May 01-2019 - 6 pages
TO: Brian Pallister Premier MB FROM: Roger Callow self-represented plaintiff
450 Broadway Ave. 1285 Cahill Dr. #2001 Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
Winnipeg MB R3C 0V8 t/f: (613) 521-1739
t.(204)945-3714 f.(204)949-1484 e-mail: email@example.com
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org web: employeescasecanada.ca MAY 2019 Sub-heading: PREMIER PALLISTER
1) As you may read from the website (APRIL 2019); I was unsuccessful in getting the Premiers of SK and AB to appoint Special Counsel in a 34 year bid to obtain a (well defined) disclosure from the B.C. Employer/Union conspiracy augmented by over 50 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada on four unsuccessful Appeals in this unresolved labour matter regarding a senior West Vancouver, B.C. teacher fired (oops, laid off for economic reasons) under the neophyte imposed BILL 35 which was rescinded after its sole use in this case in typical banana republic fashion. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid.
2) When I was expelled from B.C. in 2013 for 'reasons best known to a judge'; I turned to other Canadian venues including the Federal Court, ON courts, QC courts, PEI courts, NS courts and more recently B.C. again (new gov't.) AB and SK courts. Due to judicial malfeasance which no oversight body would even acknowledge, let alone examine, this plaintiff has been left with little other choice than to include judges as part of the civil fraud cases which I currently launch as a means of protection against wild assertions by judges appointed to this case 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?
14) Unfortunately, other than the Employee's Case (imposed BILL 35 B.C. 1985), there is no extant case as to what can happen when a government seeks to circumvent Parliament and the Courts with imposed legislation: Consider the following argument;
(SEE employeescasecanada.ca Sub-heading APRIL 2019 / PREMIER MOE for this account and more related material by: Plaintiff Roger Callow Saskatoon SK QBG 512 of 2019)
The Supreme Court of Canada never heard a number of my appeals including the malfeasance of judges and the failure thereto of the oversight bodies such as (Justice Canada) to even acknowledge the existence of these complaints let alone dealing with these matters of national concern. To the best of my knowledge, the SCofC has never heard an Appeal from a self-represented individual with his 'Model T' form of action (no money to be made for the court). Below is one such SCofC case and my interpretation as it relates to the employeescasecanada.ca Ref: pp. 462-3 of Harris & Co. paralegal material
B. Supreme Court of Canada Authority (in apologia: pdf files do not translate well)
20. In its recent decision in British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the finality principle and, in particular, the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process, as follows:
 The three preconditions of issue estoppel are whether the same question has been decided; whether the earlier decision was final; and whether the parties, or their privies, were the same in both proceedings (Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, 1974 CanLII 168 (SCC),  2 .C.R. 248, at p. 254). These concepts were most recently examined by this Court in Danyluk, where Binnie J. emphasized the importance of finality in litigation: "A litigant ... is only entitled to one bite at the cherry.... Duplicative litigation, potential inconsistent results, undue costs, and inconclusive proceedings are to be avoided" (para. 18). Parties should be able to rely particularly on the conclusive nature of administrative decisions, he noted, since administrative regimes are designed to facilitate the expeditious resolution of disputes (para. 50). All of this is guided by the theory that "estoppel is a doctrine of public policy that is designed to advance the interests of justice" (para. 19).
(27) The Employee's Case remains unresolved with no compensation having been paid in 34 years of litigation due to judicial chicanery. What a boone for Employer's seeking to avoid their fiduciary obligations! No administrative body (e.g. Canadian Council of Judges) has even acknowledged serious judicial malfeasance let alone dealt with the matter unless, of course, the Employer is able to claim that the court quashed arbitration in which the arbitrator was labelled patently unreasonable for failing to show a causal factor is ultra vires. The Employer launched a case in 2014 before ON MacKenzie j. to justify their action on this level which was ignored by him, rather turning everything on its head blaming this Defendant for being frivolous & vexatious.
