None of the 50 judges on this case have seen fit to call for those documents as they would most assuredly lead to criminal charges against many legal personnel.
6) Time is of the essence if you choose to proceed on the above basis so let me know soonest.
Roger Callow plaintiff
cc RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki
Kelly Craft (U.S.) for President Trump
Anti-employee media boycott cc O.S. Muslim columnists Tarek Fatah/Farzana Hassan
This is the last official appeal to the Canadian media as this 33 year unresolved issue where no compensation has been paid putting an end to the credibility of the Canadian Justice System in 2004 ('ultimate remedy' - 'You have exhausted all remedy under the law' Counsel for Callow). If the media were to give fair coverage to this judicial disaster from day one; I do not believe Canada would be without a credible justice system. Now we are fighting for our very democratic existence. If highly experienced O.S. columnist, Mark Bonokoski, does not publish this sorry legal tale, it is the end of Canada as a credible entity. The same applies personally to Bonokoski. Canada is now akin to the Fall of Rome immediately before the generals took over.
RED NECK MEDIA - NOVA SCOTIA 2017
4. Roger Callow storms Nova Scotia courts (November 03-2017 Halifax Examiner)
annotated with my COMMENTS (C)
Several forests have died in Roger Callow’s ongoing battle for justice.
C. ...talk about purple language!
Thirty-two years ago, in 1985, West Vancouver social studies teacher Roger Callow was laid off from his unionized job. He’s been fighting for “justice” (or something) ever since.
C. the 'or something' is compensation which must be paid under the law whether it is under the imposed BILL 35, (the only thing the Employer recognizes) or the collective bargaining rules which since 1995, is the only thing that the courts recognize after quashing the arbitration, or any other court measure dealing with employment compensation.)
In 2014, Andrew Duffy, then reporting for the Ottawa Citizen, recapped Callow’s journey through the courts
C. The OTTAWA CITIZEN refused my 'right of rebuttal to a judge whom was referred to the oversight bodies for fraud to which there was no acknowledgment (there never is=no oversight bodies in Canada) The central point is that I was ruled 'frivolous & vexatious' as the defendant against an Employer laid action. The main intent was to divert Google Internet connections which applies to this day as seekers of this site are redirected to a non-existent .com site (rather than .ca site)
In the three decades since, Callow has launched 20 legal proceedings before various tribunals, courts and appeal bodies in a determined attempt to win redress. C. Got that in one
He has tried to personally sue two judges from the Federal Court of Canada; he has also launched multi-million dollar lawsuits against the teacher’s union and the school board.
C. I tried to have judge's orders overturned which is a normal legal action. I have not launched a multi-million dollar action against the Employer and Union.
All of the lawsuits have failed. C. Got that in one...the source of how the Canadian Justice System collapsed in a 'Harvey Weinstein' fashion.
Both the Federal Court and the B.C. Supreme Court have declared him a vexatious litigant and have barred him from filing actions related to his lost job. C. Again, correct explaining why I have lodged actions in 7 other provinces for redress. Not one of those courts would refer to the infamous 'Cullen Creed' (2013) which is clearly ultra vires in that regard which they would have to do in ordering the matter back to B.C.
In fact, the B.C. Supreme Court has issued three separate orders since 2003 that restrict Callow’s access to that province’s court system. C. The 2010 Order (McKenzie Creed) included 'may only proceed with the permission of a judge' which I always ask for. The 2013 Cullen Creed makes no such allowance.
In his decision issued Friday, Justice McKinnon said that Callow has insulted every judge “who has had the misfortune of ruling against him.” C. Got that in one...and for good reasons. In response some time ago to my legal counsel on the question as to universally condemning judges; I replied, "What difference does it make if 90% of judges are doing a good job under very difficult circumstances if the Chief Justice consistently appoints the other 10% to your case?" He got the point.
“Mr. Callow has also been remarkably imaginative in engaging in offensive conduct outside the courtroom, denigrating Canada’s judiciary and legal system,” the judge said. “He has displayed insulting placards in public places and posted offensive material on his website.” C. Justice Ottenbreit of SK told the Employer's Counsel; "This is a court of law. I don't care what is on the internet."
Callow’s website was taken down some time ago, but it was a doozy, with pages of unintelligible garble like this:
C. The web site was perverted by GOOGLE; it was not taken down but the writer appears to have the inside scoop on this piece of perfidy. That's the 'doozy' part of this point.
BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an ‘Outlaw Justice System’ www.employeescasecanada.com (30 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems and over 30 judges. It’s Canada’s Watergate — Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. The ‘find me a court’ plea has fallen on deaf ears due to Registry, Ministry & Court obfuscation. I feel like Ralph Nader in 1961 trying to convince the public of dangerous cars (Unsafe at any speed). Who knows, maybe recalling judges and chief judges may become standard fare in the future — just like automobiles. To be sure, the current system is not working as now the Canadian Justice System has been shattered in its entirety by this case. The current case in Federal Court (T-2360-14) alleges fraud on behalf of the Respondent Employer and Union plus the court processes over the past 30 years. It would appear that the Respondents misrepresented themselves to this petitioner as to the their authority. #550-17008208-157 currently extant in Gatineau, Quebec, will see if the French Canadian courts suffer from this ‘English disease.’ Premier P. Couillard is being kept fully informed as to court progress as well as, now, the Quebec RCMP.
C. Why has the writer limited himself or herself to the Gatineau Case of a few years ago which was played out right through to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2016 (36883) leaving Prime Minister Trudeau to deal with the fallout of the charges of fraud against Employer lawyers and judges in QC? He did nothing.
Here’s the first paragraph of Ontario Justice C. McKinnon’s 2014 decision naming Callow a vexatious litigant:
Roger Callow is a litigant possessed of seemingly inexhaustible stamina. His behaviour suggests that he views the Canadian court system as something akin to a perpetual, all-day, all you can eat buffet. Having been rebuked by the courts and tribunals of British Columbia, the Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Callow has now taken aim at Ontario. Ontario lacks the jurisdiction to deal with his case. As a result, Mr. Callow’s litigation must be stopped. Now. C. ...and where are the rules regarding jurisdiction in his judgment which no other court outside of B.C. raises? Notice how he turns this case around in that I was the defendant with the Employer claiming immunity under the imposed legislation feature; an issue buried by every court since 1985 including that of McKinnon.
But there’s no stopping Roger Callow. C. Perhaps not but the Canadian Justice System was stopped in its tracks under Justice Rosinski (Hfx 469918) explaining why I have appealed to President Trump to invoke the Magnitsky Act against him; U.S. commercial interests deserve no less.
Callow has brought his fight to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. Of course, Nova Scotia has nothing to do with British Columbia, and certainly nothing to do with the West Vancouver school system or its union. And the Nova Scotia Supreme Court can’t overrule decisions made by courts in B.C., Ontario, or Quebec, or by the Canadian Supreme Court, but those technicalities aren’t about to stop Roger Callow. C. Oh, yes it has something to do with Nova Scotia where the teachers went out in protest against the imposed BILL 75 which the government chose to drop. Not only all Canadian teachers, but all union and association employees plus provinces (e.g. SK and MB in challenges to the imposed Carbon Tax are negatively affected. CUPE recently won a $56 million case in ON for its educational workers (although the anti-employee media would not report the matter as a news item)
Further Nova Scotia or any other province may refer matters back (in this case) to B.C. under the legal terms of Referencing which means a direct challenge to the Cullen Creed which no court was prepare to entertain. Much easier to duck down the rabbit hole of 'frivolous and vexatious' on the part of the litigant.
This week, Callow filed about a half a ream of documents with the Nova Scotia court. It’s all gobbledygook, but from the documents I learn that Callow filed a complaint with the Nova Scotia Barristers Society, but the Society “refused an examination of the fraudulent Employer’s ‘Book of Authorities.'” He therefore took the issue up with Justice Suzanne Hood, who likewise sensibly refused to deal with Callow, and so Callow is now taking aim at the judge — “her apparently innocuous action was sufficient to show that the court for a first time was heavily biased in favour of the Employer” and so forth. C. The 'gobbledygook' consists of highly fraudulent material filed in the Employer's 500 page 'Book of Authorities' based on the ON 'Bobbsey Twins' actions of Justice McKinnon and 6 months later, Justice Scott (both originally Federal Court appointees therefore coming under the Canadian Council of Judges presided over by SCofC Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and the source of my Placard denigrating her (due to retire December 15 leaving it to the new appointee to deal with this fraud ducked by the SCofC in 2016 and P.M. Trudeau in 2017) The Nova Scotia Barristers Society ducked the examination of this 'Book of Authorities' leaving it to the court to conduct the examination. In April, Justice Suzanne Hood, in an act of 'commission' made no reference to my accusation. Bottom line? A 'Book of Authorities' has no meaning anywhere in Canada.
