JUMP TO HOME PAGE

 

PREMIER MOE (SK)

April 26-2019

 

TO: Premier Moe  via fax: SK: 306-787-0885  cc Saskatoon Court:f. 306-975-4818  2 Pages

FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff; Saskatoon QGB 52 of 2019

              1285 Cahill Drive E #2001  Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7  t./f. 613-521-1739

               e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

MESSAGE:

1) Have you fired Saskatoon Queen's Bench Registrar Glen Metevier for 'bringing the cause of justice into disrepute' despite his fake apology in a fraud charge which I have laid in the above case? If not, it would appear that I am not the only one being treated as a fool. How do you expect success in the imposed Carbon Tax when the SK Justice System is infiltrated by the 'fifth column' particularly as you failed to assign a Special Judge to deal with the above case including the all-important role of imposed legislation? (imposed BILL 35 - B.C. 1985 reference)

2) The significance of the above constitutional question is that once a government is successful with imposed legislation; it opens the door to unfettered challenges. For example BILL 35 'was in addition to' as asserted in the BILL to the School's Act and did not displace any provisions thereto. The Employer has taken that to mean that no court oversight is permitted of imposed legislation to which over 50 judges (including the Supreme Court of Canada) have given 'back door support' to that major shift in order to protect individual judges in a 'cover-up of a cover-up' in which individual judges now find themselves included in the fraud charges due to the failure of any oversight body to even acknowledge very serious charges of judicial malfeasance. In 1986, Justice Mary Southin quashed the arbitration ruling the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable for failing to show a causal connection. (He had converted 16 new teacher hires to read 16 teacher lay-offs)

3) The above SK hearing by telephone conferencing was a mishmash which has been postponed to May 23 by Justice Konkin although the outcome is a foregone conclusion if you do not act now to re-assign a Special Judge to deal with all three provisions a) disclosure b) alleged judicial malfeasance of specific judges c) the constitutional question (of vital importance vis a vis the imposed Carbon Tax). The latter two depend on disclosure as a pre-condition to the other two. If the disclosure reveals fraudulent action; then everything emanating from that action is 'null and void' and I depart SK. That defined disclosure relates to the minute notes of the West Vancouver School Trustees in June of 1985 in which the lay-off for economic reasons of senior teacher, Roger Callow, was discussed. Both the Employer and Union (which purloined my copy returned by Justice Southin 'because she did not use them' were denied to me. At least as a Union client I have a right to that information according to my then legal counsel in 1999, Ottawa's Paul Conlin).

4) The point here is that the Union is not represented although named as a Defendant in the above SK case with the circumstances of disclosure being different from that of the Employer. By rights, an ethical judge would order that record from both entities on pain of paying a $500 fine per day for each day of failure for a period of 30 days after which the RCMP would be sent in. That would end my contact with SK courts; which is no great loss considering earlier malfeasance in 2016 with Regina courts which the Supreme Court of Canada rejected to hear in an Appeal by me.

5) As I wrote you earlier 'Saskatooney Law' consisted of a clerk deciding that no hearing date would be assigned unless the Defendant made an appearance forever changing the law in Canada as what Defense lawyer would ever file under those circumstances? It appears that she got her wish no doubt due to an 'extracurricular' contact with legal Counsel for the Employer, Vancouver's Harris & Co. whom sprung into court with his 4 inch deep 'billable time nonsense' factum which I had never seen nor been notified of its existence. Considering that no Defense had been filed within the time limits, I requested Justice Konkin to refuse them a presence in court. Normally, my protests are ignored on this level and I am not given a chance to provide a rebuttal to major inconsistencies. Even Konkin j. recognized this point as he has provided me with a time period to respond to this SK factum which he directed Harris & Co. to courier to me. The new re-convened date is May 23-2019. If Premier Moe has any sense, and I do not credit him to date for such, he will assign a different Special Judge overseeing all three conditions of my action. Of course, I do not expect any analysis of the malfeasance of the judges as I only include their names as a means of blocking the quoting of the judicial record of such as ON Justice Colin McKinnon (see web pre 2015) whom is quoted widely in these events. My response is to ask 'Would the real McKinnon j. please stand up?' as there exists three versions of his 2014 Decision which do not recognize the existence of each other. In brief, the Canadian Justice System is rotten to the core. Earlier in 2016, the Regina Appeal Court held a private voir dire with Harris & Co. in which they would not speak in court to answer charges of malfeasance made by me. Conspiracy? You bet. Saskatoon appears to be aping Regina courts.

6) The mishmash referred to in the April 25 'Saskatooney' hearing relates to the surprise attendance of Harris & Co. claiming that the hearing in SK is identical to that of AB in which Premier Kenney and former Premier Notley have until April 30 to act (turn-over period). It is not. B.C. Chief Justice Hinckson (see web 2018 HINCKSONcj Fraud) is mentioned in AB but not in SK. ON Justice McKenzie is named in SK but not in AB. Further, Harris & Co. sought to hide behind the coat-tails of their paralegal giving her a status in AB court thus altering the entire lawyer-paralegal relationship in Canada. Earlier, I threatened the partners of Harris & Co. with legal action holding them accountable for the entire $20 million settlement which no doubt explains their absence from filing defenses until now with lawyer Geoff Litherland  appearing in Saskatoon court for the Employer. That fraud charge spanning many courts will now convene in another venue, the outcome of the Saskatoon hearing being of no account.

