Questions and comments about the Council can be sent by e-mail at email@example.com or by mail to: Canadian Judicial Council
ATTN: Replacement for President and former SCofC Chief Justice B . McLachlin Ottawa,ON K1A 0W8
tel. (613) 288-1566; fax (613) 288-1575 FROM: Roger Callow t/f: 613-521-1739 Ottawa K1V 9A7
4 pages sent by fax
REFERENCE: 32 year unresolved senior teacher lay-off for declining enrolment in 1985 (West Vancouver, B.C.) under the imposed BILL 35 where no compensation has been paid (now includes 10 years of pension as the WV School Trustees did not accept my retirement at age 65.) The case culminated in the failed attempt in Nova Scotia (#469918 Nov. 28-2017) on the constitutional question as to whether or not the courts have oversight powers over imposed legislation. The Employer had responded in the negative, while 50 plus judges in 15 different courts are 'just not saying' preferring to claim that this litigant is being frivolous and vexatious in even raising the claim. In brief, compensation is owed former West Vancouver senior teacher, Roger Callow, whether it be under BILL 35 (the only instrument the Employer recognizes; the collective bargaining rules (the only thing the courts will recognize since 1995 giving, in that process, all power to the Union, or some other scheme under the law relating to labour compensation.)
SCHRODINGER`S CAT: What does this metaphor have to do with the Employee`s Case? First the background to the Cat story. The scenario is a thought experiment sometimes described as a paradox in which a cat is projected into being simultaneously both alive and dead. A cat, a flask of poison, a radioactive source, are placed in a sealed box. If a Geiger counter detects radioactivity, the flask is shattered, releasing the poison which kills the cat. After a while the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet when one looks in the box, the cat is either alive or dead not both alive and dead. This poses the question where superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or the other.
Analogy: The box is jealously guarded by the Chief Justices to ensure that there is no breach in the paradox which is our Justice System based, as it is, on precedent law exemplified by the judicial record. Two means exist to reinforce that protection. The first is that the Justice System including oversight bodies is to have the last word on any legal challenge. Secondly, all judges must provide a conclusive judgment. In short, they may not pick up the judicial ball - as it were - and go home without the trial being brought to a conclusion. For anyone seeking to upset this judicial applecart exposing the hypocrisy therein threatens anarchy and is to be pursued at all costs, the ethical basis of the judicial system be damned. The admonishment to justices in this regard is epitomized by this oft quoted phrase: "What must be avoided at all costs, is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law." Justice Estey St. Anne-Nackawic . That claim is now seen as an empty vessel due to the implosion of the Justice System as one consequence of the Employee's Case. Schrodinger's Cat indeed.
The Employee's Case (Canada) This unresolved 32 year labour matter where no compensation has been paid, has opened this legal Pandora's box in a fashion never before contemplated in case law. The Employer only recognizes the imposed BILL 35 and not the Courts of law which quashed the arbitration while the courts since 1995 (Spencer Decision) recognizes only the power of the Union under the collective bargaining rules to resolve the matter. As no resolution was forthcoming, I laid a case in 2010 which, in effect, requested that I be returned to salary (deferred earnings) which was mine all along while the 3 forces - the court, the Employer and the Union - duke it out as to how this matter would be resolved. Panic set in as reflected by the MacKenzie Creed in 2010 on which this Associate Chief Justice, on her own recognizance, without taking legal action, or quoting specific laws, ruled me out of court. I could only proceed with the 'permission of a judge' which was no problem in any event as I customarily included that permission. In 2013, a similar injunction was passed by Associate Chief Justice Cullen, this time without 'any permission of a judge' to proceed. Clearly, the two judges did not want me to proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada for a third time.
