JUMP TO HOME PAGE

 

May 14-2019

                                     

TO: Peter Bevan-Baker - Opposition Leader PEI  e-mail: psbevanbaker@assembly.pe.ca

                                                                                          t. 902-620-3977  f.902-368-5175

Sent by fax: 4 pages  cc Charlottetown Supreme Court Registry by fax: 902-368-6123

 

FROM: Roger Callow  self-represented Plaintiff  e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com

              Ottawa K1V 9A7

               web: employeescasecanada.ca  MAY 2019 PEI (GREEN PARTY)

 

MESSAGE:

1) It is not easy being a Registry clerk and, as in all things, some people are superior to others in that respect. I include a Vancouver Registry Form (S 188996) as an example of the norm. And then there is the 'perverse' Registry response of PEI Prothonotary  Krista MacKay Q.C. (usually assigned to lawyers whom are not going to be appointed to the bench). Acknowledg-ment of her timely letter dated May 07-2019 and received by post on May 14-2019 is noted.

2) All Registries, when asked for fee amounts, provide only those details. MacKay Q.C. feels obliged to devote a significant part of her pejorative letter to providing the possibility of 'no fees' for 'deadbeat' clients; which under the circumstances diminishes this case as well as the plaintiff; no doubt her intention as reflected by the signing of her document, Yours 'very' truly.

3) '...It would appear that you have combined a number of Forms into one large document in order to be accepted for filing, we would also note that each Form be contained in its own document....' which must be separately sworn to. (MacKay Q.C.)

Response: Former PE Premier & Attorney General, Wade MacLachlan, did not lose the last election including his own seat with his Liberal Party coming last; rather, his spirit is alive and well and resides in the Supreme Court of PEI. The statement above from MacKay QC is so much codswallop as all lawyers in all provinces produce 500 word 'Books of Authority' with a single signature attesting to their validity. If it makes the PEI Court happy, I can easily re-name my Correspondence or Exhibits as my 'Book of Authorities' although I have never had such a rejection of the style MacKay QC would perpetrate.

4) Herein lies the role of the Opposition Green Party which has a copy of my action. The challenge to them is to make this document court ready as it is obvious the PEI Court is not listening to me. There is little point for PEI to battle the imposed Carbon Tax unless the Greens as a Party - and this is the first major challenge to the Greens as a Political Party in Canada in a make or break deal - to get this labour case involving imposed legislation (BILL 35 - B.C. 1985) active. The courts in both cases are acting ultra vires. In terms of the imposed Carbon Tax, the governments are using the wrong arguments thanks to provincial judiciaries whose loyalties appear to lie elsewhere.

5) Finally, I am not taking the measure of Justice Canada here as they have already been tried...and found wanting. The current challenge is to Provincial Premiers and they are falling like bowling pins. The challenge is different in PEI as the appeal is to Opposition Green Leader Bevan-Baker as a test: will he merely ape the traditional Parties hoping to be elected as a default Party by doing nothing?  Or are you going to call for 'Special Counsel' in the above case, Peter? Decision time is now.

 

Yours truly, Roger Callow   Plaintiff 

 

 

 

In the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island  File Number ______

The Court Administration Office houses all documents of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island 

Charlottetown Sir Louis Henry Davis Law Courts

RegistrarPrince Edward Island Court 42 Water St. Charlottetown PE C1A 1A4

 

tel: (902) 368-6002

fax:(902)368-0266

INDEX

                                                                                    PAGE NUMBER

1) STATEMENT OF CLAIM  FORM(14A)                                                                                     02 - 03

2) AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS  (4D)                                                                                                        02 - 05

3) STATEMENT OF CLAIM ARGUMENT (14A)                                                                                     05 - 08

4) TIME AND PLACE OF TELECONFERENCING (1 HOUR)                                                     08 - 09

5) APPENDIX                                                                                                                                       09 - 13

6) CORRESPONDENCE (6 PAGES TO PREMIER PALLISTER)  MAY 01-2019

     ALSO FACING A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE ON

     THE IMPOSED CARBON TAX. THE SUPREME COURT OF

     CANADA SIMULATION WITH THE EMPLOYEE'S CASE

     IS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST            .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

File Number ________

CHARLOTTETOWN Registry

In the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island

The Court Administration Office houses all documents of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island 