8) No copy of this case has been sent to the media since the end of 2018 due to their boycott of this national story which makes LAVSCAM and the Vice Admiral Mark Norman fiasco invoked by both the Tories and Liberals look like Sunday School picnics in the microcosm to the macrocosm of the Employee's Case explaining why voters should vote 'with their feet' in the October election as Scheer remains silent on the Employee's Case as does the NDP and Maxine Bernier's Party (the judge should have thrown the  Norman case out some time ago).

7) President Trump has been requested to invoke the Magnitsky Act (cannot be assigned internally as per Canadian law leaving only other signatories to apply this Act). Copies are now being sent to the Governor General to invoke a general trusteeship over Justice Canada until this matter has been resolved. President Trump, are you listening? Further the myopic anti-employee media are currently being left stewing in their own juices as the government clamps down on any publicity of multi-billion dollar tax-funded arms deals by civil servants which presumably includes allied private contractors as well (in the U.S. too?). Anarchy?... thourt name is Canadian Democracy.

9) So, which is it, Premier Moe, are you going to fire 'Saskatooney' Registrar, Glen Metevier and re-assign this case to a new Special Judge to include the constitutional question? A response is requested. (At least Premier Ford personally responds.) Also, will you go from being Canada's most popular Premier to outdoing Canada's least popular Premier, NS Premier McNeil? (He scrapped School Boards as one protection against whackadoodle School Boards like West Vancouver). At any rate, you may ask Justin how popularity works.

 

Yours truly, Roger Callow  plaintiff QBG 52-2019 Saskatoon Registry

 

April 27-2019

 

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

               e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

MESSAGE:

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, (signed)

 

Roger Callow  self-represented Plaintiff

 

ADDENDUM:

TO: Harris & Co. Defendant

FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff

REFERENCE: August 01-2018 letter to the Defendant from this Plaintiff

MESSAGE:

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 judgements (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 flury 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.

UNPREJUDICED OFFER:

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.

 

February 10-2016

TO: Saskatchewan Judicial Council
c/o Joanne Colledge-Miller, Executive Officer
2425 Victoria Avenue
Regina  SK  S4P 4W6
e-mail: jcolledgemiller@sasklawcourts.ca    3 pages including this one

FROM:

Roger Callow Plaintiff in CACV2783

1285 Cahill Drive #2001

Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

Email: the callows@gmail.com

MESSAGE:

1) Included are two pages giving the most recent background in this case heard on Feb. 09-2016. Other information may be found on employescasecanada.ca

2) The long and the short of it is that this Appeal Court usurped the course of Justice bringing it into disrepute by organizing it in the truncated fashion (1/2 hour hearing) that they did thus depriving the litigants of a free and open trial on many significant legal points. Chief Justice Robert Richards could not but be well aware of this 'pre-ordained' caper to hear only this plaintiff in a pre-determined outcome against this plaintiff.

3) As matters now stand, I have to re-package my factums from SK marking them as an INDEX for the coming Supreme Court of Canada Appeal as it is almost as though I was not there.

4) As I no longer have faith in the SK legal system; the appropriate action would be for the court to cover my legal costs assigned to the Respondent at both court levels and to return my Surety payment demanded previously and speciously  by Appeal Court's  Justice R. Ottenbreit.

5) The Judicial oversight Decision requested above along with the SK Legal Society analysis of the nefarious actions of the Respondent lawyer at the lower court level will be included to the SCofC if delivered in a timely manner.

Yours truly,

(signed) Roger Callow   self-represented plaintiff

 'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System'

cc P.M. Rt. Hon. P.M.  J. Trudeau

SEE web under FEBRUARY 14 (FEBRUARY-2016) FOR A 2 PAGE DEVASTATING INDICTMENT (also includes information on Supreme Court of Canada Appeal on Quebec shenanigans)

 

APRIL 27-2019 I never heard back from the SK Judicial Counsel in 2016. I now have a second case in which I request the investigation of Saskatoon Justice Konkin as it relates to a conspiracy as outlined in the enclosed 2-page letter to Premier Moe dated April 27-2019. The SK Law Society which is still outstanding in dealing with Vancouver's Harris & Co. alleged fraudulent activity earlier has also been re-visited in this current conspiracy and is provided with a copy of this letter for the purpose. A more complete account may be found on the internet: employeescasecanada.ca  2019  Subheading: PREMIER MOE

Until I receive a meaningful letter from both parties, all correspondence to the Saskatoon court is being sent via Premier Moe.

