JUNE 01-2019 GOVERNOR GENERAL J. PAYETTE:
Julie Payette-Governor General of Canada (no honorifics assigned in this letter) PERSONAL
FROM: Roger Callow (Ottawa) 'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance in an unresolved labour issue under the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985). No compensation has been paid which flies in the face of all employment contracts.
REFERENCE: employeescasecanada.ca This article will appear under JUNE-2019 GG Payette
THEME: The sacrosanct judicial divide between civil and criminal law and how judges will sacrifice their credibility in order to maintain that division in the Employee's Case. In the words of the former A.G. Jody Wilson Raybould regarding the investigation of the holding of the SNC Lavalin case... 'It is not criminal'. In the vernacular, it is similar to those diseases which leap the animal-human genome.
Sun, 26 May, 12:44 (3 days ago)
am a litigant subject to the vexatious litigant judgment in Ontario. I will be
making an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme
I can see from Canlii that Justice Thomas made an order against you on the inherent jurisdiction of the court Callow v West Vancouver
Teacher’s Association (Local School District Number 45), 2019 ABQB 353(CanLII)
Justice Thomas copied this directly form (sic) the order of Justice Corbett in Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2019 ONCA 359(CanLII) and Peoples
Trust Company v Atas, 2018 ONSC 58 (CanLII),
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently granted leave to appeal in Vuong Van Tai Holding Inc v Alberta (Minister of Justice and Solicitor
General), 2019 ABCA 165 (CanLII) and suggested that Makis v Alberta Health Services, 2019 ABCA 23 (CanLII), and Lymer (Re), 2018 ABCA 368
(CanLII) be heard together. The NSRLP obtained leave to interven (sic) in Jonsson v Lymer, 2019 ABCA 113 (CanLII)
I spoke with one of the lawyers and they have agreed to have appeals heard together and the main issue will be the court making vexatious
litigant order on the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
The order that was made against you was also made on the inherent jurisdiction and without the attorney general
... have attached the decisions to this email in an attachment, Bring an appeal and ask for leave and ask if you can have you (sic) appeal heard together.
Response: .... 4) I have had 'Appeal Courts' up the yimyam for 34 years as my web site shows. They are all in the hands of Justice Canada, a corrupt and corruptible body. That is the essence of my web site. I see no point to yet another Appeal depending instead to complaining to the oversight bodies (which never acknowledge judicial malfeasance). The point is that the court protects its rear end first e.g. Thomas j. with all other litigants coming a distant second. Good luck in your challenge, but as a betting man, I don't give it much chance. 5) I know a contractor whom has a similar challenge to the SCofC on a pro bono basis. He protects himself behind a numbered company shield so that if the case is lost, he may declare bankruptcy in order to avoid onerous legal costs from the other side. The litigant above should check with her lawyers on that point before setting forth in this dangerous escapade.
INCLUSION: Letter to the Queen from me begging her NOT to let Prince Harry - greatly respected promoter of the Invictus Games - from being hoisted on his own petard as Canadian Governor General in a corrupt and corruptible democracy:
TO: Her Majesty the Queen
1) Technically, Canada has not sanctioned the new form for the Governor General of Canada as outlined by the British Monarchy, but no matter as the issue I write you on is a personal one as it relates to the possible appointment of Prince Harry to be Governor General of Canada, a titular role.
2) Don't do it. Currently the incumbent GG, Julie Payette, will go to her deathbed condemned by remaining silent on the Employee's Case which has destroyed the efficacy of the Canadian Justice System if she does not publicize this case. The 'individual' currently has no legitimate place to turn for legal recourse in Canada where this case has been heard despite a media boycott on this national story....
QUOTES: There are many approaches to be used here. I select two ranging from the mundane regarding a begging letter to government to be subsidized from O.S. editor, Anthony Furey and the sublime with a quote from 'Lao Tzu' whom berated his disciple, Confucious, for asking so many damned questions.
A) media bailout
Roger Callow <email@example.com>
Thu, May 16, 2019 at 1:55 PM
ACTION INSISTED ON
10) The matter regarding systemic judicial malfeasance covered up by government officials including Premiers is at an end for democratic government as I close down on those two entities as of June 01-2019 in the same fashion that I closed down those two entities plus the media in terms of Canada and Canadians at large at the end of 2018.
11) I turn to the Office of Governor General to be the repository of the employeescasecanada.ca which does not suggest that I have given up on unresolved legal matters although it is a given that I do so in a gov't. system without credibility.
12) As you know, I turned the matter over to you as GG with the bungling of the B.C. Lieutenant Governor. Here I insist that you take the necessary steps to get this plaintiff (1909 03) Victoria Registry a court hearing date for a one hour teleconferencing hearing which the Registry is hamstringing.
13) The second demand is that you conduct a similar service in ON for CV 18000 769 0000 which has been moribund since the Registry date last July when the Ford government took over. At one point, Premier Ford wrote me personally to say he would not interfere.
14) What you choose to do on the rest of the fraudulent activities is now in your lap and will follow you to your grave.
Yours truly, the 'Outlawed Canadian' (Roger Callow)
BRITISH COLUMBIA (19 0903) still no response June 01-2019
April 18-2019 No confirmation of the April 23-2019 one hour teleconferencing hearing has been received by this Plaintiff. (signed) Roger Callow sent 1 page by fax
ANNOTATED APPENDIX BY PLAINTIFF, ROGER CALLOW -April 07-2019 2 pages employeescasecanada.ca 2019 RECENT 5 (cc Governor General)
B.C. Supreme Court Civil Rules File no. 19-0903 Victoria Registry
(1)The object of these Supreme Court Civil Rules is to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits. Response (R) All Registries which I have encountered operate under a high level of stress-due mainly to pressure from above?