Charlottetown Sir Louis Henry Davis Law Courts

RegistrarPrince Edward Island Court 42 Water St. Charlottetown PE C1A 1A4

 

tel: (902) 368-6002

fax:(902)368-0266

N.B. Delivery of documents to Defendant with a copy to the court will be made with the assignment of a file number. Further, could you advise me of the fee structure for this case (fax or e-mail please)

Between

Roger Callow (self-represented)

Plaintiff

and

West Vancouver Teachers Association (British Columbia)

Defendant

STATEMENT OF CLAIM (14A)

Court Seal Required

This action has been started by the plaintiff for the relief set out in the Affidavit.

FORM 14A STATEMENT OF CLAIM (GENERAL) (General Heading) (Court seal) STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO THE DEFENDANT

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or a lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A and a designation of address for service (Form 16A.1), prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff’s lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this notice of action is served on you, if you are in Prince Edward Island. If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, this period is sixty days. Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence. IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. The plaintiff proposes that this action be tried at (Charlottetown). (Date of issue MAY 02-2019) (Name, address and telephone number of lawyer or plaintiff

 

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t/f: 613-521-1739  e-mail: rcallow770@ gmail.com                                               Plaintiff

 

Renee Willock, President, West Vancouver Teachers Association

4915 Marine Drive, West Vancouver, British Columbia  V7W 2P5

tel: 604-926-1617  fax: 604-926-1119                                                           Defendant

 

 

(signed) Roger Callow

AFFIDAVIT of FACTS (FORM 4D)

 

I, Roger Callow of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, swear and affirm the following is true:

1. I turned 65 on August 24, 2006, which brought into play my pension rights;

2. My pension rights are determined on the basis of contributions to the plan, both mine and the employers;

3. The amount of these contributions is dependent on the date of termination of my employment;

4. Because I was a tenured teacher, my employment could only be determined by a proper legal process;

5. In my case the validity of the termination has never been determined. Technically although I was unable to work and was not paid, I remained a teacher under the employment of the Board;

6.I require that a proper termination date be determined, or a settlement be achieved providing me compensation which would include pensionable service benefits;

7. The recent pension inquiries caused me to examine how I could get compensation or a termination date determined. There is no other remedy I can pursue other than as requested in this petition.

8. Whatever approach is made, disclosure as outlined above is at the root of any successful remedy.

 

Sworn: in the Province of Ontario (Ottawa May 02-2019)

 

FORM 4D AFFIDAVIT (General heading)

AFFIDAVIT  I, ( ROGER CALLOW full name of deponent) of OTTAWA in the PROVINCE of ONTARIO (where deponent is a self-represented party or the lawyer, officer, director, member or employee of a party, set out the deponent’s capacity) MAKE OATH AND SAY (or AFFIRM):

 1. (Set out the statements of fact (AFFIDAVIT) in consecutively numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph being confined as far as possible to a particular statement of fact.)

 Sworn (or Affirmed) before me at ) _____ in the County of _____, Province ) of Prince Edward Island, on (date) ) _____________________________

 

(Signature of deponent-OTTAWA - MAY 02-2019) ________________________

 

_______________________________ Commissioner for Taking Affidavits (or as may be) )

 

AFFIDAVIT attesting to validity of documents herein enclosed

I,  Roger Callow in the Province of Ontario (Ottawa)

AFFIRM:

1. That the material in this factum signed by the Plaintiff dated MAY 02, 2019 is an accurate account of the material facts included.

 

Signed (Roger Callow)

 

Resource D: Affidavit

This is the .....[FIRST.]..... affidavit of .............[ROGER CALLOW............. in this case and was made on .......[02/05/2019]

IN THE SUPREME COURT (CHARLOTTETOWN) OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

 

BETWEEN:  Roger Callow                                                               PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER

 

AND: Renee Willock President / West Vancouver Teachers Association

                                                                                                 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

 

AFFIDAVIT

I, , ROGER CALLOW  Retired

of 1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001 in the City of Ottawa

in the Province of ONTARIO, SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT :

I am the in this matter and as such have personal [plaintiff/petitioner etc.]

knowledge of the matters herein referred to.

OR

I am in this matter and have personal [plaintiff/petitioner etc.]

knowledge of the facts and matters referred to by me except where indicated to be on information and belief and where so stated I verily believe them to be true.