I fear our courts are about to come to a grinding halt as Callow pursues his case. C. They did just that when Justice Rosinski refused to permit the Constitutional Question to go ahead regarding whether court oversight applies to imposed legislation. And here's the rub. Justice Rosinski read out a pre-written statement detailing my case in the trial which appears only on the transcript (469918 Hfx) and is completely lacking from the judgment (which is what forms the basis of case law ); a standard legal manoeuvre. For example, readers of Rosinski's published record could just as easily have concluded that the matter was refused permission to go ahead based on a minor traffic violation; no doubt a reasonable conclusion for such as the above Red Neck writer. (P.S. When my web site is up again, read the original RED NECK MEDIA from 1985...some things never change. And the media is wondering why - apart from the internet - the reading public is deserting them in droves... fake news, indeed.
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 not only 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.
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.
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.
EXHIBIT B REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S 'SECURITY for COSTS' 458698
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
TO: Nova Scotia Judicial Council FROM: Roger Callow #458698 Superior Court APPELLANT
ATTN: Chief Justice (chair) 1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001
The Law Courts Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
1815 Upper Water St. fax: 613-521-1739
Halifax, NS B3J 1S7
sent by fax: 902-424-0524 cc Premier McNeil employeescasecanada.ca
TOPIC: Complaint against NS Superior Court Judge, Suzanne Hood (Apr. 06 H.D.)
1) The complaint made against the above judge for her egregious behaviour is perhaps the most serious complaint ever made against a judge in Canadian civil jurisprudence.
2) While not in attendance, this appellant filed a complete rebuttal to a two-fold action filed by the Defendant B.C. Employer in the above case in which the second hearing was slated for April 21 before a second judge. Both cases called for the dropping of the Appellant's case limited to a constitutional question (c.q.) without case specifics (for that would take place outside of NS in another venue).
3) Indeed, the presence of both litigants is superfluous to the c.q. regarding the relationship between imposed legislation and court oversight; surely the most important judicial question in the history of Canadian jurisprudence. The matter would be dealt with solely by the courts through Referencing with the 32 year Employee's Case with its genesis in B.C. merely being the vehicle to accord with our adversarial legal system.
SPECIFIC CHARGE AGAINST JUSTICE HOOD
4) '...ignoratio elenchi, the common fallacy in logic, by the media (and the NS courts in 458698) of supposing a point proved by an argument proving something not at issue. The c.q. is not in question; merely the right of this personage to raise the question. No law was quoted nor reference made by Hood j. in 'conditionally' denying this Appellant's position. She would seek to hide her perfidy behind an unexamined Employer factum rife with fraud.
5) As pointed out to Justice Hood in writing, any action taken by her must be preceded by disclosure from the Employer and a proper evaluation of the Employer factum which was surreptitiously covered up in QC & SK leading to their demise as failed states. (Supreme Court of Canada 2016: 36883 QC & 36993 SK). It is that selfsame Employer factum now being floated in N.S. with the NS Barrister's Society ducking the examination request leaving it for the court. Hood j. failed on both accounts as she makes no mention of my protest on that level and, therefore, should be removed from the bench for, want of another expression, incompetency.
6) This first hearing was ostensibly arranged by the Employer for the purpose of a specious 'surety' which is a copy of a couple of previous court stunts elsewhere. I paid but did not get 'due process'; rather 'duly processed' better explains treatment meted out to me in other venues. The main problem is that the claim relates to corrupt events in Ontario which still remain extant due to the failure of the oversight bodies to investigate. The second hearing (now held in abeyance by the court) on April 21 is the main event for which I would appear and asked previously that any action taken by Hood j. be available for consideration in that court held before a different judge. That request is now to be stillborn due to her precipitate action.
7) The proper course for Justice Hood would have been to either cite the Employer for 'bringing the course of justice into disrepute' or, as is commonly accepted in today's justice system, to invite the Employer to withdraw their objection permitting the court to proceed with the c.q. Her failure in the above regard considering the background in this case brings into focus the value of a sworn affidavit in any court in Canada. As such, the law and justice system in Canada is moribund until proper action is taken against Justice Hood for 'bringing the course of justice into disrepute' with her apparently innocuous action.
