OSTRICH.jpg 002guilty 


BY: Roger Callow  employeescasecanada.ca  The outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System in an unresolved 34 year kafkaesque labour case before over 50 miscreant judges in which no compensation has been paid in defiance of any of the following: the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985); the collective bargaining principles (if applicable) or any other statute related to lay-off provisions. The extant issue is reduced to the repeatedly denied  disclosure which is the bedrock of the Canadian Justice System but which is abused on a daily basis in many other cases as well in present-day Canada. In bottom line language; Canada has been reduced, due to the above case, to being merely another banana-republic where the individual has nowhere to turn for justice.


QUOTES (2004): 




It is the business of the court to make business for itself

1) 'You are spending too much time in court and not on your business directly' I told my contractor son to which he readily agreed...'but what is one to do when the companies -  whom make a practice of hiring small vulnerable contractors - fail to pay their bills, he responded?' So began a foray into first, small debts court; tax court, and now into the Supreme Court of Canada on a $180,000 unpaid debt which is being defended pro bono by a legal firm whose portion of the costs will approximate $500,000.

2) First of all, small debt court is limited to $25,000 where each claimant covers his own costs and usually proceeds without a lawyer:

a) Why would a Company hire a lawyer at a cost of $40,000 to defend themselves against an $18,000 claim which they lost? The point here is that the average contractor is intimidated by lawyers and is inclined to drop a claim. Further, the courts, as I can attest to, routinely support 'the big guy'. You are one of those few whom didn't bend and learned a lot about operating in  small debt courts which cost you time from your business as noted above.

b) For a similar claim against a U.S. Equipment maker for loss of business due to the late delivery of a bucket for an excavator, two lawyers were sent from Toronto on two occasions to Ottawa (lovely billable time work!) for a case that they lost. Companies lose too as seen above when dicking around with the lawyers.

3) Again, you were a rare exception to winning a tax claim for $100,000 dollars of which charge came 'out of the blue'. As you explained later, the Tax Department avoids these scams with big Companies with their tax lawyers and small Companies as they have no assets leaving the middle size contractor to contest a hearing which could easily run one $100,000 in legal fees should it be contested. In chasing it down yourself, you saw how the bureaucracy shift from one player to the next so that any successful challenge on your part has to be re-enacted over and over...who says the bureaucracy doesn't have a sense of humour albeit a perverted one?

4) Appeal Courts, of whatever level or province, are in the hands of Justice Canada as attested to many times over by the Employee's Case.

5) In the matter of the $180,000 claim which is now before the Supreme Court of Canada as noted above, the operant principle is best enunciated by the following aphorism:

In any employment contract, expect to see the following which is pretty well the way all laws are written; a list of duties is followed by this phrase: '...and related duties' which pretty well sums up as 'do as you are told by the boss'. If the boss tells you to quite literally go 'screw the pooch' and you challenge him in a court of law; it will be duly noted that the said condition was not listed in your duties ergo the court may choose to opt on either side...just the way they like it. In that regard, PEI is an example of a pusillanimous Supreme Court which, judging from a list of outcomes, always comes down on the side of the powerful against the individual with picayune rules. Their previous Premier must have taken a leaf from the nepotism of the Kennedys in the 1960's as he further entrenched what I label a 'potato patch mentality' by holding both the post of Premier and Attorney General. The incumbent Premier and Green Party which followed him seem inept in other ways, but I digress.

6) On the above basis, you may remember that I told you that the presiding Justice could just have easily decided for the other side with the original hearing. She was no doubt impressed with your documented work records (all contractors now take time-dated photos of their work and e-mail it directly to the Employer). The Employer chose to 'wing it' in court with contradictory evidence but their success was to lie in the hands of their $400 per hour partner lawyer (where 'wins' are guaranteed). You won in this lower court.

7) Enter the Ontario Appeal Court where they proudly proclaim that only 3% of cases are appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. (I had two from SK and QC in 2016 which were rejected for a hearing. To the best of my knowledge, no individual acting on his own may launch a 'Model-T' version of a SCofC challenge at a greatly reduced revenue for Justice Canada.) In short, which individual has the necessary $500,000 legal cost for one's own representation with legal counsel? ON Appeal Court is a junk-heap of claims which are reversed with a short one-liner...as long as you have senior legal Counsel as the employer did in this case whom preferably played golf with the 'right partners'.