(2)Securing the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of a proceeding on its merits includes, so far as is practicable, conducting the proceeding in ways that are proportionate to
(b)the importance of the issues in dispute, and R. as adjudged by the bench hence the single most important case in Canadian jurisprudence can be written off as being 'frivolous & vexatious' on the part of the plaintiff in this unresolved labour matter where no compensation has been paid.
(8)An allegation of fact in a notice of civil claim, if not admitted, denied or stated to be outside the knowledge of the defendant, is deemed to be outside the knowledge of the defendant. R. As the Defendant Union does not appear, the court must act in that vacuum; that is the law.
(3)A party need not plead a fact if
(b)the burden of disproving the fact lies on the other party. R. I have been unsuccessful in getting the plaintiff to file as to why they will not provide me as a Union client with my copy of the named disclosure.
(15)If a party in a pleading denies an allegation of fact in the previous pleading of the opposite party, the party must not do so evasively but must answer the point of substance. R. The central problem lies not so much with the failure of the Employer and Union to provide disclosure; it lies with over 50 judges whom refuse to request that disclosure which was earlier filed with B.C. Justice Mary Southin in 1986. In brief, she covered up a fraud and the succeeding courts have been guilty of covering up a cover-up. No Justice System can withstand that charge and expect credibility.
(8)If a registrar is not certain that a plaintiff's claim against a defendant relates to a claim within subrule (3), (5) or (6), the registrar may refuse to grant judgment and the plaintiff may apply to a judge or master for default judgment. R. So far I have not experienced this type of diversion as a Judge always handles this matter as requested by me.
Rule 9-3 — Special Case
(1)The parties to a proceeding may concur in stating a question of law or fact, or partly of law and partly of fact, in the form of a special case for the opinion of the court. R. A Judicial Enquiry is merited although fraught with the problem noted above. I have asked Premiers and courts such as for Saskatoon QGB 52 of 2019 for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor otherwise I am limited to requesting the above named disclosure.
With a Special Prosecutor, I could formalize the other two challenges; namely, the alleged fraudulency of named judges and the constitutionality of the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985) which is of current concern across Canada. It should be noted here that all three parties at one time or another have asked for clarification on the constitutionality of BILL 35. I would not tie up court time on the latter account bowing to court directives in handling those matters apart from this case where I merely provide the necessary written material for the purpose. My focus is on disclosure.
(signed) Roger Callow (Plaintiff) April 07-2019
THE LAW COURTS BUILDING
1 A SIR WINSTON
CANADA, T5J 0R2
TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA
May 15,2019 2019 Received May 17-2019
VIA Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Roger Callow:
Re: Callow v. Board of School Trustees et. al. - Action No. 1903 06964
I am writing in response to your letter directed to the Judicial Council of Alberta on April 16
regarding Justice Thomas' decision in the above noted action. Your letter was referred to the
Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta on April 25, 2019 because Justice
Thomas is a federally appointed member of the Court of Queen's Bench. In your letter you ask that Justice Thomas be suspended "until this matter is sorted out."
It appears that you disagree with Justice Thomas' decision. As such, the appropriate course of
action is to seek leave from the Court of Appeal to file an appeal.
Please note, it is inappropriate to communicate with the Court to seek assistance on an action
outside of Court proceedings without notice to Counsel/the other party. (Please see the Court's policy in this regard, available online at: https://albertacourts.ca/qb/resources/media). The reason for this is rooted in fairness: it would be unfair for one party to attempt to influence the Court to intervene on their behalf without the knowledge of Counsel/the other party, or the opportunity for the other party to respond. As such, I have copied Counsel for the intended party opposite with this response.
Yours truly, (N. Manweiller) signed
cc. Geoffrey J. Litherland, Harris & Company
RESPONSE:(Are you listening, Premier Kenney ?)web: employeescasecanada.ca MAY 17-2019
1) I am not the least bit interested in the Edmonton Queen's Bench Court reaction as their measure was taken in 2016 under Premier Notley...tried and found wanting. SEE web 2016 ALBERTA (June).
2) So what was I testing? The joint premiership of Notley/Kenney during the take-over period. The above lame action was taken under Kenney's Premiership and is a harbinger of what is to come with his challenge to the imposed Carbon Tax which he is bound to lose with arguments propelled to date. (SEE web: employeescasecanada.ca 2019 PEI )The imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985) shows what happens afterwards. For example, the Employer here refuses to recognize court oversight even after the court rejected that argument in 1986. That is alright with over 50 judges plus, now, Thomas j. of Edmonton Queen's Bench in this civil fraud (only the Crown and police may lay criminal fraud charges which, if disclosure had been called for, would most assuredly be the situation.)
3) The stunt pulled here parallels QC where a Chief Justice wrote the lower court judgment without any reference to the sitting judge in June of 2015. That's fraud in any man's book. The QC Appeal Court rejected my Appeal as not being complete in terms of forms; much the same thing as in AB. However, Lavery de Billy for the Employer made private overtures to the Bench to accept the action 'in form' whatever the hell that means, to reject my Appeal. The SCofC in 2016 rejected to hear my Appeal on those grounds of malfeasance. And whom was one of the judges on that panel? Why none other than incumbent Chief Justice Richard Wagner! He also sat on the SCofC Appeal in 2016 - much to my vehement objection - over the SK Appeal.
4) Now I am in receipt of two 'garbage' so-called decisions from Thomas j.; one a 13 page and a second, a 6 page 'dissertation'. What's wrong with it other than asking 'how many forests were cut down and judicial resources wasted'? Similar to QC, I was rejected by the Edmonton Court of Queen's Bench which places an end to my submission until I re-enter with the correct forms which is not going to happen as intended unless AB Premier Kenney arranges for Special Counsel to deal with the imposed legislation aspect of the Carbon Tax so vital to AB as well as my own cause.
5) But that is not what happened. Thomas j. usurped the system much like QC in which he assigned his own docket number which is shown above and continued to pre-judge this case without a proper court hearing. That's why he should be fired. If he had called for disclosure, I submit his action may have had some validity; but he didn't so hence we are left in the dark as to why this civil fraud action was quashed by him in the first place = cover-up.