8) It matters little whether Justice Hood was acting under direction from a Chief Justice, an eminence gris (Old Boys Club) or Premier McNeil; as it is her name on the Order. As matters stand, no Federal or provincial election has any meaning until this matter is sorted out. Her action is 'the nail' which eventually, as it works its way up in the parable, leads to the loss of a kingdom.
TO: Nova Scotia Judicial Council FROM: Roger Callow self-represented litigant (Ottawa)
COMPLAINT: Justice S. Rosinski #469918 (H.D. November 29-2017 Hfx Superior Court)
1) These two hearings included in this account mark the culmination of a 32 year unresolved labour issue relating to an illicit teacher lay-off with its genesis in B.C. where no compensation has been paid. That culmination was enunciated in terms of a constitutional question relating to the oversight powers of Canadian courts to imposed legislation; a matter of extreme importance not only in Nova Scotia where the MacNeil government invoked such action against the teachers in 2016; but in all of Canada.
2) Recently, CUPE won a $57 million settlement on a similar constitutional challenge in 2017 against the ON government which was limited to the 'collective bargaining process'. My challenge went beyond that level in that all imposed legislation was to be challenged which even the provinces in terms of such as the 'carbon tax' were directly concerned. As matters now stand, the West Vancouver School Trustees refuse to recognize court overview of the imposed BILL 35 (1985) which saw fit to quash the arbitration ruling the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable for failing to show a 'causal factor'; the basis of all law.
3) The case in NS was stripped right down to the constitutional question as the court was specifically asked NOT to give any evaluation to the merits of the initial teacher lay-off in 1985 nor to the question of compensation. That would be handled in other courts outside of NS..
4) The above accounts were reflected in detail by Justice Rosinski in a pre-written summation of events at the end of the trial which would show up on the transcript.
5) The key to this complaint against Justice Rosinski is that this summation was conspicuous by its absence from his judgment. From his stated judgment, one would not know on which issue my case was rejected....a traffic ticket under which his judgment would appear reasonable?
6) Rule 88 which he cited and which appears in this enclosure plus my analysis would suggest a major fraud has been perpetrated by Justice Rosinski under the heading of 'wilful negligence' and as such, no Canadian can rest until he is removed from the bench as his action is regrettably symbolic of a Justice System which has lost its way.
7) The question lies to which body the above request should be made considering failure on the part of N.S. to act earlier vis a vis Justice Hood; the failure of the Supreme Court of Canada on two occasions in 2016 to take action vis a vis QC and SK leaving the PMO to take action on the fraudulent aspects which the Judiciary would seek to cover up. P.M. Trudeau did nothing.
8) For the above reason, I have conscripted the Governor General, a titular post, to refrain from bestowing the Order of Canada until this matter is sorted out.
9) Considering the universal collapse of oversight bodies in Canada in this case, I resort to a novel interpretation of the Magnitsky Act which can charge individuals and countries for legal and moral turpitude.
10) In Canada, the above act is limited to foreign entities permitting a level of hypocrisy in this style of uncontrolled imperialism never seen before. For example, under this Act, Canada condemned a Venezuelan Chief Justice but as Venezuela is not a signatory, they cannot retaliate by, for example, condemning NS Justice Rosinski.
11) Under the above conditions, it would seem that it would take another Magnitsky Act signatory, such as the U.S., to cite Canada in this regard. Indeed, it is incumbent on President Trump to act accordingly as a means of publicly warning U.S. commercial interests against the perfidy of Canadian courts as represented by this case. Threatening useless sanctions, such as in North Korea, is not working for the U.S. so why not try the Magnitsky Act against Canada in this case. Canadians at large can only thank a U.S. President for showing such initiative. PLACARD: PRESIDENT TRUMP / 'A PAPER TIGER'
Yours truly (signed) Roger Callow
Assuming QC Justice Dominique Goulet jcw is acting properly with his interference in Gatineau Court's #550-1700-8208-157 (H.D. June 08-2015) - and the assertion to the Qc Judicial Council is that he isn't - he has asked the wrong question which should have referred to my reason for being in a Qc. Court in a case with its genesis in B.C. under the headings of natural justice and inherent jurisdiction: I would have responded accordingly:
1) natural justice: In common parlance, a judge may not pick up the 'judicial ball' and go home without first making a court finding so that a litigant(s) is not left in limbo. (Without that court finding; my compensation -including pension rights- is held up...for 30 years and counting.) The oft-quoted Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawick) is germaine here: 'What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.' That is what is happening here.