8) In your case, one large legal firm cut their teeth a few years back with the 'Bhasim' precedent which said, in effect, that Companies must honour their contracts such as yours. Four subsequent judgments took the opposite side creating a precedent undermining the Bhasim Decision. I read the thrust of that Decision with a Montreal University analysis and, while your legal representative won, the point here is that the legal material is ambiguous similar to all other laws.

9) Currently your lawyer is attracting intervener status from other firms quoting the Bhasim Decision in which the Decisions - as pointed out by him - are much weaker than your claims. The value of intervener status and possibly class action is used to bolster a case which increases the settlement amount if it goes in your favour.

10) Normally, an Employer feeling pressured as here and which at one time offered $140,000 to settle the $180,000 claim (just enough so that you would reject it although you were wise in making a counter offer) could be expected to re-institute the same offer (plus the accrued $50,000 fee of your own lawyers) hoping that once again you reject it. In short, they want to force the court to make a Decision.

11) The court's position, as all legal Council would realize, is to avoid making any Decision preferring that matters are 'settled out of court' as they do not wish to disturb the cozy relationship that the Supreme Court of Canada has built up with Provincial Chief Justices. In short, I submit that they will decide for the Employer in this case which places your lawyer in a dicey situation. To collect their money, therefore, they have to pressure you to settle out of court providing that the Company is willing to make another offer and that is not a given.



...which is a little like the animal/human genome where such as the common cold (horses) and flu (pigs) can jump the divide, sometimes with devastating effects (AIDS). In civil law, a price tag must be placed on all actions. In criminal law to do so would be bribery; a criminal offense.


12) A parallel to the above shenanigans is seen in a current civil trial in AB where a class action which I was invited to join (I didn't as I will explain below) has been set against a number of judges for 'kiting' judicial findings, something I am no stranger to in the Employee's Case. In this example, my case was rejected by the Registry of the Edmonton Court due to incomplete forms, a feature common to all cases in which lawyers get additional funds for a second trip. I abandoned AB but a Justice Thomas did not abandon me. He borrowed a 'form judgment from another judge in another province and merely substituted the name with mine and delivered a carte blanche judgment in which I was not given any notification as to any hearing and therefore could not rebut. Other judges have been pulling this stunt. Those litigants whom join the case along with their lawyers can expect to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense for  criminal acts in which the judges should have been disbarred and sent to jail; not excused with a slap on the wrist.

13) Currently, I am in the process of laying an action against Harris & Co., (B.C. firm for the Employer) for fraud which includes judges from Saskatoon for a conspiracy. NB is currently the focus for the proceedings, the province that the 'Irvings' own. The Thomas connection was mentioned by a SK judge in support of the Employer which had misled the court in a significant way. (SEE web site: 2019 Sub-heading: NEW BRUNSWICK under JUNE-2019)

14) The myopic media do their part in mangling judicial interpretations and the Vice Admiral Norman case is one in point. Norman was dismissed under the Tories and was expected to twist in the wind similar to myself. The Liberals added a twist to that lay-off by adding a criminal extension a few years later apparently on the skulduggery of the Maritime Irving Corporation in  its bid to wrestle a ship building contract from QC. The case destroyed what credibility the RCMP and General Vance ever had but it is the court machinations which concern me here. 'You are exonerated', the judge announced to a very surprised Norman one morning recently, which was a lie as a 'stay of proceedings' does not exonerate a litigant for proceedings could still be invoked against him. The point which the media completely missed was that arrangements on this score between the prosecutor, the presiding justice and defense lawyer would have been made the previous day. I would have fired Defense lawyer Heinen on the spot for that piece of chicanery and told the judge that unless she produced the oft demanded disclosure, I would ask for a complete release with attendant funding. By offering Norman an outside settlement under these conditions later, the government broke the laws and bribed the system; that's what the whole Senator Duffy Case was about. In brief, legal ebola runs rampant in Canada.

15) The media has been taking a deserved licking for their failures on the legal front and only now are they beginning to cry 'foul' but until the Employee's Case is aired, Canada remains 'the little country which couldn't'.

16) Due to the failure of myriad oversight bodies to examine judicial malfeasance in the Employee's Case, material is now referenced to Governor General Payette's Office where this former astronaut is on record as saying at the recent war remembrance exercises in Europe; 'We can either charge like soldiers up the beaches  or look to the satellites for our answers.'  The military have a definition for such a person for either occasion.


cc GG J. Payette