(signed)

R. Callow Plaintiff QBG 512 2019 Saskatoon  e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

 

February 10-2016

TO: Saskatchewan Judicial Council
c/o Joanne Colledge-Miller, Executive Officer
2425 Victoria Avenue
Regina  SK  S4P 4W6
e-mail: jcolledgemiller@sasklawcourts.ca    3 pages including this one

FROM:

Roger Callow Plaintiff in CACV2783

1285 Cahill Drive #2001

Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

Email: the callows@gmail.com

MESSAGE:

1) Included are two pages giving the most recent background in this case heard on Feb. 09-2016. Other information may be found on employescasecanada.ca

2) The long and the short of it is that this Appeal Court usurped the course of Justice bringing it into disrepute by organizing it in the truncated fashion (1/2 hour hearing) that they did thus depriving the litigants of a free and open trial on many significant legal points. Chief Justice Robert Richards could not but be well aware of this 'pre-ordained' caper to hear only this plaintiff in a pre-determined outcome against this plaintiff.

3) As matters now stand, I have to re-package my factums from SK marking them as an INDEX for the coming Supreme Court of Canada Appeal as it is almost as though I was not there.

4) As I no longer have faith in the SK legal system; the appropriate action would be for the court to cover my legal costs assigned to the Respondent at both court levels and to return my Surety payment demanded previously and speciously  by Appeal Court's  Justice R. Ottenbreit.

5) The Judicial oversight Decision requested above along with the SK Legal Society analysis of the nefarious actions of the Respondent lawyer at the lower court level will be included to the SCofC if delivered in a timely manner.

Yours truly,

(signed) Roger Callow   self-represented plaintiff

 'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System'

cc P.M. Rt. Hon. P.M.  J. Trudeau

SEE web under FEBRUARY 14 (FEBRUARY-2016) FOR A 2 PAGE DEVASTATING INDICTMENT (also includes information on Supreme Court of Canada Appeal on Quebec shenanigans)

 

APRIL 27-2019 I never heard back from the SK Judicial Counsel. I now have a second case in which I request the investigation of Saskatoon Justice Konkin as it relates to a conspiracy as outlined in the enclosed 2-page letter to Premier Moe dated April 27-2019. The SK Law Society which is still outstanding in dealing with Vancouver's Harris & Co. alleged fraudulent activity earlier has also been re-visited in this current conspiracy and is provided with a copy of this letter for the purpose. A more complete account may be found on the internet: employeescasecanada.ca  2019  Subheading: PREMIER MOE

Until I receive a meaningful letter from both parties, all correspondence to the Saskatoon court is being sent via Premier Moe.

(signed)

R. Callow Plaintiff QBG 512 2019 Saskatoon  e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com

 

 

April   27-2019 (copy to SK  Premier Moe)

 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 form does not easily translate)

 

  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 S.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).

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 deal 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 to

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 out of 8);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

 

employeescasecanada.ca 2016

FEBRUARY - 2016

FEBRUARY 01-2016 - CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY

A SYNOPSIS OF JANUARY - 2016

 

JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case(Canada).

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employeescasecanada.com (30 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' teacher lay-off) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. Sask. 2015-SKQB-308 (H.D. Sept. 24) & APPEAL CACV2783 has, as its focus, the ultra vires nature of BILL 35 as 'current demonstrated ability' is undefined in the Act or in law in general hence anything flowing from it is 'null and void'. The SK court did not order up the 'missing memo notes' (minutes of School Trustees meetings in June of 1985 where they heard from government officials on all aspects of BILL 35) from Justice Southin (1986) which hold the key to this government fraud. The SK decision to duck out for jurisdictional reasons is being appealed CACV2783 to be heard February 09. 3 legal precedent setting conditions now exist: 1) Any judge may 'go off the farm' with little fear of repercussions. 2) The 'sweetheart deal' between Employer and Union leaders has been legally sanctioned (places an end to Unions). 3) Courts no longer have to make a ruling (No legal answer  is a legal answer). = anarchy .What's better than one judge?...why two judges on the same case in QC 550-17-008208-157 which is called 'running a court within a court' , These two judicial tag-team wing-nuts are now referenced to the Supreme Court of Canada. Premier Couillard's government is in tatters as Quebecers no longer have anywhere to turn for justice. The Trudeau Gov't. appears to be caught by being 'pit lamped' and are the new target of these newsletters considering the abject failure of Gov. Gen. David Johnston to, in the void created by Parliament in this issue during the election, to act on the behalf of Canada and 35 million Canadians.

QUOTES:

A) First the punishment; then the crime. Alice in Wonderland  Lewis  Carroll

 

IN ANSWER  TO THE QUESTION POSED AT THE END OF 2015: WHOM IS RUNNING CANADA? SUPREME COURT OF CANADA'S CHIEF JUSTICE HON. B. MCLACHLIN (symbol of Justice System) OR PRIME MINISTER, JUSTIN TRUDEAU?

