TO: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau FROM: Roger Callow 'The Outlawed Canadian
THE 'ERROR OF OMISSION' vs THE 'ERROR OF COMMISSION'
BY: Roger Callow employeescasecanada.ca
A)'...The question is not whether a justice would uphold and defend the Constitution but whether he would rig the game to benefit one American over another.' U.S. columnist
my comment: Someone should tell that to the bozos whom run the Canadian Justice System.
B) '...that now has the country's judiciary providing legitimacy to them, allowing them to run the country as their private fiefdom....' description of Canada? Nope. ...Pakistan
1) The course of this 33 year unresolved labour case with its genesis in B.C. where no compensation has been paid (now including pension rights) contrary to any number of laws is the consequence of over 50 judges (including 4 inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada -SCofC) 'picking up the ball and going home before the court challenges have been played out'. It is an act of malfeasance on a level never before witnessed in any democratic country. The sad part? 8 out of the 10 provinces of Canada have committed in one fashion or another to a fraud reflective of a Justice System in a state of collapse. The canary in democratic Canada's coal mine has stopped singing.
2) That was then; this is now in Ontario in 2018 where two actions have been lodged with only one of the two assigned a file number.
a) An ex parte constitutional question (c.s.) regarding court oversight powers of imposed Legislation. The Employer, the West Vancouver School Trustees, refuses to recognize any powers beyond the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985) such as the court findings that the original arbitration dealing with the senior teacher lay-off of Roger Callow for economic reasons was badly flawed. There was no causal factor. The court quashed the arbitration and ruled the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. The structure of the c.s. is such that it applies to all court oversight of imposed legislation such as the carbon tax that some Premiers are planning to fight in court as well as for the protection of individual rights. Assigning this file number is being delayed due to court procrastination (my fee banked on April 13-2018).
b) A charge of fraud (CV18000 769 0000) against the Employer assigned the foregoing 'unusual' file number by the discredited ON A.G. Yasir Naqvi in the dying days of his government. He was described by two columnists as the worst A.G. Ontario has ever had. I concur although it is noted that the Ford government with A.G. Carolyn Mulroney is letting this file slip amid the silence of Liberal leader John Fraser and NDP's Joel Harden who defeated Naqvi.
3) The 50 previous judges were dealing with this matter as a labour issue. That is not the case in the present application in Ontario. The 'Error of Omission' has been displaced by the 'Error of Commission'; namely, fraud charges.
4) The civil fraud action is for $20 million with a one hour hearing slated for late September depending when I get the Employer's Defense. Because of the complicity of B.C.'s Harris & Co. in actions in B.C., SK, ON (Hicks,Morley et al), QC (Lavery de Billy), NS, I have warned the Employer that use of this legal outfit will produce a request from me to the ON A.G. to lay a criminal fraud charge against Harris & Co. A.G. Mulroney and Premier Ford have been made eminently aware of that situation. (SEE web: JULY 12-2018)
5) A charge against the Union in this 'sweetheart deal' is pending in PEI where the Premier also holds the post of Justice Minister. The Union purloined my copy of the sought after disclosure which is the basis of the fraud charge for both civil and criminal matters.
6) There are two aspects to the fraud charge: a) a case against the original conspirators in the 1980's in B.C. b) a case against miscreant judges dating from 2013 when a Deputy Justice, on his own volition, without quoting any laws or taking argument; expelled this party from B.C. courts (CULLEN CREED July 2013). All subsequent courts avoided the use of 'referencing' whereby they could direct the B.C. court to take responsibility for this case.