6) If this is what Jason Kenney calls justice; just wait until those carbon tax dudes get a hold of him.
7) A couple of points from this Queen's Bench letter are worth analyzing as to its cupidity:
a) As I suspected, Thomas j. was originally a federal court appointee paralleling the 'Bobbsey twins' in ON, MacKenzie and Scott, making the Canadian Council of Judges the referral body concerned. Even Wagner cj has been critical of this body recently. They never respond but I will send a copy of this letter to them.
b) '...in your letter you ask that Justice Thomas be suspended "until this matter is sorted out"
R.(esponse) You got that right in one.
c) 'It appears that you disagree with Justice Thomas' decision . As such, the appropriate course of action is to seek leave from the Court of Appeal to file an appeal.'
R. If 'running a court within a court' constitutes a 'decision' then yes I disagree with the answer in b) being the appropriate action
d) 'Please note, it is inappropriate to communicate with the court to seek assistance on an action outside of Court proceedings without notice to Counsel/the other party. The reason for this is rooted in fairness....As such, I have copied Counsel for the intended (my underlining RC) party opposite with this response. (Vancouver's Harris & Co.)
R. The employer does it as a matter of course with private voir dires with the courts and I have caught them numerous times doing so. It is this kind of editorializing which makes this a bad corporate letter. In ON, the court merely stated the significance of the Canadian Council of Judges in referring complaints regarding provincial judges originally appointed by the Federal court. Why would you send a copy to a fictional 'intended' party which does not file a Notice of Reply? What kind of background skulduggery are you personally practicing?
Yours truly, Roger Callow (Plaintiff)
NO REPLY (JUNE 01-2019)
TO: Premier Moe via fax: SK: 306-787-0885 1 Page (plus separate fax 3 pages SCofC)
web site: employeescasecanada.ca 2019 SUBHEADING: PREMIER MOE
Reference is also made to letter dated APRIL 26 to Moe (under APRIL -2019)
FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff; Saskatoon QGB 52 of 2019
1285 Cahill Drive E #2001 Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7 t./f. 613-521-1739
1) Acknowledgment of the court directive to forward filed information by Geoff Litherland of Vancouver's Harris & Co. as per a court hearing (teleconferencing) on April 25 and received on April 26 is made.
2) What competent court - if it is not to be accused of something worse - would ever accept a submission without any forms and therefore legal arguments from this Defendant Employer? The Defendant Union did not file a presence and yet the circumstance of disclosure also apply to them under the union agreement.
3) Mr. Litherland's sole letter on the topic dated April 25-2019 seeking confirmation of receipt reads: Further to the hearing held this morning in the above referenced matter, we enclose for service upon you the Affidavit of Holly Bedford, sworn April 18,2019.
No forms, no legal argument, no definition of the status of the paralegal in this case although I strongly suggest that she has more brains than Litherland. The difference between AB and Saskatoon where this same 500 page 'pile of rubbish' appears under her own name, is that Litherland's presence in SK court is signed and authorized by his appearance which will lead to a legal action for fraud against this legal outfit in another venue for the full $20 million cost of settlement.
4) Saskatoon Justice Konkin should never have accepted this Defendant in court as I told him no Defense was provided within the necessary time limit. I hardly believed my eyes when the above delivery did not even include the necessary forms which is the second reason that Konkin j. should have rejected this Defense. He should be removed from the bench for which I will make a formal application to the Saskatchewan Judicial Council (I am presuming that he is not an original Federal Court appointee in which case he would fall under the Canadian Judicial Council). Until I receive that evaluation, all materials in this case from this plaintiff will be forwarded to Premier Moe.
5) How does such a clusterfuck like this happen? Try this answer. A phone call from a mysterious force contacts Litherland in the middle of the night and tells him to hussle his ass into court before he can even say boo, let alone prepare a proper response.
6) In the hearing, Litherland tried to tie this case into an earlier 2016 Regina, SK hearing which went up to the Supreme Court of Canada level where it was not heard leaving such matters as judicial malfeasance in the hands of the Saskatchewan Legal Society where they sit to this day. A renewed application by this writer to the SK Legal Society with this letter asking for Harris & Co. and its representative, Geoff Litherland to be expelled from SK. I will await their complete response before I proceed back to court. Further, I will await the complete response of the SK Judicial Council before proceeding back to court with all correspondence in the interim to go directly to Premier Moe for handling.
7) I don't need a 500 word undefined paralegal document to castigate the SK courts in 2016. The full story is found under employeescasecanada.ca FEBRUARY 2016. I have taken a 7 page excerpt and include it here for the purpose.
8) That 2016 case is largely obsolete today as the charge is now one of civil fraud (individuals cannot lay criminal charges) with the imposed Carbon Tax issue making this case with its imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985) relevant to Saskatchewan in 2019. (The Employer has been able to avoid their fiduciary obligations by claiming in an ad hoc fashion that the court has no oversight powers over imposed legislation.)
9) The case to go before Saskatoon Justice Konkin was to be limited to one minute: If he was not going to provide for disclosure, which underlies everything else, then I presumed that he would give written comment on all three topics before him. Litherland's presence is redundant to that extent as this Employer is steadfast in refusing to provide disclosure for 34 years.
Yours truly, Roger Callow self-represented Plaintiff
TO: Harris & Co. Defendant
FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff
REFERENCE: August 01-2018 letter to the Defendant from this Plaintiff
1) While the above letter references ON; the same conditions regarding disclosure applies. The recent absences of Harris & Co. in various forums where they are named as Defendant, I attribute to my threat to sue your legal outfit directly for the entire $20 million should they present specious material such as ON MacKenzie's j. 2014 judgments (3 exist - QC used one; Harris & Co. used a second in SK in 2016 with a third 'internet copy' which may be the filed edition.)