ANSWER: Well, it sure isn't 'Glory Boy'. If he is not going to dismiss her, he should resign himself.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN THE LAY-OFF OF SENIOR WEST VANCOUVER  TEACHER, ROGER CALLOW, ON JUNE 28,1985; THE ONLY TEACHER AGAINST WHICH THE NEOPHYTE IMPOSED BILL 35 (EFFECTIVE JULY 01-1985) WAS USED AGAINST HIM BEFORE IT WAS WITHDRAWN WHILE THIS CASE WAS UNRESOLVED IN THE 1990'S. THIS CASE WAS DECLARED 'THE BATTLE OF ALL TEACHERS' IN 1985 BY THE UNION WHEN IN FACT IT WAS ONLY DIRECTED AGAINST THE ONE TEACHER NAMED ABOVE

 

JANUARY  3

4) I strongly recommend that you (School Board) put an end to this 30-year filibuster of refusing the necessary disclosure of the 'secret missing memo notes'. Those notes detail the meetings of the WVST in June of 1985 in which copious discussions were made regarding BILL 35 and the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow, which were returned by B.C. Supreme Court's Justice Southin in 1986 after quashing the arbitration 'because she did not use them'.

5) Court cover-up of these documents for the past 30 years has led to a charge of systematic judicial abuse. The addition of the word 'systematic' implies that only the Supreme Court of Canada is competent to handle that aspect of this issue.

JAN. 5

5) ...Briefly put, according to the quashed arbitration, the Board of School Trustees in West Vancouver never authorized my lay-off as a senior teacher in June of 1985 under BILL 35 nor, for that matter any other teacher. More briefly, the conspirators acted fraudulently and the courts have continually covered up this vital fact for 30 years....

JAN.10

3) ...Even more regrettable is the fact that SK Appeal Court Justice Ottenbreit had to deny the rules on surety which he did by declaring this matter as a 'special case'....

4)... Hicks, Morley et al for the employer(Ontario) dropped representation of this case after complaints to the Ontario Legal Society which has failed to respond....

5) 1....There has never been any response from the Canadian Judicial Council under the aegis of its President, Hon. B. McLachlin (Supreme Court of Canada)....

5) 2. .; the general theme for the past 30 years has been this Plaintiff trying to get a judicial finding for his 'illicit' teacher lay-off from which compensation (includes pension rights) may flow. The assertion here is that the B.C. Government in 1985 was hi-jacked (imposed BILL 35) and the judiciary co-opted (gerrymandered government arbitrator later ruled patently unreasonable when the arbitration favouring the School Board was quashed) sanctioned a 'sweetheart deal' between the Employer and elements within the local Union....Southin then did those things which would permit the Board to gain through the back door what they could not gain through the front door of the arbitration. The ensuing 30 years in 10 separate court systems and 40 judges, it is submitted here, is proof positive of a judicial conspiracy in which a 'grey eminence' with backdoor access to the Office of the Chief Justice across the Country, is able - through the careful appointment of judges - maintain the biggest fraud ever perpetuated in Canadian jurisprudence... For the School Board, they would dearly like an end to this issue for no thinking B.C. teacher will ever again trust to arbitration and the courts nor will any ethical B.C. administrator write a negative Professional Report on a teacher.

10) The Employer could end this 30 year Disclosure quest by providing this Plaintiff immediately with those 'missing memo notes'. The Union also has a copy. All the RCMP is waiting for is the necessary Order to seize those documents.

JAN.11

3) In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada reinforced my position of being in limbo in an unresolved labour matter with its genesis in B.C. dating from 1985. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid due to the fact that there is no judicial finding relating to my 'illicit' teacher lay-off under the imposed BILL 35; the only teacher so laid off under this allegedly ultra vires piece of legislation. That's when Canada sank to Third World status as the very essence of any Justice System is its finality. That's why this matter is a 'standing case'.

4) ... In July of 2013,Deputy Justice A. Cullen of the B.C. Appeal Court (Cullen Creed), on his own recognizance, without taking argument nor applying applicable laws, expelled me from the B.C. Justice System (no 'may proceed only with the permission of a judge' was included) forcing me into other Justice Systems....

6) ... There must be disclosure before due diligence may be conducted; particularly when fraud is alleged as is the case here.

7) A careful reading of the legislation in each or the other forums illustrates the application of inherent jurisdiction, natural justice, transference which never happens under judges appointed to this case which does entail a responsibility of other courts to fill the void created in B.C. by the unusual and illicit actions of the Cullen Creed.

8) Failure of the courts above has lowered Canada, it is submitted here, to fourth world status.

10 c)... How can the QC court proceed without a definition as to the propriety of the duality of judges?....

12) For my part, it is time to send in the RCMP to obtain the 'disclosure' demanded above by this plaintiff. Either Couillard or Trudeau has that power.

JAN.15

5) Both QC courts and SK courts were unsuccessfully warned by me not to refer to any events in Ontario which are tied up in oversight bodies which do not respond.

6) The key reference in both cases to Ontario relates to highly specious 'frivolous and vexatious' Orders from Superior Court C. McKinnon j. where this writer was the Respondent : one dated April 23-2014 and a second one dated September 15-2014 which makes no reference to the first. The B.C. Legal Society, on the advice of the SK legal Society, is investigating this dichotomy.