2) inherent jurisdiction: A trickier proposition as all provinces are understandably reluctant to deal with matters having their genesis elsewhere. The point here is that the 'Cullen Creed' (July 23-2013) expelled me from the B.C. Justice System for 'reasons best known to the judge' as Deputy Justice A. Cullen acted on his own recognizance; did not take legal argument; and did not quote specific laws. Without including the all-important 'may only proceed with permission of a judge, Cullen j. radically changed a basic tenet of law in this unresolved legal matter. The following excerpt from the Charter would have been my response which now appears to be slated for an Appeal Court hearing if I have second-guessed the courtroom judge, Therrien j. correctly. Unfortunately, he didn't ask any questions on June 8-2015 reflective of a pre-ordained judgment based on 'air' as the Employer appeared bent on throwing their case for unknown reasons thus prompting Goulet's j. interference providing them with a 'second kick at the can'. Running a court within a court is a judicial no-no.
CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS 1982 (excerpts)
One of the most notable effects of the adoption of the Charter was to greatly expand the scope of judicial review, because the Charter is more explicit with respect to the guarantee of rights and the role of judges in enforcing them than was the Bill of Rights. The courts, when confronted with violations of Charter rights, have struck down unconstitutional federal and provincial statutes and regulations or parts of statutes and regulations, as they did when Canadian case law was primarily concerned with resolving issues of federalism. The Charter, however, granted new powers to the courts to enforce remedies that are more creative and to exclude more evidence in trials. These powers are greater than what was typical under the common law and under a system of government that, influenced by Canada's mother country the United Kingdom, was based upon Parliamentary supremacy. As a result, the Charter has attracted both broad support from a majority of the Canadian electorate and criticisms by opponents of increased judicial power. The Charter only applies to government laws and actions (including the laws and actions of federal, provincial, and municipal governments and public school boards), and sometimes to the common law, not to private activity
Section 15: equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.
The notwithstanding clause authorizes governments to temporarily override the rights and freedoms in sections 2 and 7–15 for up to five years, subject to renewal
Interpretation and enforcement
The task of interpreting and enforcing the Charter falls to the courts, with the Supreme Court of Canada being the ultimate authority on the matter.
With the Charter's supremacy confirmed by section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the courts continued their practice of striking down unconstitutional statutes or parts of statutes as they had with earlier case law regarding federalism
In general, courts have embraced a purposive interpretation of Charter rights...
This is tied to the generous interpretation of rights, as the purpose of the Charter provisions is assumed to be to increase rights and freedoms of people in a variety of circumstances, at the expense of the government powers.
Most importantly, from a lawyer's perspective, is the fact that the principle of stare decisis does not apply to tribunals. In other words, a tribunal adjudicator could legally make a decision that differs from a past decision, on the same subject and issues, delivered by the highest court in the land. Because a tribunal is not bound by legal precedent, established by itself or by a reviewing court, a tribunal is not a court even though it performs an important adjudicative function and contributes to the development of law like a court would do.
Although stare decisis does not apply to tribunals, their adjudicators will likely nonetheless find a prior court decision on a similar subject to be highly persuasive and will likely follow the courts in order to ensure consistency in the law and to prevent the embarrassment of having their decisions overturned by the courts. The same is true for past decisions of the tribunal.
Among the federal tribunals, there is a small group of tribunals whose decisions must be appealed directly to the Federal Court of Appeal rather than to the Federal Court Trial Division. These so-called "super tribunals" are listed in Subsection 28(1) of the Federal Court Act (R.S.C. 1985, Chapter F-7) and some examples include the National Energy Board, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Competition Tribunal, the Canada Industrial Relations Board (i.e. federal labour board), the Copyright Board, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ("CRTC").