2) Your legal Counsel, Geoff Litherland, broke that tacit understanding by appearing unannounced in Saskatoon Court (teleconferencing) without the necessary forms on April 25-2019 which has been put off until May 23-2019. Justice Konkin's unconscionable acceptance of Litherland has led to a flurry of letters requesting his removal from this case by Premier Moe.
3) As promised to you earlier under the above conditions, Harris & Co. will be sued in a new venue which is yet to be decided unless you act now.
In exchange for the specific disclosure requested, I am prepared to drop my case in SK. This is a limited time offer. You must reply by May 04-2019. To be sure, Premier Moe will be the big beneficiary should you comply. (JUNE 01-2019 NO RESPONSE)
CORRESPONDENCE - MAY 01-2019
May 01-2019 - 6 pages
TO: Brian Pallister Premier MB FROM: Roger Callow self-represented plaintiff
450 Broadway Ave. 1285 Cahill Dr. #2001 Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
Winnipeg MB R3C 0V8 t/f: (613) 521-1739
t.(204)945-3714 f.(204)949-1484 e-mail: email@example.com
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org web: employeescasecanada.ca MAY 2019 Sub-heading: PREMIER PALLISTER
1) As you may read from the website (APRIL 2019); I was unsuccessful in getting the Premiers of SK and AB to appoint Special Counsel in a 34 year bid to obtain a (well defined) disclosure from the B.C. Employer/Union conspiracy augmented by over 50 judges including the
Supreme Court of Canada on four unsuccessful Appeals in this unresolved labour matter regarding a senior West Vancouver, B.C. teacher fired (oops, laid off for economic reasons) under the neophyte imposed BILL 35 which was rescinded after its sole use in this case in typical banana republic fashion. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid.
2) When I was expelled from B.C. in 2013 for 'reasons best known to a judge'; I turned to other Canadian venues including the Federal Court, ON courts, QC courts, PEI courts, NS courts and more recently B.C. again (new gov't.) AB and SK courts. Due to judicial malfeasance which no oversight body would even acknowledge, let alone examine, this plaintiff has been left with little other choice than to include judges as part of the civil fraud cases which I currently launch as a means of protection against wild assertions by judges appointed to this case in a corrupted judicial Registry. No recognition therefore exists of allegations of judicial malfeasance as oversight bodies collectively bow out. In Manitoba, I add the B.C. legal outfit of Harris and Company to the fraud accusations which has been associated with this case on the behalf of the Employer for many years. The Union never appears.
3) Manitoba is coming up against the Federal Government regarding the imposed carbon tax which, similar to SK and ON, they can expect to lose although their case is stronger. Rather than depending on Section 91 and 92 of the BNA ACT, as was the case of the first two, MB presented a carbon tax proposal to the Federal Government to which the latter did not respond. No doubt Manitoba's plan did not include the 20% fee applied by the Federal government; a distinctive downer for the Feds.
4) Providing me with Special Counsel would enable MB to challenge the Federal government on 4 levels prior to the carbon tax challenge: a) disclosure on which all else depends and is the focus of my case b) the constitutional question regarding imposed legislation c) the named judges which I include only to protect myself from outside assertions from the unexamined judicial record. d) the addition of Vancouver's Harris & Co. for fraud as they are too cosy with the courts.
5) The insidious feature of imposed legislation is that the government level concerned may change the parameters after the initial court sanction. For example, BILL 35 was for the purpose of teacher lay-off for economic reasons (which was not a problem in 1985). As it was in addition to the Schools Act, it did not displace any of the other features related to teacher employment as it stated in the BILL. Compensation features were included for affected teachers (paralleling compensation features under the collective bargaining rules and such as the B.C. Labour Board).
6) In ON (12-54944 Ottawa Registry 2014 Mackenzie j ), the Employer as Plaintiff sought to extinguish all rights of this Defendant for compensation on the grounds that the courts had no oversight powers over an arbitration which the court in 1986 quashed ruling the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. I was left in limbo where I remain to this day. MacKenzie j merely ruled that, as the Defendant, I was being frivolous & vexatious. Three different accounts of his Decision exist with each not referencing the other. That's fraud at the highest level.
7) In brief, Justice Southin covered up a fraud and all succeeding courts are guilty of covering a cover-up.
8) Should you choose not to assign Special Counsel, I will be left with the basic disclosure features of my civil fraud case. Who knows, I might find an ethical judge in MB; I certainly have not anywhere else. In such an eventuality, don't even think of challenging the carbon tax.
9) Due to the history of this case, all materials are now focused through the Office of Governor General Julie Payette to make direct contact with the incumbent Prime Minister on a matter of national importance, for a country without an efficacious legal system cannot be a democracy. Both you and the GG will be kept aware of events of this MB action as it unfolds. Events are also posted on my web site: SEE 2019 RECENT 5
THE PERSONAL CHALLENGE TO PREMIER PALLISTER
10) France collaborated with the Nazis in WWII with the British Parliament about to concede as well if it had not been for Winston Churchill whom talked them into resisting. (Canada would have been invaded by the U.S. if the Brits had collaborated as protection of their northern flank. Would they have gone home after the war? We will never know.) The point here is that Churchill stood up to the bully boys so that even if Britain had lost WWII, they remained with their heads held high (France's collaborator was hanged). Is that 'Churchill' in Canada to be MB Premier Pallister against a capricious Justice System?
11) If so, all I ask is the appointment of Special Counsel leaving me to do the heavy lifting by myself at insignificant cost to the MB government. Of course disclosure which underlies the other two points regarding misbehaving judges and the Harris & Co. connection can easily be disposed of as Harris & Co. cannot represent themselves with no legal Company in its right mind willing to represent them. A brief written Decision would suffice here covering the disposition of both the judges and Harris & Co.. All I need is protection from Justice Canada which the naming of Special Counsel by you should do.
12) While my goal is solely disclosure; I am prepared to fight against imposed legislation as the only case on record entitled to do so due to its unfinished nature. Your government lawyers may wish intervener status on this case for the purpose as it is to be entirely in writing.