7) The legal challenge is epitomized by four inconsequential trips to the SCofC.
a) In 1997, under the question of 'universality of Unions' i.e. can a litigant represent himself presumably at his own cost apart from the Union? This is a major question for one facing a 'sweetheart deal' as was I. While the Union paid for the Arbitration and following court cases; it would appear to have been done gratuitously under BILL 35 according to the Employer which does not recognize Court oversight. Sitting on that court was Chief Justice A. Lamers (d)/ Beverley McLachlin (his successor whom recently retired) / Cory
b) In 2004, my Ottawa legal representative, Paul Conlin, blasted the B.C. Labour Board for failing to hear a SECTION 12 hearing on this matter when, in 1995, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Spencer declared (for a first time) that this was a collective bargaining matter thus greatly restricting my court access. The Union was not present at this 1995 hearing which I had called. The Labour Board appeared to succumb to Employer threats to their authority to hold any hearing. SEE web site: 'Hanging Letter'. Conlin esq. labeled that Board to be patently unreasonable and followed that condemnation in 2004 castigating the SCofC for failing to act under the terms of ultimate remedy. There must be compensation under the law, he argued. The court cannot just do nothing . However, it did and he departed the case with this amazing condemnation for this unresolved case: You have exhausted all remedy under the law.
c) In 2016, there were two SCofC challenges, one for QC and the other for SK. The same panel sat on both rejected Appeals much to my vociferous objections which explained my complaint to the hapless Minister of Justice Jody Wilson Ray-Bould whom is a 'Naqvi-clone' on this file explaining why everything at the federal level now goes directly to P.M. Trudeau. There was no response. One of those on this despicable panel was the incumbent Chief Justice, Richard Wagner. Under the current fraud applications, it is submitted here that he should be suspended until the matter of fraud in this case is settled. That is now a Trudeau responsibility.
8) A.G. Mulroney has also been charged with suspending Ottawa Superior Court Justice, Colin McKinnon (13-59060) for producing 3 separate Decisions based on a March hearing called by the Employer (Hicks,Morley et al) in which none reference the existence of the other. Due to the failure of the oversight bodies, that fraud has been perpetuated in 4 of the 8 provinces involved with this case. The Employer argument that they had no obligation to pay compensation under BILL 35 provisions was ignored by McKinnon, ruling instead that, as the defendant, I was being frivolous and vexatious. The Ottawa Citizen carried his bravado comments on Page 1 on March 29 -2014 while refusing me the right of rebuttal; something I have never been able to obtain in 33 years of this case with the anti-employee media.
9) The charge of fraud over-rides all other judicial considerations including time limits. In brief, I have moved from 'acts of omission' to 'acts of commission' as they affect both the Employer and the Courts of law.
10) The significance of the one hour hearing in September in Ottawa is to obtain disclosure which the courts have denied me for 33 years. I know what happened in those June meetings of the School Board in a conspiracy without equal. But knowing is not the same as providing the court with documented evidence whether the charge of fraud is a civil and/or criminal one. Those minute notes called by Justice Southin in 1986 but later returned 'because she did not use them' in all likelihood was a protection for School Board Counsel, Stuart Clyne QC whom, it is submitted here, should have been disbarred. The ensuing '50 judges' in other words, are part of a cover-up which has doomed the Justice System of Canada no matter what the outcome. Cover-up is invariably worse than the original crime.
11) The RCMP under new Commissioner, Brenda Lucki, is continuing - Montreal Fraud Section -with the same blind approach as her predecessors. Either A.G. Mulroney or the Federal Minister of Justice can order these disclosure documents as it appears from other cases that when their political masters say 'jump', the RCMP ask 'how high'?
12) Should the Ford government continue on the path of their predecessor on this issue even though the charge is significantly raised, then I will look elsewhere noting that ON inhabitants will have nowhere to look for an efficacious legal system. Placards in the streets such as mine for 14 years in downtown Ottawa will become common: STAY OUT OF A CANADIAN COURTROOM UNLESS YOU FIRST BUY THE JUDGE
13) Federally, the same set of conditions vis a vis the alleged fraud of McKinnon j. apply to the use of his actions in SK, QC and NS. Hence the Prime Minister should enact similar action to ON for judicial excesses; in this case, the suspension of new SCofC Chief Justice, Richard Wagner until this matter is sorted out.