Courts of inherent jurisdiction
The superior courts from the provinces and territories are courts of inherent jurisdiction, which means that the jurisdiction of the superior courts is more than just what is conferred by statute. Following the principles of English common law, because the superior courts derive their authority from the Constitution, they can hear any matter unless there is a federal or provincial statute that says otherwise or that gives exclusive jurisdiction to some other court or tribunal. The doctrine of inherent jurisdiction gives superior courts greater freedom than statutory courts to be flexible and creative in the delivering of legal remedies and relief.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM (DEC. 14-2016) 3 pages
1) This precedent-setting case has an unusual history rooted in a B.C. labour case where senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, was laid-off under the neophyte imposed legislation of B.C.'s BILL 35 in June of 1985.
2) The subsequent arbitration favouring the School Board was quashed by the courts with the gerrymandered government arbitrator ruled as being patently unreasonable.
3) No compensation has been paid leaving this employee in a perpetual state of limbo in contradiction of the most basic tenets of the law.
4) The Employer appealed Justice Mary Southin's Order but was defeated. Regrettably she did not point out obvious fraud which would have ensured court jurisdiction.
5) The following 30 years has seen a litany of unsuccessful actions laid by this plaintiff designed to produce disclosure (or habeas corpus) for the purpose of establishing fraud. That disclosure consists of the minute notes of the School Trustees in June of 1985 where BILL 35 and the Callow matter were discussed.
6) This factum makes a different Appeal limited to the constitutional question at the heart of this dismissal which has application across Canada for employees and employers alike. For example, SK Premier Brad Wall is treated with the same contumely under imposed legislation in the carbon tax which his courts would visit on me in the SK version of this case later rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) for a hearing (36993-2016).
7) The basis for this appeal by the plaintiff employee is limited to the constitutional question in which the Employer only accepts the arbitration hearing to be valid while this plaintiff claims that whether it is under BILL 35 conditions, collective bargaining terms or some other legal scheme, compensation must be paid.
8) It is important to stress what this factum does not ask for as added material is provided only as periphery background to this issue.
a) It does not ask for the court to assign a monetary value as the outcome of this enquiry should suffice for the litigants to arrange an out of court settlement based on this courts finding on the constitutional question. Should further litigation be required, action could be taken in B.C. based on the Nova Scotia precedent.
b) It does not ask the court for a finding as to the ultra vires action of the Cullen Creed which this plaintiff claims it is but should the court choose under the rules of transference to direct this matter to B.C. courts, a direct indictment of the 'Cullen Creed' which forced this case into courts outside of B.C. is first required.
c) It does not ask the court for a finding as to fraud which permeates hearings in many other courts which, due to the failure of oversight bodies, now rests in the executive powers of the Office of the Prime Minister.
9) As the Employer and this employee are in basic agreement with the constitutional question to be asked, it is unlikely the Employer will even bother filing a case as long as the court limits the hearing to the constitutional question. The employer launched a similar constitutional challenge in Ontario (13-59060 McKinnon j. Decision April 23-2014) which was marred by a second Decision on September 15 which made no mention of the first Order. As the Respondent I was in complete agreement with the question which, regrettably, Justice McKinnon failed to address. Every oral hearing, and there have been many, has been marked by a judicial system which evades the issues presented.
10) In reviewing the plethora of material by the Employer in many court filings, conspicuous by its absence is the Judgment by Southin j and the Appeal by Taggart/Hinkson/Anderson which is included here. N.B. Nowhere is there any evidence that the Employer questioned the jurisdiction of the court not to have oversight capabilities. It would appear that fiction is a central part of the cover-up.
11) With the approval of the court, it would appear the nature of this constitutional question requires 'Referencing' by which a specialist could be called on to write the decision thus obviating the troublesome oral hearings plaguing this case, largely, it is submitted here, by interference through the office of the Chief Justice....
(signed) Roger Callow self-represented plaintiff December 14-2016
Ex Parte Motion
Motion The plaintiff, Roger Callow, in this proceeding, moves for an order
for the court to determine the constitutional question regarding 'imposed' legislation as the resolution of this 1985 B.C. senior teacher lay-off remains 'unresolved' (hence no compensation has been paid which includes pension rights) due to the Employer refusing to recognize the oversight bodies of the courts of law which quashed the arbitration ruling the arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable'. Their argument, which they launched in Ontario Superior court, was that the 'imposed' BILL 35 (1985) negated any overview (13-59060 McKinnon j. Decision April 23-2014 although there was a second 'bastardized' version on September 15-2014 which made no recognition of the first Order). The court ignored that issue although I was in complete agreement with the Respondent's request to discuss 'all issues'. This action in Nova Scotia raises the same question although this time it is the plaintiff making the claim.
