TO: A.G. c/o Premier Ford FROM: Roger Callow
Personal & Confidential 1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001
Legislative Building Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7
Queen's Park Fax: 613-521-1739
Toronto, ON M7A 1A1 web: employeescasecanada.ca
A MORAL FABLE: A ship was heading directly into a blinding light so the captain ordered the helmsman to signal the oncoming ship to turn 20 degrees West. The response came back: No, you turn 20 degrees East. A second signal was sent out by the testy captain: I am an ADMIRAL, and I demand that you turn 20 degrees West, SIR! To which the response was: And I am a seaman Third Class and I order you to turn 20 degrees East. By now a totally chagrined Admiral flashed back: I am a battleship, and I ORDER you to turn 20 degrees West, NOW !!! The final response came back: And I am a lighthouse...your choice....
Well, I am here to tell you that the good Judicial Ship the SS Canadian Titanic ended up on the rocks explaining my protest cap (SEE web for photo) SS TITANIC (OUR COURTS)
To whom it may concern (namely, 35 million Canadians)
1) The entire point of a Justice System is to create finality. No judge, for example, may pick up the judicial football and go home before a resolution is reached. Else why have courts of law and judges? But that is exactly what happened in the employeescasecanada.ca.
2) Pundits prattle on about the rule of law not fully appreciating that, in Canada's case, that consists of an amalgam of the 'protection of private property' (which included women) in 1867 at the birthing of our nation and the more modern 'protection of individual rights' consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights of 1982 and U.N. goals. In short it is a mish mash.
3) Under these circumstances, hard working judges (approximately 90%) operate under difficult circumstances and are to be lauded for their efforts. The other 10% are assigned to such political cases as the Employee's Case by the respective Chief Justices. Regrettably, these judges make questionable Decisions which set precedents by which good judges are bound.
4) In 1985, this senior teacher was 'laid-off' for economic reasons (read that whistle blowing) in a matter which remains unresolved 33 years later. No compensation has been paid. Details of the perfidy of the Employer, the West Vancouver School Trustees, whom never took the stand to testify to lay-off numbers (in essence, perjure themselves) may be found on the web.
5) In Labour law, a client employee is represented by the Union raising the question as to what such a client is to do when faced with a 'sweetheart deal' which to some extent pervades all dismissals. It certainly did here.
6) The WV Teachers Association under the influence of two previous Presidents whom were long term colleagues of Principal John Williams, also a Union member (administrators separated from the Union in 1988), refused to permit any hearing; a decision revoked by the parent body, the B.C. Teachers Federation with an arbitration going ahead without the Union lawyer calling the Trustees to the stand to testify to lay-off figures which showed an increase rather than a decrease in staffing.
7) The above happened because the Employer was in a panic and had Stuart Clyne esq. hobble together a case at the last minute full of holes in which he was caught out in arbitration although the Employer won.
8) When the Union failed to appeal, I changed lawyers for the purpose with B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Southin r.2004 quashing the arbitration ruling the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable for failing to show a causal factor. Meeting notes from June of 1985 from both the Union and School Board were requested by her and then later returned as she stated that she did not use them. This is the disclosure refused to me by over 50 judges including 4 trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. In short, the judges are accused of running a 'court within a court' which no justice system can survive. Credibility which the Justice system depends on as its raison d'étre, has been stretched beyond its limits in this case.
9) The Employer's position is that court overview does not apply to imposed legislation; a point of view that they have consistently maintained in all courts although ignored on that point by all judges. Understandably, under these circumstances they refuse to pay any compensation without a court Order to that effect. Thus it is the Justice System which is out of step with the legal code of Canada; not the two opposing litigants. The constitutional question raised but ignored by the court in 2017 in Nova Scotia was on this point regarding oversight powers. A similar constitutional question in Ontario is now being raised amid court obfuscation (under the Wynne government and its A.G. Yasir Naqvi whom was defeated in the June 7 election. He was labeled the worst A.G. ever by one columnist). Hence the new Ford government is now being appealed to. In brief, if there is to be any justice in this case, it will have to come from the governments involved. Ford's new A.G. has 10 days to commit on this level. Re-elected Ottawa Liberal John Fraser in my riding (3 out of the 7 elected Liberals are in the Ottawa area in a wipe-out for the Liberal Party on June 7) also has the same 10 days to publicize this issue... or 'forever keep his peace'.
10) The Ford gov't. has a vested interest in the constitutional question that I raise currently in ON courts considering Ford's bid to defeat the imposed carbon tax as my interpretation applies to all imposed legislation.
11) That's why I have implored - unsuccessfully to date - the teachers of Canada to create this national web site: PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS AGAINST IMPOSED LEGISLATION.