(33) Even where res judicata is not strictly available, Arbour j. concluded, the doctrine of abuse of process can be triggered where allowing the litigation to proceed would violate principles such as "judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice" (para. 37). She stressed the goals of avoiding inconsistency and wasting judicial and private resources: Even if the same result is reached in the subsequent proceeding, the relitigation will prove to have been a waste of judicial resources as well as an unnecessary expense for the parties and possibly an additional hardship for some witnesses. Finally, if the result in the subsequent proceeding is different from the conclusion reached in the first on the very same issue, the inconsistency, in and of itself, will undermine the credibility of the entire judicial process, thereby diminishing its authority, its credibility and its aim of finality. [para. 51] (See also R. v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63 (CanLII),  3 S.C.R. 316, at para. 106, per Charron J.)
R: (33) Arbour SCofC j. has hit the hammer on the nail...the credibility of over 50 judges is on the line if disclosure, which underlies this case is produced hence 'ready, aye, ready' is the response of all courts to date. But that can change. Consider the Pope still trying to pray for the souls of all in the pedophilia scandal when individual victims are saying...forget the prayers; we want justice against pedophile priests!
 At their heart the foregoing doctrines exist to prevent unfairness by preventing "abuse of the decision-making process" (Danyluk, at para. 20; see also Garland, at para.72, and Toronto (City), at para. 37). Their common underlying principles can be summarized as follows:
• It is in the interests of the public and the parties that the finality of a decision can be relied on (Danyluk, at para. 18; Boucher, at para. 35).
• Respect for the finality of a judicial or administrative decision increases fairness and the integrity of the courts, administrative tribunals and the administration of justice; on the other hand, re-litigation of issues that have been previously decided in an appropriate forum may undermine confidence in this fairness and integrity by creating inconsistent results and unnecessarily duplicative proceedings (Toronto (City), at paras. 38 and 51).
• The method of challenging the validity or correctness of a judicial or administrative decision should be through the appeal or judicial review mechanisms that are intended by the legislature (Boucher, at para. 35; Danyluk, at para. 74).
• Parties should not circumvent the appropriate review mechanism by using other forums to challenge a judicial or administrative decision (TeleZone, at para. 61; Boucher, at para. 35; Garland, at para. 72).
• Avoiding unnecessary relitigation avoids an unnecessary expenditure of resources (Toronto (City), at paras. 37 and 51).
R: (34) 5 points
a) see (27) regarding 'finality' in the Employee's Case
b) The courts have bought into the specious Employer's argument that the central issues have been previously decided. Not so. Justice Southin in 1986 ordered the matter back to arbitration when the Employer failed to return employment to this Plaintiff as she recommended (not ordered). The Employer did not return to arbitration even after losing an Appeal on that point of a reconvened arbitration.
c) R: I have had a belly-full of Appeal Courts which in this case and many others provide political answers as opposed to good judicial responses. Ignoring the central issues is key to this cabal of Chief Justices operating under the protection of Justice Canada where there is no oversight - or alternatively political interference - hence one sees such as the LAVSCAM disaster. In the Employee's Case, every Province this case has been seen (6 );there has been considerable judicial abuse.
d) R:That's exactly what the Employer did in this case by claiming that the courts have no oversight powers of imposed legislation (BILL 35 -B.C. 1985) of which Appeal they lost as noted above. Even ON Mackenzie j. refused to discuss this issue which was the reason why the Employer launched the case as the Plaintiff.
e) R: If this matter of my senior teacher lay-off had been a playground disagreement; it would have been resolved inside of 15 minutes and, I dare add, with considerably more justice than 34 years of wasted litigation. If Justice Southin in 1986 had ordered my return as opposed to recommending my return to teaching in West Vancouver, this matter would have ended there. It was a stunt, according to my then legal Counsel, Harry Rankin (d), that she could not get away with. Well, she has to date, as a cover-up of her perfidy has been reinforced by over 50 judges in a 'cover-up of the cover up': Justice Canada, by rights, should pay all bills for this travesty of immense proportions never before encountered in any judicial system.
Roger Callow Plaintiff (in many forums) email@example.com
cc Governor General Payette
web site: MAY 2019 Sub-heading: PREMIER PALLISTER
A parallel action against only the Union is being refiled in PEI from 2016 under the new government with a special challenge to the Opposition Green Party to divorce themselves from the traditional parties by speaking publicly in their legislature to this issue as they too are contesting the imposed carbon tax. SEE employeescasecanada.ca MAY 2019 Sub-heading PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. As a side note, there is an interesting observation on the 'principled' Jody Raybould-Wilson in 2016, now the ex-Justice Minister.