7) In QC, 95% of the Lavery, de Billy case was based on this specious order according to a second Gatineau justice, Goulet j. whom wrote the lower court Order without reference to the sitting judge, Therrien j. in another kafkaesque duality. It is Goulet's Order which is being contested on January 18-2016 as I have not received an answer to my request for Therrien's Order. Lavery, de Billy's second factum to be heard January 18-2016 on an Order to dismiss makes no reference to this duality in what I label as the Lavery, de Billy 'tail' wagging the Montreal Appeal Court 'dog'.

8) While the focus in Montreal Appeal Court is the April 23-2014 McKinnon j. Order; the focus of B.C. Harris& Co. in SK was to quote the September 15-2014 Order....

THE MCKINNON j. ORDER(S)

11) ...This must be stopped. Now.' bawled the Ottawa Citizen page 1 story on April 28-2014 aped by the Montreal La Presse. What exactly it was that was to be stopped is not clear despite all the bombastic rhetoric of McKinnon j. in his April 23-2014 Order. My 'right to reply' was ignored by the anti-employee Citizen.

20) The unresolved Employee's Case where no compensation has flowed has been anything but fair under any conceivable circumstances, as handled by the various courts and tribunals.

21) The key here is whether a court system is credible (the 'fairness' aspect) Indeed, the entire Justice System depends on its credibility which is under attack in this case.

JAN.16

4)...There is no point continuing with any trial until such Disclosure is provided in either court....

7) I have no qualms about the QC court dismissing this case as I have no interest in the future of the Canadian Justice System although I would like to think QC Premier Couillard and P.M. Trudeau would think differently and why a copy of this letter is included to them.

9) For my part, my sole interest in QC was originally to acquire the Disclosure memos from Justice Therrien. Unfortunately, Justice Goulet re-opened the case - apparently in an illicit manner - so that now we have the proverbial 'dog's breakfast'....

14) In the early 1960's, the Big Three Automakers apologized to Ralph Nader (Unsafe at any Speed) for their persecution of him. Where is that apology to the 'Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System' which eclipses Nader's story?

JAN.29

1) Included in this account is a 10-page letter to QC Lavery de Billy dated June 03-15 revealing what a complete cock-up has been the Ministry of the Attorney General (2Ministers);the Superior Court of Justice (Ottawa) (2 judges) and the Canadian Judicial Council under President Hon. B. McLachlin as both these judges were originally Federal Court appointments; The ON Appeal Court (Chief Justice George Strathy) and any number of lower court functionaries.

2) The incompetence of the oversight bodies has led to drastic legal ramifications in this issue in courts outside of ON. For example, one case has been filed in the Supreme Court of Canada from QC with a second filing 'on deck' from SK.

3) The situation is so dire for the credibility of the Canadian Justice System, that a further letter of this date has been addressed to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

4) How this body can resolve these difficulties is beyond me as the problem are your bosses.

JAN.29 (Trudeau)

1) The January 2016 Supreme Court of Canada Appeal to the Employee's Case (Quebec Division) as enunciated in a 10 page June 03-2015 letter to QC Lavery de Billy for the Respondent West Vancouver School Trustees, must be the strangest challenge to the credibility of Canada's Justice System ever entertained.

3) Under the circumstances noted in my Memorandum of Argument,(p.14-15)        I offer this unusual means of finalizing a legal matter which has undermined the course of justice in Canada: PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSAL  9) My proposal is that for a non-negotiable without prejudice offer, I will drop my action requesting the 'missing memo notes' in exchange for ten million dollars to be costed to the various parties concerned in this case according to the wishes of the court.

4) The point here is that as the plaintiff , I have no direct interest in the constitutional and otherwise legal questions voiced in this appeal as a revelation of the 'missing memo notes' would force a revision of my case in any event; probably on the basis of criminal fraud. That is not to say that the Prime Minister should be as sanguine.

6) In that latter regard of executive action, the P.M. could revitalize the Canadian Justice System by dismissing justices and chief justices associated with the Employee's Case for exceeding their authority (includes 'doing nothing'). A separate list has been included to the P.M. for this purpose.

JAN.29 (West Vancouver School Trustees)

9) Why should the current West Vancouver taxpayer, it needs be asked, foot the cost of legal chicanery when Prime Minister J. Trudeau can use the executive powers of the Prime Minister's position to handle that aspect of this alleged fraud? His father passed the Charter of Rights in 1982 (the easy part) leaving the son to enforce compliance from the Justice System in 2016 which is why this standing case labeled the Employee's Case Canada is his legacy no matter which course of action he chooses to follow.

10) As matters now stand, the escalating cost of settlement is increasing to seven million dollars as of February 09-2016 if you choose to settle 'out of court'. Most of that money is 30 years of 'deferred salary' which belongs to this plaintiff apart from judicial findings. In brief, I should never have been released from salary until this matter was resolved. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid to date.