13) I will keep you apprised as Premier (as per all other provinces) of legal events as they unfold with this admonition: do not expose individual Manitoba residents to being deprived of having recourse before the civil law courts, as has happened across Canada wherever this case has been held. You can do it. Now will you do it?
14) Unfortunately, other than the Employee's Case (imposed BILL 35 B.C. 1985), there is no extant case as to what can happen when a government seeks to circumvent Parliament and the Courts with imposed legislation: Consider the following argument;
(SEE employeescasecanada.ca Sub-heading APRIL 2019 / PREMIER MOE for this account and more related material by: Plaintiff Roger Callow Saskatoon SK QBG 512 of 2019)
The Supreme Court of Canada never heard a number of my appeals including the malfeasance of judges and the failure thereto of the oversight bodies such as (Justice Canada) to even acknowledge the existence of these complaints let alone dealing with these matters of national concern. To the best of my knowledge, the SCofC has never heard an Appeal from a self-represented individual with his 'Model T' form of action (no money to be made for the court). Below is one such SCofC case and my interpretation as it relates to the employeescasecanada.ca Ref: pp. 462-3 of Harris & Co. paralegal material
B. Supreme Court of Canada Authority (in apologia: pdf files do not translate well)
20. In its recent decision in British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the finality principle and, in particular, the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process, as follows:
 The three preconditions of issue estoppel are whether the same question has been decided; whether the earlier decision was final; and whether the parties, or their privies, were the same in both proceedings (Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, 1974 CanLII 168 (SCC),  2 .C.R. 248, at p. 254). These concepts were most recently examined by this Court in Danyluk, where Binnie J. emphasized the importance of finality in litigation: "A litigant ... is only entitled to one bite at the cherry.... Duplicative litigation, potential inconsistent results, undue costs, and inconclusive proceedings are to be avoided" (para. 18). Parties should be able to rely particularly on the conclusive nature of administrative decisions, he noted, since administrative regimes are designed to facilitate the expeditious resolution of disputes (para. 50). All of this is guided by the theory that "estoppel is a doctrine of public policy that is designed to advance the interests of justice" (para. 19).
(27) The Employee's Case remains unresolved with no compensation having
been paid in 34 years of litigation due to judicial chicanery. What a boone for
Employer's seeking to avoid their fiduciary obligations! No administrative body (e.g. Canadian Council of Judges) has even acknowledged serious judicial malfeasance let alone dealt with the matter unless, of course, the Employer is able to claim that the court quashed arbitration in which the arbitrator was labelled patently unreasonable for failing to show a causal factor is ultra vires. The Employer launched a case in 2014 before ON MacKenzie j. to justify their action on this level which was ignored by him, rather turning everything on its head blaming this Defendant for being frivolous & vexatious.
(33) Even where res judicata is not strictly available, Arbour j. concluded, the doctrine of abuse of process can be triggered where allowing the litigation to proceed would violate principles such as "judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice" (para. 37). She stressed the goals of avoiding inconsistency and wasting judicial and private resources: Even if the same result is reached in the subsequent proceeding, the relitigation will prove to have been a waste of judicial resources as well as an unnecessary expense for the parties and possibly an additional hardship for some witnesses. Finally, if the result in the subsequent proceeding is different from the conclusion reached in the first on the very same issue, the inconsistency, in and of itself, will undermine the credibility of the entire judicial process, thereby diminishing its authority, its credibility and its aim of finality. [para. 51] (See also R. v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63 (CanLII),  3 S.C.R. 316, at para. 106, per Charron J.)
R: (33) Arbour SCofC j. has hit the hammer on the nail...the credibility of over 50 judges is on the line if disclosure, which underlies this case is produced hence 'ready, aye, ready' is the response of all courts to date. But that can change. Consider the Pope still trying to pray for the souls of all in the pedophilia scandal when individual victims are saying...forget the prayers; we want justice against pedophile priests!
 At their heart the foregoing doctrines exist to prevent unfairness by preventing "abuse of the decision-making process" (Danyluk, at para. 20; see also Garland, at para.72, and Toronto (City), at para. 37). Their common underlying principles can be summarized as follows:
• It is in the interests of the public and the parties that the finality of a decision can be relied on (Danyluk, at para. 18; Boucher, at para. 35).
• Respect for the finality of a judicial or administrative decision increases fairness and the integrity of the courts, administrative tribunals and the administration of justice; on the other hand, re-litigation of issues that have been previously decided in an appropriate forum may undermine confidence in this fairness and integrity by creating inconsistent results and unnecessarily duplicative proceedings (Toronto (City), at paras. 38 and 51).
• The method of challenging the validity or correctness of a judicial or administrative decision should be through the appeal or judicial review mechanisms that are intended by the legislature (Boucher, at para. 35; Danyluk, at para. 74).
• Parties should not circumvent the appropriate review mechanism by using other forums to challenge a judicial or administrative decision (TeleZone, at para. 61; Boucher, at para. 35; Garland, at para. 72).
• Avoiding unnecessary relitigation avoids an unnecessary expenditure of resources (Toronto (City), at paras. 37 and 51).