12) President Trump is a prime example of imposed legislation going amok in the U.S. Consider this fictional account from my web site: 'It`s illegal!' spits out Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland as she ducks out of an interview. To which President Trump could declare; 'It's legality is all in the eyes of the beholder, my dear Chrystia. At best, your comment may be legally allotted the term 'not proven in law'. Further, my dear pot calling the kettle black, explain how 'outlaw' is not able to get that court adjudication for 33 years on that selfsame point of law in Canada? Oh, and if you wish to nitpick; the point in law relates to oversight powers as they relate to imposed legislation. So, my dear lady, put that in your pipe or wherever and smoke it!' Affectionately yours, Donald
13) To be sure no court likes to see me coming. However, the statute of limitations cannot apply to a 33 year unresolved case. Further there are no time limits for fraud in a second action for $20 million dollars which I laid when I did not hear from the courts (at the time Naqvi was A.G.). It is a MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs).
14) In recent years, the Registries have become particularly obstructionist as a device to offset the laying of actions. My point is that Registry clerks are not judges and that is why I call on Ford's new A.G. to provide the necessary assistance to obtain a file number so that a judge, and not a Registry clerk, gives the judgment.
15) This case has been challenged in 8 out of 10 provinces. Jurisdiction is a key figure for this case which has its genesis in B.C. until the 'Cullen Creed' expelled this litigant in 2013 for 'reasons best known to a judge' a highly ultra vires action which no court will touch but have to if they wish to Reference (a legal term) the matter back to B.C. Doing nothing is not an option. Unfortunately for Canada, the many judges assigned to this case, have compromised themselves so that they now form part of the fraud charges. The RCMP, in terms of the last two commissioners, will not intervene in what they consider a civil matter but will have to if fraud is shown which I submit the disclosure of the Employer-Union 1985 June memo notes returned by Justice Southin in 1986 (because she did not use them) would reveal. Everything in ON currently depends on the Ford gov't. with Liberal John Fraser's poster stand to STOP DOUG FORD / VOTE JOHN FRASER as a counter-measure. NDP's Joel Harden whom defeated Naqvi is also being given the same 10 day window.
16) In April, I filed an ex parte (no defendant) application limited to the constitutional question regarding court oversight as applicable to all circumstances - both individual as in the Employee's Case where the Employer refuses to recognize court oversight with imposed legislation and corporate as in the Carbon Tax which the Trudeau government imposed on the provinces. I did not ask for a resolution on the Employee's Case as that would take place in other provinces. It is a confusing state of affairs for any Registry clerk trying to fit this square peg into a round hole.
17) As I did not hear back from the Registry, I laid the MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs) in May in terms of a Fraud Charge for $20 million dollars against the Employer. My bank records showed that the Ottawa Court had deducted a fee on April 13 without assigning a file number, a first but one consistent with the incompetent 'Naqvi' gov't. (He lost his seat on June 7).
18) On June 8, 'Natashia' (Registry clerks only give first names, no doubt as a means of avoiding being included in legal actions. Hopefully, Premier Ford will stop that practice.) Her confusion as to the forms is understandable and one I have encountered many times. What is not so understandable is that Natashia, assigned both cases, has not sought assistance which is why I insisted on a written reply from her or someone else in the court structure. (It is too easy to ascribe motivation in telephone conversations which is why I discourage them.) I will include the Ottawa Courts response when I receive it as an ADDENDUM to this account. This is where the new Premier Ford A.G. may make a contribution in assisting this process (which never happened under Naqvi.) Re-elected Liberal, John Fraser, from my riding is also taxed with publicizing his response. While Premier Ford does not take Office until June 29, nonetheless, I have set a deadline in both cases for a written response within 10 days...or 'forever hold your peace'. (Joel Harden MPP for the NDP also has this window.)
19) A key component in the fraud charge is that it contains early judicial irregularities peculiar to Ontario (Colin McKinnon j. 'multi-Decisions' in 2014) although McKinnon's j. highly irregular actions played out in courts in Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia. The new Trudeau Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Richard Wagner, is complicit in the SK and QC cover-up. Oversight bodies are defunct in this matter as none even acknowledge these very serious transgressions. And without efficacious oversight, there is no democracy. In the case of the Employee's Case, that amounts to the demise of the role of the individual in Canada's Society. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) no longer has any meaning under these conditions.
20) Could this writer be accused of duplicity in the laying of the fraud charge in Ontario courts? Perhaps so considering my goal is to first obtain the 'missing memo notes' from the meetings held in June of 1985 by the Employer and local Union; a disclosure ignored by over 50 judges and the RCMP. Without that disclosure, the case cannot proceed. With that all important disclosure, I submit the reluctant RCMP would have no choice but to lay criminal charges. Of course that latter action would break the media boycott on this national story imperiling, as it does, the sanctity of 35 million Canadians. It really is a case of applying the Magnitsky Act (legal and moral turpitude) but that would have to be done externally as Canada has written out any internal application of this Act.
21) As a signatory, I called on President Trump to enact this Act against the Nova Scotia judge concerned in this matter in 2017. His reaction instead appears to be one of imitating Canada by imposing legislation and making up justifications similar to the West Vancouver School Trustees in the Employee's Case.
cc John Fraser MPP (LIBERAL) / Joel Harden MPP (NDP)
President Trump c/o US Embassy (Ottawa)