 

 

CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - FEBRUARY 07-2016

JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case(Canada)

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employescasecanada.ca (30 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' teacher lay-off) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. Sask. 2015-SKQB-308 (H.D. Sept. 24-15) & APPEAL CACV2783 has, as its focus, the ultra vires nature of BILL 35 as 'current demonstrated ability' is undefined in the Act or in law in general hence anything flowing from it is 'null and void'. The SK court did not order up the 'missing memo notes' (minutes of School Trustees meetings in June of 1985 where they heard from government officials on all aspects of BILL 35) from Justice Southin (1986) which hold the key to this government criminal fraud. The SK decision to duck out for jurisdictional reasons is being appealed in CACV2783 to be heard February 09.

 

February 05-2015

 

TO: Board of School Trustees (S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001        SENT BY FAX (2 pages)

 

cc SK Appeal Court CACV2783 & SK Legal Society   SENT TO BOTH BY FAX

 

FROM: Roger Callow  Ottawa ON K1V 9A7

fax: 613-521-1739

 

TOPIC: legal status of Harris & Co. in SK CACV2783    H.D. Feb. 09-2016

PLACARD:   JUSTIN, EITHER FIRE CHIEF JUSTICES OR RESIGN

 

MESSAGE:

1) As you have chosen not to reply to my letter of January 29-2016 relating to the representation of your SK interests in the above matter by B.C.'s Harris& Co. of whom I am asking the SK courts to ban for legal transgressions; I must conclude that Harris & Co. is still your preferred choice.

2) As you know, those concerns are now in the hands of the SK Legal Society as the B.C. Society failed to deal with the central issue relating to the presentation of the duplicitous (Ontario Superior Court) McKinnon Order(s) by Harris & Co. in the lower SK court of Megaw j. Megaw j. was made well aware of this duplicity in court. These McKinnon Order(s) are the bedrock of the 'frivolous and vexatious' charge against this plaintiff.

3) A letter detailing those B.C. Legal Society shortcomings dated January 28-2016 has been delivered to you and the SK Appeal Court and SK Legal Society. SEE web QC-SK Dismissals

4) At this late date with the intervention of the weekend, there is no likelihood that an SK  Legal Society decision on the topic discussed above will be available in order that a written rebuttal is possible by this plaintiff. Under these conditions, I will ask the court to ignore the McKinnon Order(s) which is the only extant frivolous& vexatious account available but one which is badly flawed. They should reject the Megaw j. Decision on those grounds alone.

5) Should Harris& Co. turn up in SK court on February 9-2016; I will ask the court to ban his testimony. Should he fly to SK for the purpose, I will appeal any decision which duns me with those travel expenses. Telephone conferencing worked perfectly well at the lower court.

6) Should SK Appeal Court's Ottenbreit j. (reference: earlier 'surety' hearing) form part of the three person Appeal Court panel, I will call for the expulsion from the bench of all three judges. This type of judicial chicanery is not an exception from earlier hearings elsewhere where judges think nothing of sitting on the same case twice.

7) Any other perceived chicanery from the bench will result in the same charge which, in the recent case in QC, is part of the charge leveled at three Appeal Court Justices now in the hands of the Supreme Court of Canada. I called for their expulsion from the bench.

8) Of course, if Disclosure is not addressed or the ultra vires constitutional question as it relates to BILL 35 (1985); an appeal is inevitable. This disclosure is vital to a charge of criminal fraud.

9) Vital to this case is an admission by the court that the Cullen Creed of July 23-2013 expelled this plaintiff absolutely from B.C. courts hence calling for a proper application of the rules of inherent jurisdiction, natural justice, and transference . Megaw j. was made well aware of that point in the lower SK court. This admission is central to any appeal and has been in every court since 2013. As the Respondent did not address this argument, the plaintiff's case must stand.

10) Any attempt by this Appeal Court to remit the matter back to the lower court will be rebuffed.

11) It is clear that the Employer in this case has abandoned the decades old B.C. Court Order to return to arbitration or, alternatively, refused to sign an outside agreement with the Union which was their only other alternative. This court, therefore, is quite within its rights under these circumstances, to return employment to this plaintiff with all terms of the contract (30 years of 'deferred salary' with interest) to apply.

11) Considering this letter, there is no need for myself as plaintiff to address this court which, if I am not mistaken, is the ploy of the Respondent to muzzle me in any case with a 'dismissal ' Order - as practiced in other courts - with the compliance of a willing bench.

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow

 

cc Premier Wall / P.M. Trudeau / RCMP (Montreal Fraud Division)

 

Correspondence #1  (Feb. 26-2019)

TO:

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

FROM:

Roger Callow

1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

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

 

To the presiding British Columbia Supreme Court Justice appointed to hear this  one hour preliminary by teleconferencing for the plaintiff, former West Vancouver High School Teacher, Roger Callow, laid off for economic reasons (June, 1985) under the terms of the imposed BILL 35 in the matter of a civil fraud action laid solely against the West Vancouver's local Teachers Union.

Reference: employeescasecanada.ca

1) If there ever was a nightmare judicial assignment, it must be this one, as the sitting judge is asked indirectly to judge the failure of over 50 judges in 8 out of 10 provinces in Canada to call for the all-important disclosure.