R: (34) 5 points
a) see (27) regarding 'finality' in the Employee's Case
b) The courts have bought into the specious Employer's argument that the
central issues have been previously decided. Not so. Justice Southin in 1986
ordered the matter back to arbitration when the Employer failed to return employment to this Plaintiff as she recommended (not ordered). The Employer did not return to arbitration even after losing an Appeal on that point of a reconvened arbitration.
c) R: I have had a belly-full of Appeal Courts which in this case and many others
provide political answers as opposed to good judicial responses. Ignoring the
central issues is key to this cabal of Chief Justices operating under the
protection of Justice Canada where there is no oversight - or alternatively
political interference - hence one sees such as the LAVSCAM disaster. In the
Employee's Case, every Province this case has been seen (6 );there has
been considerable judicial abuse.
d) R:That's exactly what the Employer did in this case by claiming that the courts
have no oversight powers of imposed legislation (BILL 35 -B.C. 1985) of which Appeal they lost as noted above. Even ON Mackenzie j. refused to discuss this issue which was the reason why the Employer launched the case as the Plaintiff.
e) R: If this matter of my senior teacher lay-off had been a playground disagreement; it would have been resolved inside of 15 minutes and, I dare add, with considerably more justice than 34 years of wasted litigation. If Justice Southin in 1986 had ordered my return as opposed to recommending my return to teaching in West Vancouver, this matter would have ended there. It was a stunt, according to my then legal Counsel, Harry Rankin (d), that she could not get away with. Well, she has to date, as a cover-up of her perfidy has been
reinforced by over 50 judges in a 'cover-up of the cover up': Justice Canada, by
rights, should pay all bills for this travesty of immense proportions never before encountered in any judicial system.
Roger Callow Plaintiff (in many forums) email@example.com
cc Governor General
web site: MAY 2019 Sub-heading: PREMIER PALLISTER
A parallel action against only the Union is being refiled in PEI from 2016 under the new government with a special challenge to the Opposition Green Party to divorce themselves from the traditional parties by speaking publicly in their legislature to this issue as
they too are contesting the imposed carbon tax. SEE employeescasecanada.ca MAY 2019 Sub-heading
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. As a side note, there is an interesting observation on the 'principled' Jody Raybould-Wilson in 2016, now the ex-Justice Minister.
NO RESPONSE FROM EITHER COURT OR PREMIER PALLISTER - JUNE 01-2019
(will be updated on Governor General web site as material received)
'RESPONSE' to ON Supreme Court (Ottawa) File number CV 18000 769 0000
Roger Callow v West Vancouver School Trustees (S.D. #45) and two ON judges and an ON legal entity. (WRITTEN JUDGMENT ONLY - Please continue to adjudication as of this request)
BY: Roger Callow Plaintiff employeescasecanada.ca 2018 AUGUST & SEPTEMBER sub-headings
FURTHER INFORMATION FROM PLAINTIFF AVAILABLE IN WRITING IF REQUESTED BY THE COURT
1) This 'Response' has to be the most unusual legal action in Canadian jurisprudence. It is written by the Plaintiff rather than the Defendant.
2) There have been many court hearings in Canada (8 out of 10 provinces) before over 50 judges amid many accusations of judicial malfeasance by this plaintiff over the past 33 years in which the Employer always filed a Response but not now.
3) The difference lies in the fact that the courts always considered this unresolved labour matter where no compensation has been paid as a private matter which they invariably ruled as a mere frivolous & vexatious action by this plaintiff. That position was reinforced by the many oversight bodies called by the plaintiff to investigate judicial malfeasance. No such body acknowledged these complaints which would have produced public recognition.
4) Now that the charge is civil fraud for $20 million, the Defendant has filed no response, most likely because no legal firm will represent them under pain of being sued separately for fraud.
5) ON Attorney General Carolyn Mulroney failed to examine this filed case (at the beginning of her mandate) at my request checking as to the validity of an action slipped in by the departing government. Nor did she seek to establish the groundwork necessary to pursue the fraud charge against the two Ottawa Judges (Mckinnon j. and Scott j.) dating back to 2014.
6) The judge handling this case is between a rock and a hard place.
a) As to the fraud charge against the two judges and ON legal representatives for the Employer, Hicks, Morley, et al which abandoned the Employer with my accusations set before the Ontario Legal Society; it is a matter - to use a colorful analogy - of not being any 'skin off my nose' although it may wind up as 'the removal of the hide' from the Canadian Justice System if the court sees fit to duck this one.
b) What is germaine to my issue is the fact that with no filed response, in law my assertions must stand as fact as to the existence of a conspiracy to deprive me of my teaching career.
c) While disclosure is central to this charge of fraud; indeed, the charge cannot proceed without it; nonetheless, the refusal of over 50 judges to provide that key evidence has been at the heart of judicial malfeasance associated with this case. It is submitted here that such publication of this disclosure would lead to criminal charges of fraud brought against the defendant Employer and Union.
d) Without a Defense, the presiding judge may only request - should he deem that disclosure is necessary - that the RCMP, which has been kept fully apprised of this issue for years; seize those documents.
e) If the above action (d) is not activated, the proper course for the judge is to provide this plaintiff with the $20 million default claim which cannot be arbitrated without the Defendants.
Yours truly, (Roger Callow ) Plaintiff
STILL NO REPLY AS TO ASSIGNING A COURT HEARING DATE - JUNE 01-2019
QUEBEC & others - SEE 10) Premier Legault
RULE OF LAW??? employeescasecanada.ca (March 09-2019)
cc Premiers: McNeil (NS) Legault(QC) Ford (ON) Moe (SK) Notley (AB) Hogarth (B.C.) PMO
President D. Trump c/o U.S. Embassy (Canada)
no copy to the Canadian media
1) While the SNC Lavalin criminal trial in Montreal is getting much press attention; that matter is limited to the fortunes of one political Party, the Liberals. The parliamentary system is not threatened as other political Parties are, by definition, Parties in waiting.
2) Not so the Employee's Case which has seen the demise of the entire Canadian Justice System with Ottawa lawyer Paul Conlin's volunteered statement in 2004 after the Supreme Court of Canada refused (a second time) to hear this unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation was paid under the terms of ultimate remedy that, as the plaintiff, I had exhausted all remedy under the law. From that point on, I labeled myself as 'the Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systemic judicial malfeasance'.
3) As no oversight body was willing to even acknowledge my many serious complaints against judges, I have included them in the civil fraud cases which I have laid against the Employer, the West Vancouver Trustees Association and the Union, the West Vancouver Teachers Association in this apparent sweetheart deal. (SEE web)
4) From 2004 to the end of 2018 the situation has been one of the death of Justice Canada with the corpse to follow. That corpse includes two Ontario judges from 2014 who wrote different Decisions when only one was called for. Their names appear in both ON and SK cases.
