JUMP TO HOME PAGE

 

December 20-2017

 

TO: Premier Kathleen Wynne     FROM: Roger Callow-self represented litigant

Personal                                                         #2001 - 1285 Cahill Drive

Legislative Building                                      Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

Queen's Park                                                

Toronto, ON M7A 1A1

 

12  pages sent by mail

 

"Roger Callow is a litigant possessed of seemingly inexhaustible stamina. His behaviour suggests that he views the Canadian Court System as something akin to 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 jurisdiction to deal with his case. As a result, Mr. Callow's litigation must be stopped. Now."

 

1)  Ottawa, Ontario Superior Court Justice Colin McKinnon  April 23-2014 (13-59060).  The Ottawa Citizen ran this bravado caption as a page one story on April 29-2014. They would not take any 'right of rebuttal' from this defendant.

 

2)  If I had the opportunity of a rebuttal heard by an anti-employee Ottawa Citizen under editor Andrew Potter (currently at McGill University in Montreal where he has his own publicized problems in Quebec as a professor), the first thing that I would note is that this was an action laid by the Employer represented by Hicks, Morley et al whom requested that all litigation by me be declared null and void as the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985) governed all relationships between this senior teacher lay-off victim with the courts of law having no role.

 

3) Conspicuous by its absence from McKinnon's Decision is any recognition that the Employer was the Plaintiff nor of their argument. In brief, he inverted the case.

 

4) The perfidy of that action by Justice McKinnon was compounded when, un-noticed by this litigant until the morning of the trial of 61592-14 before a Justice Scott which I had laid in order to question the above culpability of McKinnon; a second copy of McKinnon's judgment written the week before the October Hearing, which did not reference the first, was presented in court by Hicks,Morley et al whom had not filed for an appearance. I remonstrated strongly with Justice Scott at this apparent fraud as he would only consider the second judgment. He withheld judgment so the Appeal Court would not take my case.

 

5) Because both McKinnon j. and Scott j. were originally Federal Court appointees, the oversight body concerned was the Canadian Council of Judges (CCof J)under the aegis of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC), B. McLachlin whom retired recently on December 15-2017. There was no reply. I have re-opened my request to the CCofJ under presumably their new President as McKinnon's above declaration pre-dominates in all courts in QC, (SCofC 36883-2016) SK (SCofC 36993-2016) NS (548698 Hood j. where special attention was to be paid to the bogus 'Book of Authorities' by the Employer focused on the ON McKinnon Decision; the first version being published in QC with the second version being published in SK & in NS under 469918 Rosinski j. Nov. 28-2017 based solely on the constitutional question on an ex parte basis). The story is encapsulated on employeescasecanada.ca - 2018 Schrodinger's Cat also included here as an addendum.

 

6)In bottom line language this fraud was never investigated by any court of law leaving the matter to be adjudicated with the executive powers of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He did nothing.

 

7) While Ontario had no jurisdiction over McKinnon j and Scott j; that prohibition does not include Hicks, Morley et al for the Employer whom dropped out of this case with my complaint to the ON legal society. There was no response. Four pages here dated September 16-2014 and September  22-2014 to Hicks, Morley et al show how prescient those accounts are considering the production of the surprise second McKinnon judgment in court which did not reference the first.

 

8) Now that there is a new government in British Columbia and where the Vancouver Supreme Court Registry no longer rejects my litigation, it is imperative that I clean up the mess regarding the McKinnon-Scott caper involving, as it does, Hicks, Morley et al which lies under your jurisdiction. (Please do not assign Yasir Naqvi to investigate as he is useless). Rectifying the above caper is all-important in laying charges in British Columbia.

 

9) The question came up with the recent GOOGLE hacking of my website where McKinnon's bravado message noted above was given prominence with my website employeescasecanada.ca merely producing a blank page. The matter has been rectified although I check regularly for further hacking attempts.

 

10) I am not sending a copy of these current proceedings to Hicks, Morley et al but you have my permission to share these materials with them if it will advance a solution.

 

11) Until the above matter is rectified, no-one should vote in the next ON election in 2018.

 

Yours truly,

 

 

(Roger Callow)

 

encl.