2) The immediate question to answer is whether or not the court has oversight powers over imposed legislation. The Employer (the West Vancouver School Trustees - WVST) argues in the negative while my claim for compensation states that compensation is due, whether it is under the conditions of BILL 35, the collective bargaining process (introduced in 1995 by Justice Spencer) or some other terms of contract law. . Legalities in this case do not explain, however, how I might access the compensation features of Bill 35.

3) To date, no compensation has been paid due to the cupidity of those 50 plus judges. This plaintiff  unsuccessfully launched a constitutional question on this point in an ex parte application in Nova Scotia (469918 Nov. 2017) whereas the Employer (Hicks, Morley et al in Ontario) unsuccessfully launched 13-59060 on a similar theme (2 separate Decisions on the same case in 2014 which  has led to civil fraud charges currently in order to provoke a criminal charge of fraud in Ontario and Saskatoon. (This account  of a civil fraud action against the Employer and two judges (McKinnon j. Scott R.) whom compromised the entire Justice System through the creation of two separate Decisions on the same issue without referencing each other, appears in both Ontario and Saskatoon actions.

4) A third civil fraud charge is imminent against the Union's representative if they enlist any legal firm which includes the McKinnon j. 'malfeasance'.

5) The Employer, understandably, refuses to pay any compensation without a court Order. Hence the full opprobrium must be placed at the door of the Canadian Justice System for failing to resolve this unresolved legal matter .

6) The Courts, for their part, view this as a private matter which it would not be if the many oversight bodies had acknowledged the claims of malfeasance which this plaintiff has made. That situation is reflective of a conspiracy involving several Chief Justices overseen by the Chief Justices Association. Frank McArdle, husband of former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin (recently retired), is the President.

7) In British Columbia. this fraud charge is solely against the West Vancouver Teachers, the Defendant Association  in an apparent 'sweetheart deal' between elements of the local Union and School Board Superintendant, Ed Carlin. In the past the Union has given tacit approval to this conspiracy by letting the Employer handle this case, probably to escape having to provide their copy of the disclosure which I have a right to receive as the affected union client. Failure of the judge to act on this request - or order the RCMP to seize this disclosure - is tantamount to accusing the presiding justice of perverting the law in a significant manner: What must be avoided at all costs, asserts Justice Estey in St. Anne Nackawic is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law. That is exactly what has happened in this unresolved legal matter. Now that the topic is fraud which pre-empts all other laws, there cannot be any more evasions; at least not without decimating the entire Canadian justice system.

8) In the event that a fraud is indeed shown to exist, in law everything flowing from that illicit action such as my senior teacher lay-off in 1985 under the imposed BILL 35 is null and void.

9) In the event that the Defendant does not put in an appearance; the court must not take action on their behalf. That would be 'running a court within a court' and prohibited in law. They have failed to file a response in earlier court hearings.

10) While the parent Union, the British Columbia Teachers Federation has conducted all legalities in the past on behalf of the local Association; they are not included in this action due to malfeasance plus they are not the listed Defendant.

In brief, the local Association may have a suit against the parent Union but that would occur at a later date between those two entities.

ACTION REQUIRED

11) Disclosure, is the theme in which the June meeting notes of all entities involved of which notes Justice Southin called for in 1986 when she quashed the arbitration for failing to show a causal connection and then returned 'because she did not use them'. In brief, she can be accused of a cover-up, among other things, to protect School Board counsel, Stuart Clyne Q.C. from charges of fraud. She recommended that employment be returned to me as the affected party. In law, a recommendation carries weight. When the Board Trustees declined and were rejected on Appeal, she ordered the matter back to arbitration without placing me back on salary; a stunt, legal Counsel Harry Rankin (d.) claimed 'she can't get away with'. Well she did, even when as an Appeal Court judge she sat on a dismissed Appeal in 2003 (a second judge also had sat on an earlier hearing in this case.) Bottom line? I was left in limbo. Even when I turned 65 (now 77), the Employer did not respond to my resignation request thus negatively affecting my pension rights.

12) Hence I am still an employee of the Board awaiting 'deferred salary'. That consists of 33 years of back pay with interest appropriately compounded which is the first request from this court; namely, to institute this back salary while the matter continues to be resolved in the courts. While the Employer is not listed in this action, the court could call for them to provide the necessary salary figures for this purpose.

 

BACKGROUND DETAIL

13) The Ontario  McKinnon j. papers are common to all actions since 2014.

14) Any legal Company  representing the Union using the McKinnon j. papers should expect a separate charge against them for fraud.

15) In any event, the fraud charges cannot proceed without the requested disclosure.

16) Of course the Union can save the court much embarrassment by including those documents in their Replies. With that information, it is unlikely that I would need to proceed any further with this above petition.