5) In 2018, B.C. Chief Justice Hinckson (see web) for a first time directly involved the Judiciary with the Employee's Case in an atrocious action which A.G. David Eby failed to examine thus explaining why Hinckson cj 's name appears in the AB civil fraud case (only the crown prosecutor and the police may lay criminal charges which, for sure, should be the case here).
6) Over 50 judges have refused this plaintiff the most basic of rights; namely, the right of disclosure. (habeas corpus underlies all law except, apparently, Canada as evidenced by this case which has the additional feature of a constitutional question regarding B.C.'s 1985 creation of the imposed BILL 35; a factor looming large in SK's battle over the imposed carbon tax which would permit gov't. to circumvent the courts as is happening in SK. In 2017, a constitutional challenge regarding BILL 35 was defeated in Nova Scotia courts.
7) While this case is well known across Canada in terms of the professional teachers, legal interests, and the media; due to a national media boycott, the public remains uninformed making a hypocrisy of any reporting on legal matters. I put an end to that ongoing nonsense by proclaiming an end to Canadian media involvement at the end of 2018.
8) The failure of President Trump to invoke the Magnitsky Act against Ontario where the U.S. has direct legal involvement by both U.S. gov't and private interests reflects a personal failure on his part leaving it for any interest to publicize this case.
9) Nova Scotia Premier McNeil did not respond to judicial irregularities wherein a sitting judge in 2017 made no reference in his Decision as to the sole topic relating to the constitutional question of imposed legislation.
10) I am still waiting for a 2015 Decision from lower Gatineau Court's Therrien j. and not accepting Goulet cj's action of writing a Decision without making any reference to the existence of the sitting judge. Premier Legault ignored this plaintiff's complaint in 2018.
11) For 8 months, the filed case against the two Defendants plus judges remains stagnant in Ottawa Courts with the Registry Clerk refusing to give this plaintiff a court date 'for reasons best known to herself'. The abject failure of A.G. Caroline Mulroney with this file has meant this case has reverted to Premier Ford whom wrote me personal letter stating that he would not get involved. This matter is now in the hands of the GG June 01-2019
12) In what I label 'Saskatooney Law' where a similar action has been filed including the same two ON judges due to inactivity in ON; the court clerk has changed the whole direction of Canadian Justice by refusing a court date until the Defendants file a defense. Under those conditions, what Defendant will ever file a Response? The forms are perfectly clear in stating that if a Defendant does not file a Response, the case could go against them. That court position is acceptable to Premier Moe whom has been kept fully apprised of events as they unfolded. He never replies.
13) The Edmonton Court and Premier Notley are also dragging their feet in dealing with a re-issued factum for the court's approval which includes the name of B.C.'s Hinckson cj as noted above. Premier Kenney is now solely responsible
14) In March-2019, I laid an action solely against the West Vancouver Teachers Association for $20 million (also the default amount in the other cases) in Victoria, B.C. File #19 0903 This matter is now in the hands of the GG June 01-2019
15) Disclosure is the key in all cases; particularly with the Union as I submit that as a Union client, I have a right to pertinent legal material affecting my case. The other aspects of judicial malfeasance and constitutionality are secondary considerations in which the courts may decide on the appropriate procedure although it is noted disclosure underlies all topics.
16) The Federal court was just as arbitrary in 2014 making up the law as they went. A printed sticker 'see this' on one point was inadvertently left pasted in my returned factum reflective of JUSTICE CANADA writing the marching orders for the sitting judges.
17) In conclusion, I draw no distinction between China and Canada as evidenced by this protest PLACARD: NO RULE OF LAW IN 1) CANADA 2) CHINA
18) Justice Estey in St. Anne Nackawic places the matter succinctly: What must be avoided at all costs, is a significant deprivation of justice under the law. In historical perspective; Canada failed to 'stand on guard for thee'. Our WWII veterans must be rolling over in their graves....
Submitted March 09-2019 by 'Outlaw' (Roger Callow) whom now owns the heart and soul of democratic Canada; 18 million Canadians be damned. (plus June 01-2019 updates)
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND - UNIQUE APPOACH OF TESTING THE OPP. GREEN PARTY FOR FUTURE REFERENCE FOR ALL CANADA
May 20-2019 POST IN STAFFROOM
TO: Peter Bevan-Baker - Opposition Leader PEI e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
t. 902-620-3977 f.902-368-5175
Sent by fax: 1 page
FROM: Roger Callow self-represented Plaintiff e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com
Ottawa K1V 9A7
web: employeescasecanada.ca MAY 2019 PEI (GREEN PARTY)
1) I can see a day approaching when Peter Bevan-Baker will be the most hated politician in PE
2) The current determination date (or coffin nail if you prefer) is MAY 31-2019 for on that date, I end my communication with the Green Party Opposition of PEI as Peter has not seen fit to contact me. The shut-down is to be in the same fashion that I closed down on the Canadian Justice System and allied anti-individual media at the end of 2018. Green Party fortunes across Canada will become dust under this test case. PE individuals going to court can expect to be cannibalized under their own court system as one consequence; their unions being useless.
3) Both this case and the Vice Admiral Mark Norman case have one thing in common - denied disclosure which is the bedrock of habeas corpus and therefore all law. Other than the civil-criminal split in the above two cases, the major difference is that PE inhabitants have been kept apprised of Bevan-Baker's silence and the ramifications thereto...and done nothing to change his mind in this pre-emptive approach. Hence their hatred will have a reflexive aspect to it. As with other provinces, I have other options not available to individual provinces.