SWORN

at the City of  OTTAWA, in the Province of ONTARIO on MAY 02, 2019 )

 

(signed) Roger Callow

 

Claim of the Plaintiff

Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS

                   [Using numbered paragraphs, set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the plaintiff's claim.]

1) The propriety of the lay-off of senior high school teacher, Roger Callow, under the imposed conditions of BILL 35 (1985),has never been established in law despite many, many court hearings in British Columbia and elsewhere including the Supreme Court of Canada on four occasions.

                        2) Without a proper determination, the Employer refuses to pay any compensation. That situation applies 34 years later.

                        3) The current action against the West Vancouver Teachers Association is for the Union Copy of disclosure which, it is                                     asserted here, would reveal a fraud of criminal proportions involving this Association. As a Union client, I believe that I                                  have always had a             right to that disclosure prohibited by the Union 'for reasons best known to themselves'

                        4)  In general , the Union has avoided filing a Reply to court challenges deferring to the Employer's arguments. In such an                       eventuality, the presiding justice has three options: a) order the Union to produce said documents on pain of paying                          $500 per day for 30 days then b) order the RCMP to seize said documents c) order             the Union to pay the full $20 million                           cost of settlement for what this plaintiff claims was a Union induced 'sweetheart deal' with the employer to deprive this                        senior teacher of his livelihood. 

 

If any party sues or is sued in a representative capacity, identify the party and describe the representative capacity.]

Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT

[Using numbered paragraphs, set out the relief sought and indicate against which defendant(s) that relief is sought. Relief may be sought in the alternative.]

1) The relief sought in this most unusual of cases before over 50 judges is unique and formed the basis of the case in 2012 (CA038538) British Columbia which was not heard due to the interference of the 'MacKenzie Creed' whom, of his own volition, not quoting any laws nor taking argument and for reasons best known to himself, delisted the case. (The 'Cullen Creed' of 2013 did essentially the same thing forcing this plaintiff into venues outside of British Columbia).

2) Currently, a $20 million dollar civil fraud charge has been launched in Ontario against the Employer (CV 18000 769 0000 Ottawa) to obtain disclosure to reinforce my claim that the RCMP (Montreal Fraud Division)should file a criminal charge against them. This case is still awaiting judgment as is a parallel case in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. A one-hour teleconferencing call should suffice even if no Appearance is being filed by the Defendant. Further documentation may be supplied to the court by this plaintiff on request.

3) No reference may be made to any extant cases without an appearance of the Defendant in court as the presiding justice must not be seen to be 'running a court within a court'. The general rule of law is that a plaintiff's case under these circumstances must be accepted as fact. Should the court rule the lay-off to be illicit (as per Justice Mary Southin's 1986 Decision); then everything flowing from that action is null and void.

4) EXHIBIT A is a necessary inclusion as it deals with all matters, both issues and applicable law, up to 2015. (available on request by the court)The Ontario Fraud Charge continues that story from that time period and is not a topic here unless the Defendant wishes to include that aspect in their Reply. Unless requested by the Defendant, EXHIBIT A (earlier form) is not included here in the charge made directly against The West Vancouver Teachers Association.

5) At root of all actions described here is a refusal of both the Employer and Union to provide disclosure in a denial which has been supported by every court hearing this matter.

6) cc Governor General / PE Opposition Green Party

 

Part 3: LEGAL BASIS   

[Using numbered paragraphs, set out a concise summary of the legal bases on which the plaintiff(s) intend(s) to rely in support of the relief sought and specify any rule or other enactment relied on. The legal bases for the relief sought may be set out in the alternative.]

 

CIVIL CHARGE (FRAUD) AGAINST WEST VANCOUVER TEACHERS ASSOCIATION DATED MAY 02-2019 IN CHARLOTTETOWN SUPREME COURT web: employeescasecanada.ca

N.B. For the sake of economy, the personal pronoun 'I' will supplant the term 'plaintiff'.  This matter is self represented by the plaintiff, Roger Callow.