17) Under the access rules, I was able to acquire some materials from the Employer  in 2004 although the all important disclosure was missing. What was included was the fact - missing from the arbitration Report- that only two out of the five School Trustees; Chairperson Margo Furk and her successor, Mike Smith, approved of the lay-off, most likely at the request of two former local Union Presidents and the Superintendent. Conspicuous by its absence from the arbitration was the testimony of Assistant Superintendent Bill May, responsible for staffing, stating that he did not see the need to lay-off any teacher in June of 1985. Indeed, staff were being added with a number of positions I could have held. Two days before the Superintendent's lay-off letter in June of 1985 quoting BILL 35 which did not become operative until July 01-1985, I was slated for a full teaching course in September of 1985.

18) The truth of the matter as exposed in arbitration? I was laid off (fired) for whistle blowing.

 

SUGGESTED CONDUCT OF THE ONE HOUR HEARING

19) As time is limited to deal with the two main features - salary continuance, and disclosure - I have written the above as my oral argument merely reserving time to answer questions from the bench and a brief rejoinder time to respond to any argument from the Defendant should they file an Appearance.

20) Should further documentation be required by the court, may I suggest a 'party by party' written basis to facilitate matters if the Union files an Appearance? No 'fait accompli' Decisions by the court please without my input.

cc  B.C. A.G. David / PMO-David Lametti A.G.

 

ADDENDUM: Political Ramifications

21) As both Premiers in British Columbia and Ontario have indicated support for the conspiracy, the question needs be asked; whom is really on trial? In British Columbia  that would be A.G. David Edy and the entire NDP Party provincially and federally. In Ontario, that would be the Ford government and the entire Canadian Judicial System.

22) No doubt, the United States  is most reluctant to accept a 'shithole country' as a future State, but perhaps in this instance they might make an exception (SEE web: AUGUST-2018 Fourteenth Colony) considering that Canada is the northern flank of their defense. If ever there was an occasion for the United States President to tweet in the middle of the night in order to break the Canadian media boycott on this national story, that is now.

23) In the event that President Trump continues to remain silent on an issue which negatively affects foreign investors in Canada, perhaps some other interest would like to fill the void left by him.

Roger Callow    Plaintiff

 

April 27-2019 Victoria Court not responding as to hearing time - referenced to Governor General considering incompetence of A.G. D. Edy and complicity of Premier Horgan

 

PREMIER MOE (APRIL 27-2019) PART 1 - OVERVIEW (SUPREME COURT OF CANADA TRIAL 2019) pending

Analysis: In Ontario, only 3% of civil Appeal Cases are heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. In short, as in this case, one may win hands down in the Lower Court only to have the Appeal Court reverse the Decision with a 'one-liner' knowing full well that most litigants haven't got the half million funding to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Even here, the SCofC can easily dismiss a matter because it is not 'of national importance'. In the case below, one large legal Company has cut its bones on claiming that clients may not obviate their fiduciary duties and offered to handle the below case 'pro bono'. In short, they are willing to forego their half million cost if they lose. It's a 'two-step racket' run between the SCofC and the Appeal Courts which needs to be exposed but don't ask the myopic media to measure up to that challenge.

1.                  Position Respecting Issue of Public Importance

1.                  This application raises a simple but profound issue: Can the duty of honest contractual performance recognized in Bhasin v. Hrynew be breached by active non-disclosure, i.e., deliberate silence coupled with positive statements the party knows will collectively mislead?

2.                  Bhasin has been heralded as a “ground-breaking decision” whose “precedential significance… should not be underestimated”.[1]  In recognizing an organizing principle of good faith and a new duty of honest performance under it, this Court unanimously chose “to make the common law less unsettled and piecemeal, more coherent and more just”.[2]

3.                  Four years later, however, the promise of Bhasin is in jeopardy.  Courts have repeatedly failed to apply the duty of honest performance in a way that protects reasonable expectations.  In this case, as in others, appellate judges have described the threshold for the duty as “high”, and refused to censure conduct that offends basic standards of commercial decency.  This promotes uncertainty in the law, and deprives Canadians of just outcomes.  It is of public importance that the Court grant leave to appeal to prevent further backsliding.

4.                  The Trial Judge in this case found that the Respondents “used… misled and lied” to the Applicant in terminating their three-year business relationship.[3] Rather than disclose the decision to exercise their early termination right, they “intentionally withheld the information in bad faith” for six months, all the while “deliberately misleading and deceiving” it about the possibility that its contract would be renewed when its term expired, and accepting free services the Applicant provided in the hopes this would occur.[4]  The Court of Appeal held that even if these unchallenged findings were true, the Applicant had no remedy under its contract.

5.                  It is respectfully submitted that this should not be the result in Canada, and that this Court should clarify the law.  Leave to appeal should be granted.

 

 



[1] Hon. J.T. Robertson, “Good Faith As An Organizing Principle in Contract Law: Bhasin v Hrynew – Two Steps Forward and One Look Back” (2015) 93 Can. Bar. Rev. 811 at 868.

[2] Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, ¶33.

[3] C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger, 2017 ONSC 7095 (“Trial Judgment”), ¶49, AR, Tab ●.

[4] Trial Judgment, ¶69-70, AR, Tab ●.