14) When Premier Moe succeeded Premier Wall, I re-activated my complaint process to the SK Legal Society which earlier ducked out claiming complaints against Harris & Co. should be re-directed to the B.C. Legal Society (another discredited over-sight body as seen earlier with the B.C. phase of this case) where they are domiciled. When they did not address the issue of the 'McKinnon' problem; I requested that the SK body re-open the case after the appointment of Premier Moe. There was no reply.
15) 'Sureties' are to be posted when it is believed that a litigant cannot meet his legal expenses. It is explicitly stated that these bonds are NOT to be used to gain unfair advantage but that is exactly what the SK Appeal Court did in forcing me to post an $8,000 surety which I did but still did not get justice. At that Appeal Hearing before 3 judges, the Chief Justice
informed me that Harris & Co. would not be heard (as per a prior arrangement unknown to me). She refused the other two justices the right to comment on other matters of law which I raised. It was that kind of trial. In brief, the Defendant was permitted to duck answering any question as to the validity of the McKinnon problem. Surety money was disbursed by the court without any invoice or notice contrary to fair legal practice.
16) Premier Moe would appear to have a vested interest in the c.s. considering his objection to the imposed carbon tax.
17) The case in QC was limited to disclosure.
18) The lower court Justice in QC must have revolted as they called in a Chief Justice to run, in effect, a court within a court'. He wrote a judgment without reference to the earlier hearing. Technically, I am still waiting for that lower court Decision. The Appeal handled by QC's Lavery de Billy defies description. The oversight bodies of the disreputable Couillard government were hopeless but it all got sanctioned by SCofC Richard Wagner.
19) Similar to SK, with a new government which is expected in QC, I will renew my challenges in a province where the citizens are not known to sit idle.
20) A detailed case was made before the Nova Scotia Barrister's Society vis a vis the McKinnon problem. They ducked out (so did QC on this level stating that the court would decide. It never did).
21) The first case was mangled - I can' t think of a better word - by a judge which got herself tied up in contradictions and while there was no surety called for, she demanded that I pay the Defendant's court costs for reasons best known to herself, which I didn't.
22) The second c.s. case heard in November 2017 was seriously botched and considering the seriousness of the situation, I called on President Trump to invoke the Magnitsky Act (legal and moral turpitude) as the U.S. is a signatory. (This Act may not be applied internally in Canada.) The resultant Court Decision could not be distinguished between a question of constitutionality and, for example, a traffic offense as no mention was made of the existence of the c.s. in the judgment. My ON legal representative was unable to obtain a record of what was actually placed on file, another not uncommon indiscretion which I have uncovered in our legal system; particularly with the McKinnon problem (What you see is not necessarily what gets filed).
23) The courts continually assign all costs to me, no doubt as a means to drive me out of court. Without invoices from B.C. SK, ON, QC, NS, understandably, I have paid nothing. So whom has been paying? My repeated letters to the Employer on that question go without a response (they never respond to anything). I set the editor of that disreputable anti-employee rag, The North Shore News to conduct an investigation on who's paying? No response.
24) While the entire case up and to the laying of the fraud case is based on the 'letter of the law' as filtered through the 'spirit of the law' i.e. Estey j. What must be avoided at all costs, is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law. That story is now over. We are dealing with fraud which has entirely different parameters.
25) The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, has compromised his principals in a significant way by ignoring the first phase of this case seeking settlement. Will he continue to undermine his position further as Prime Minister under the current charges of fraud in this second phase?
26) Perhaps it will take the reality of an intervention by an external force for Canadians to realize that passivity is a crime; certainly so in the Employee's Case.
Yours truly, (Roger Callow)
The Outlawed Canadian in outlaw Government and Justice Systems due to systemic malfeasance.
cc Ford Government / A.G. Mulroney
U.S. Embassy (Canada)