 

1) Central to this case is disclosure without which no court - and there have been many - may proceed with any authentication. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Southin whom quashed the arbitration in 1986 favouring the Employer, ruling in that process, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable for failing to produce a causal factor. She returned meeting notes of the WV School Board for June of 1985 which she had earlier called for because 'she did not use them'. The Union purloined my copy. Both Parties refuse to divulge this key testimony and, more importantly, the courts refuse to request that production or order the RCMP to seize those documents. The RCMP have ignored my request on that level for many years.

2) Sureties: A word on sureties is necessary here. These funds to be posted by individuals in order to permit the continuation of the legal case are specific in pointing out that the funding is not to be used by one party to derail legal cases which has been a problem in this case where legal matters always go under my own name. I have been exposed to spurious demands on this level in British Columbia and elsewhere and although I have posted such sums, I am still denied justice particularly as it relates to disclosure. In the event that the Defense uses this ploy, I will call on the British Columbia lawyers at large to crowd fund this payment as they have to live and work in British Columbia under these circumstances.

ACTION REQUESTED

3) As earlier courts did not see fit to call for key disclosure which it is asserted here, would almost surely indicate fraud on the part of the Employer and Union therefore making everything which flows from it null and void (since 1985), I call again for this disclosure by either a court order to the Employer and Union(for my copy) or to order the RCMP to seize such documents.

4) In the event that the court sees fit to provide me with disclosure mentioned above, I will drop this suit. On the other hand, if it doesn't, the court should expect me to pursue this case for $20 million to the fullest extent of the law.

 

Plaintiff's(s') address for service: [Set out the street address of the address for service. One or both of a fax number and an e-mail address may be given as additional addresses for service.]

1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001   Ottawa, Ontario  K1V 9A7

Fax number address for service (if any): 613-521-1739

E-mail address for service (if any): rcallow770@gmail.com

Place of trial: Charlottetown, PEI in a one hour teleconferencing call which should be over in one minute. I have penciled in Thursday, September 19-2019 at 10:00 A.M. I do not expect the Defendant to make an Appearance as per past hearings.

The address of the registry is:

Supreme Court of PEI

42 Water St, Charlottetown, PE C1A 1A4

 

 

Between

Roger Callow                                                                                              PLAINTIFF

1285 Cahill Dr. E.

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

t./f. 613-521-1739

e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

web: employeescasecanada.ca

and

Renee Willock, President, West Vancouver Teachers Association

4915 Marine Drive, West Vancouver, British Columbia  V7W 2P5

tel: 604-926-1617  fax: 604-926-1119                                              DEFENDANT

Date:   02-05-2019 .........[dd/mmm/yyyy].........

 

_____________(Roger Callow)

Signature of [x] plaintiff [  ] lawyer for plaintiff(s)

Appendix

[The following information is provided for data collection purposes only and is of no legal effect.]

Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM:

ARGUMENT

1) The exclusionary role of the Cullen Creed which expelled the Plaintiff from British Columbia for 'reasons best known to himself' made it impossible to make a constitutional challenge in British Columbia to this aberrant Order although a constitutional question was launched (and thwarted) in Nova Scotia in 2017.

2) Courts hearing this case reduced the claims in an unconscionable manner; namely that I was merely being frivolous and vexatious in matters already decided. That generalization was never supported by facts. I still remain without compensation which is mine under any number of legal provisions. I am, in effect, still an employee of the West Vancouver School Board awaiting deferred salary for 34 years which includes 12 years of pension as the Board did not recognize my retirement at age 65.

3) What's not to love about this action? By having the instigator, namely, the Union pay the full cost of settlement, the Canadian Judiciary escapes an indictment of the entire system which I am sure does not amuse President Trump with his use of those 'sly' Canadian tribunals; particularly in Ontario. The politicians also escape censure as reflected by Party Government and the fact that all politicians choose to ignore this single most important legal case, particularly as it relates to imposed legislation and to the conduct of legal jurisprudence of Canada. As to the anti-employee media on this case, they join the 'fake news' appellation due to their boycott on this story. In brief, our newspaper democracy has imploded but the conspirators cannot expect to win everything.

4) 'What must be avoided at all costs,'  states Justice Estey in St. Anne Nackawic, 'is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the laws'. Placed in the vernacular; 'In the halls of justice, all justice is in the halls'. This court must break this runaway judicial deception.

 

Part 4:

[If an enactment is being relied on, specify. Do not list more than 3 enactments.]