Evidence in support of motion The evidence in support of the motion is as follows
The fact of an unresolved labour matter where compensation has not been paid but which BILL 35, the collective bargaining agreement, or the general terms of contract, all provide for merits court attention in this national cause. As this case is limited to the constitutional question where no money is to change hands, this question is of vital importance to the relationship of the government to the courts of law in Canada not only for employees as in this case but for employers as well i.e. SK Premier Brad Wall and the Federal government's 'imposed' carbon tax.
References The moving party relies on the following legislation, Rules, or points of law
Pertinent case law would depend on what 'Referencing' would produce as this plaintiff is prepared to bow to any decision as a means to finalize this 31 year labour case.
Reason is ex parte This motion is made without notice to any other person because
while the employer is not expected to object to the constitutional question asked, previous hearings have been characterized by a high level of fraud by both Employer legal counsel and the courts to obviate issues. Reference to oversight bodies, up to and including the executive powers of the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, receive no response.
Hearing The party making this motion will appear before the judge in chambers ...
Due to the nature of this case, an oral presentation does not suit the needs of this case. In the past, such oral meetings before a judge merely affords the court an opportunity to duck all responsibility by labeling this plaintiff as 'frivolous and vexacious'; a badly abused and over-used term in Canada's courts of law it is submitted here....
Legislation in issue The legislation asserted to be unconstitutional is BILL 35 (B.C. 1985)
The legislation may be constitutional; but it requires interpretation vis a vis government-courts of law relationship which is the sole purpose of laying this case in Nova Scotia.
(One direct challenge to the constitutionality of BILL 35 regarding the undefined term 'current demonstrated ability' in either the statute or law in general was snuffed out when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear this matter in 2016 (36993 SK)....
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
Reason for assertion The grounds for asserting the legislation is unconstitutional are as follows:
To place it in the vernacular of the Union's legal representative: 'BILL 35 was the Roger Callow Act'. In brief, the B.C. Legislature was hi-jacked and the judiciary co-opted to sanction a 'sweetheart deal' between Employer and Union in order to fire a whistle blower (I presented the Ministry of Education in Victoria, B.C. in 1985 with evidence of fraud on the behalf of an administrator responsible for my professional Report.)....
INDEX (Dec. 14-2016)
A) Notice of Action (filed apart) 01 - 03
B) Notice of Claim (filed apart) 04 - 07
C) ex Parte Motion 08 - 09
D) Constitutional Question 10 - 11
E) Letter to the Defendant Employer from the Plaintiff
November 10-2016 12 - 13
F) 2004 Preamble to the Supreme Court of Canada under
'inherent jurisdiction' 14
D) Newspaper clippings September 1986 15 - 16
E) Southin Order A860607 January 21, 1987 17 - 19
F) Court of Appeal (3 judges) January 21,1988 20 - 24
G) GAMING THE SYSTEM December-2016 25 - 27
H) 'CULLEN CREED' plus Reply which expelled the plaintiff from B.C. 28 - 29
courts in July of 2013
I) CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS excerpts August 04-2015 30 - 32
J) BILL 35 - SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985 33 - 36
Any of above are available on request - R.C.
SCofC Conspiracy (January 2017)
JANUARY 2017 The following two excerpts from 2013 & 2004 (both refused for a hearing in the SCofC) details the perfidy of the Justice System. Events from that time have merely followed their logical corrupt judicial course culminating in the two 2016 hearing rejections (QC 36883 & SK 36993). The same panel of 3 judges heard both at different times much to my vociferous dismay. One of them, Suzanne Coté is rumoured to be the successor to Chief Justice MacLachlin
( N.B. 2018 Richard Wagner, a second member of that committee, became Chief Justice of the SCofC R.C.)
52) Simply put, how can the justice system of Canada in all good conscience deny me access to the court to resolve an unresolved legal matter which even the court has declared should have been re-arbitrated. The fact that the original arbitrator passed away under a law which would not see the appointment of any other arbitrator calls into play the courts role of inherent jurisdiction in order to finalize this case. Failure to do so up to and including one appeal already to the Supreme Court of Canada is a denial of the letter and spirit of the law in Canada.
SEE 2017 sub-heading SCofC Conspiracy for full account