4) Much the same happened in SK where the Premier was pole-axed with the Carbon Tax findings which I correctly prognosticated to him. Now SK is saddled with a multi-million SCofC Appeal Bill (it is the business of the courts to make business for themselves) which they can ill-afford; PE even less so under similar conditions. Whether PE agrees or not, the SK experience can be expected to be visited on them with their Carbon Tax challenge as they have the wrong argument as well... as the courts well know.
5) The clock is ticking but is PE listening? MAY 31-2019 will tell.
Yours truly, Roger Callow Plaintiff
NOVA SCOTIA March 19-2017
TO: Nova Scotia Barristers Society FROM: Roger Callow NS 458698
Cogswell Tower 1285 Cahill Drive #2001
800-2000 Barrington Street Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
Halifax NS B3J 3K1 tel: 613-5231-1739
F: 902-429-4869 1 page sent by fax e-mail: email@example.com
1) If you had taken my letter to you of March 05-2017 seriously, the collapse of not only NS court credibility but all of Canada could have been avoided. Now no-one can trust to a court of law due to the precipitate action of NS Justice Suzanne Hood on April 06-2017 which Deputy Prothonotary Rhiannon Morgan B.A. would confirm by cancelling out the April 19th hearing date at the request of the rogue B.C. Law firm, Harris & Co.
2) Earlier I had confirmed in a telephone call from the court that I would be in attendance at the April 19th hearing and did not agree with any postponement of this hearing requesting in that process, $15,000 costs from the B.C. Employer for cancelling the second date without my approval to equate with the $15,000 cost assignment for unknown reasons by Hood j. against me. Any precipitate action taken by Hood was to be reviewed at that second hearing.
3) In brief, Harris & Co. successfully pulled the same one-two sucker punch which they used in SK and the government and courts of Premier McNeil blithely swallowed the whole scam.
4) The initial problem dates back to the failure of the NS Barrister's Society to investigate this matter although it does not excuse the court's failure to conduct a voir dire as I requested before any hearings were held. At the very least, both investigations would have insisted that NS legal counsel for the Employer be appointed as NS legal counsel would be bound by NS laws and not those of a dissolute B.C. Legal Society which is complicit in protecting Harris & Co. as seen from the SK debacle. The Employer earlier hired Hicks, Morley et
al for Ontario (since dropped their representation) and Lavery de Billy which found it easier to just turn the Quebec Justice System on its head. Both appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada were not heard. So what is wrong with NS courts and government that they would not insist on local representa- tion under these circumstances? In so many words, why is the grey eminence (Old Boys Club) able to walk all over the courts and governments of Canada, especially NS considering this egregious background?
5) Currently I am awaiting the registration of an action on a constitutional question listing the B.C. Union as Defendant although the case-neutral approach is not expected to produce any opposition. Further, the badly compromised 'Book of Authorities' by Harris & Co. is not available to them. Indeed, I would be surprised if they filed a response as all argument may be filed through myself as plaintiff.
6) The impression left by the outcome of your initial failure is that NS is ruled by a crooked Chief Justice and has an idiot (Stephen MacNeil) for a premier.
Yours truly (Roger Callow) The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance.
cc Premier McNeil / NS Supreme Court 458698
November 29-2017 via e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
REFERENCE: Nov.27 SECOND REQUEST by fax: 902-424-0524
TO: NS Supreme Court Scheduling Office FROM: Roger Callow -self-represented litigant
ATTN: Donna Vickery-scheduling officer #2001-1285 Cahill Dr. E.
Halifax Law Courts Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
1815 Upper Water Street tel/fax: 613-521-1739
Halifax, NS B3J 1S7 e-mail: email@example.com
REFERENCE: Halifax #469918 Hearing Date: November 29-2017 via teleconferencing
1) On November 27, I wrote the entry below to you. There was no response.
SECOND REQUEST:NOV.27-2017 This fax is being sent to establish that I will be available in the time slot for teleconferencing on Wed. Nov. 29 as previously arranged and will phone near the end of that slot if the court has not contacted me. Having 'Call Waiting' avoids the risk of 'calls being blocked'. Under no circumstance is the court to proceed without a presence from me even if the court has to postpone the hearing date. Roger Callow litigant (signed)
2) As there has been no response, I will e-mail notice that I am awaiting the court to phone at (N.S. time) a) 8:05 b) 10:30 c) shortly before the 3 hour time limit set aside for this hearing.
3) Under no circumstance is the court to bring down a decision without my presence which will redound on both yourself and the appointed justice. If need be, reschedule the hearing for next Wednesday; hopefully with a different judge whom is conversant with constitutional questions. You may respond by e-mail.
Yours truly, Roger Callow
9.00 As Vickery is absent until Dec. 11; message forwarded to her replacement janet hawes
JUNE 01-2019 THE HEARING WAS EVENTUALLY HEARD WITH A SHORT JUDGMENT WHICH MADE NO MENTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WHICH THE HEARING WAS TO BE RESTRICTED. FIRST CALL FOR APPLICATION OF MAGNITSKY ACT BY U.S. PRESIDENT.
SUMMARY TO THE GOVERNOR GENERAL (JUNE 01-2019)
1) The concrete action you must take now relates to setting court date hearings in Victoria, B.C. and Ontario. Fail this and you must resign the GG stating publicly your reasons thereto.
2) The universal theme in the Employee's Case relates to the division between civil and criminal law and how Justice Canada would sacrifice itself rather than see this case 'jump the genome boundary' in much the same sense that diseases may jump the animal-human genome.
3) Democratic Canada is dead. Future? PLACARD: BEHIND EVERY ECONOMIC COLLAPSE IS A MORAL COLLAPSE. World Depression, here Canada comes with Ontario with its largest sub-debt of any nation in the world leading the way.
4) Until the employeescasecanada.ca is resolved, I will hold the Office of the Governor General which is the 'respected part of government' fully responsible in this 'ebola' debacle never before countenanced in the history of any nation. Shame on you all!
(Roger Callow) The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw government and Justice System due to systematic government and judicial malfeasance...all covered up by the anti-individual media.