 

  DRAFT OF ORDER REQUIRED

1) The legal question raised here regarding jurisdiction was raised in the arbitration (quashed by the court in 1986 by Justice Mary Southin A860607 January 21,1987) by the Union as the sole presentation regarding the lay-off for economic reasons of senior West Vancouver Secondary teacher, Roger Callow, on June 30, 1985 under the neophyte BILL 35 (School Amendment Act) effective July 01-1985. The arbitrator ignored this central legal question.

2) The Employer raised essentially the  same question as the Union in Ontario Superior Court (13-59060 McKinnon j) April 23-2014 Decision but was ignored in that Decision.

3) The Plaintiff raised this central question on June 26-2017  as a means of breaking the log-jam leading to settlement of this long drawn out affair largely due to judicial concupiscence over this torturous 34 year affair. No compensation (includes pension) has been paid. Technically, the plaintiff is still an employee of the School Board #45 albeit an unpaid one.

4) While present at the eleven day arbitration, it is the firm belief of this plaintiff that the court was correct in ruling that no causal factor was shown regarding the lay-off of this plaintiff. Details of that alleged perfidy lie in the minute notes of the June 1985 Board meetings in which BILL 35 and the dismissal of senior teacher Roger Callow were discussed at length. No school trustee took the stand to attest to lay-off numbers which showed an actual increase rather than the decrease quoted by the arbitrator. He was ruled patently unreasonable. Madam Justice Mary Southin of B.C. Supreme Court called for the meeting notes of the Board in June of 1985 but later returned them 'because she did not use them'. Regrettably, the lawyer hired by this plaintiff to replace the Union lawyer of the arbitration, returned my copy of those notes to the Union which was paying his salary rather than to me, otherwise I would have laid an action for fraud many decades ago.

5) The background details of the above action are included in Nova Scotia  458698 (April 2017) which has been referred to the oversight bodies There was no response. The request there was for disclosure considering the goal of laying a future charge of fraud plus being placed back on salary until a solution was found. The interesting feature regarding the Employer's presentation in Nova Scotia is that they did not address the constitutional question raised nor make any reference to their earlier argument that only BILL 35 conditions were to apply to this case. They asked for the issue to be dropped for unstated reasons. The controversial court action in that regard has been forwarded to the oversight powers. There has been no response.

6) As the British Columbia NDP government of Premier Horgan has demonstrated actions against finalizing this case i.e. Lieutenant Governor's Office, copies of this action were delivered to Attorney General David Eby whom is also remiss in failing to respond to his legal mail on this matter hence the GG is now the repository for this case.

 

(signed) Roger Callow   Plaintiff

cc.Governor General / PE Opposition Green Party

 

 

Part 5:

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IS CURRENTLY BATTLING THE IMPOSED 'CARBON TAX'. THE ABOVE CASE IS THE ONLY ONE EXTANT (IMPOSED BILL 35 -B.C. 1985) ILLUSTRATING WHAT CAN HAPPEN SHOULD A COURT SEEK TO OBVIATE THE FUNCTION OF PARLIAMENT AND THE COURTS WITH SUCH AS THE AD HOC INTERPRETATIONS BY, IN THIS CASE, AN EMPLOYER WHO REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE THE OVERSIGHT POWERS OF THE COURT . TO THIS END, A 6 PAGE LETTER TO PREMIER PALLISTER (MAY 01-2016) WHICH IS ALSO FACING AN IMPOSED CARBON TAX IS INCLUDED IN THIS FACTUM.

CORRESPONDENCE - MAY 01-2019

PREMIER PALLISTER

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: rcallow770@gmail.com

e-mail: info@brianpallister.com                        web: employeescasecanada.ca  MAY 2019 Sub-heading: PREMIER PALLISTER

 

MESSAGE:

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 registered 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: 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.

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. 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 representing 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.

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 Manitoba residents to being deprived of having individual recourse before the civil law courts impaired as happened across Canada wherever this case has been held. You can do it. Now will you do it?

 

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

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:

 

           [27] 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), [1975] 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 b           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).

Response   (R.)

(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), [2008] 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!

 

              [34] 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)  rcallow770@gmail.com

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow

 

cc Governor General / PE GREEN PARTY (OPPOSITION)

web site: MAY 2019 Sub-heading:  PREMIER PALLISTER

 

ADDENDUM

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.