2013 onwards With an unresolved case and apparently nowhere to go, I proceeded into other provinces seeking redress; a total of 8 out of the 10 Canadian provinces. The general pattern of case law is to follow the pattern of provincial lower court, appeal court and finally, the Supreme Court of Canada. My pattern enabled me to 'uber' the system by playing one court against another in a fashion never before countenanced in law. For example, if one woman were to accuse Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment, it would be a 'he said, she said' court event. But when over a hundred made the same accusations, the public became judge, jury and executioner quite apart from the courts of law. In the Employee's Case, there is a set body of evidence i.e. teacher lay-off numbers which showed an actual increase in teachers (explaining why no Board trustee was willing to take the stand and commit perjury.) Currently I am suing in B.C. under the new government for (civil) fraud. Briefly, in terms of the analogy,, I was able to 'open the cat box' only to discover the Judicial Cat to be dead. The actions outside of B.C. culminated in Nova Scotia on Nov. 29-2017 (#469918) where the entire perfidy of the court was exposed. I have called for the Magnitsky Act (legal and moral turpitude) to be invoked against NS Supreme Court Justice Rosinski for his 'willful negligence' by another signatory to that document, U.S. President Trump (Canada only permits the application of this act to foreign countries). In the hearing, Rosinski read a pre-written account into the transcript detailing my challenge which mysteriously disappeared from the judgment (simultaneously both dead and alive). Reading the final judgment ruling me frivolous and vexatious (for what?...challenging a traffic ticket?) for unstated reasons has exposed the entire judicial system of Canada to ridicule. The constitutional question of a court's oversight powers over imposed legislation is the single most important legal question in any judicial system - democratic or otherwise. No doubt Rosinski j. was merely 'following orders'; the Nazis made that phrase famous.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverly McLachlin, retires today after a long spell as Chief Justice as my Placard shown for a number of years did not have the desired effect leaving her to fight for her pension rights: PLACARD: IMPEACH SCofC CHIEF JUSTICE B. MCLACHLIN. While she sat on the first SCofC challenge in the 1990's with then SCofC Chief Justice Antonio Lamers (d); the question on the 'universality of Unions' was not heard creating another Schrodinger's box. It was the second decision not heard by the SCofC on the 'ultimate remedy' question when she was Chief Justice which really put the cat among the pigeons - if you like mixed analogies - as there must be an exchange of money with any dismissal (except perhaps with cause) including teacher lay-off. Canada reverted to Third World status. My lawyer gave this stupendous opinion to me: You have exhausted all remedy under the law. In short, Schrodinger's Cat was seen to be dead. She was also the Chief Justice in 2016 under two more SCofC challenges from Quebec (limited to disclosure and therefore habeas corpus; the foundation of our legal system) and Saskatchewan amid much legal chicanery as well, as reported to the oversight bodies which never acknowledge the many reports of judicial malfeasance which I have made over the years. Both the SK and QC cases were heard by the same panel of 3 judges including Robert Wagner j. much to my strong recriminations. Prime Minister Trudeau has seen fit to appoint Quebec based Robert Wagner to be the new Chief Justice. I submit here that if Trudeau had exerted his executive powers in dealing with legal oversight problems in this case, Wagner j. would not be appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Canadian Council of Judges oversees complaints against judges originally appointed by the Federal Court; a 'back door' entry to the more lucrative Provincial Court System. It has a poor reputation as evidenced by the public rejection of Justice Nadon in 2015 as a candidate for the Supreme Court of Canada. Hence the 'Bobbsey Twins' of Colin McKinnon and Robert Scott (both originally Federal Court appointees) were reported for a judicial stunt in 2014 which found its way into the 'Book of Authorities' of the Employer and was played out in Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and more recently, Nova Scotia. No Legal Society or judge was prepared to conduct an examination of the following judicial malfeasance as follows: In April of 2014, Hicks, Morley et al for the Employer in Ontario laid an action to claim that BILL 35 was a stand-alone document depriving myself as the defendant of any court recourse. As the Defendant, I agreed with this question which was similar to the constitutional question I recently raised in Nova Scotia. McKinnon made no mention of this issue in his judgment preferring to dispose of the case by labeling this defendant as being frivolous and vexatious. In October, I laid a case before Justice Scott detailing my objections to McKinnon's April Decision to which Hicks, Morley et al did not file an appearance. On the morning of the trial, I asked the H.M. lawyer at the door to the court as to whether or not Justice Scott was aware of his unannounced presence. He wrinkled up his nose before running into the court amid my most profuse objections to hand what turned out to be a second McKinnon judgment (which did not reference the first) from the week before to the eagerly outstretched hands of Justice Scott whom claimed that was the only document that he would consider. The aim was to eliminate my carefully prepared factum based on the first decision. (This kind of duplicity was also found with the Principal of West Vancouver Secondary School, John Williams, whom compromised himself by changing his Professional Report on Teacher from a positive to a negative. I caught him and reported the matter to the Education Minister and, as the Union lawyer asserted; BILL 35 was passed to kill a whistleblower.) Scott j. 'reserved' his decision so that the Appeal Court refused to deal with the matter without a final judgment. So try working that one into your Schrodinger's pipe and smoke it (more mixed analogies).
My central complaint against SCofC Chief Justice, B. McLachlin was not in her role as Chief Justice although it was highly suspect, but as the President of the Canadian Council of Judges. Now that she has departed, and in the absence of P.M. Trudeau acting on the fraud applications of this case, a copy of all materials now go to the Governor General, Julie Payette. While I have no evidence, I am suspicious that the national conspiracy has been abetted by the husband of B. McLachlin, President of the Supreme Court Chief Justices, Frank McArdle, an influential figure in the Alberta mining sector as well.
New SCofC Chief Justice Richard Wagner actions are now the scope of my complaint to the Canadian Council of Judges hopefully under an independent new President.
For the Canadian Judicial Council of Judges to re-examine their decision to avoid dealing with the judicial fraud outlined above considering the abject failure of P.M. Trudeau to take executive action.
Yours truly, (signed) Roger Callow
N.B. GOOGLE has hacked my web site. The web site employeescasecanada.ca may be accessed by going directly to the title bar and typing in this address and opening the site from the list below.
cc B.C. Premier John Horgan
U.S. President D. Trump
Governor General J. Payette
POST IN STAFFROOM