DETAILED REJECTION OF MASTER KAUFMAN CV 20-82889 - May 01-2020 (2 pages)
BY: Roger Callow Plaintiff web: employeescasecanada.ca LEGAL MAILmay
1) The basic rejection as to form as well as to comment is reflected in this statement:
Once again, the conduct of Justice has been perverted in a significant manner and in this case by one who was previously charged in a similar manner by this writer on this case; namely, Ottawa Master Kaufman whom should be immediately replaced. A copy of this account goes to A.G. Doug Downey, P.M. Trudeau, and the Ontario Law Society all of whom do not respond to their legal material in this matter. In short, there is no oversight in Canada.
2) My initial response to the above is encapsulated in this comment. (web: RECENT 7may 01)
Once again, the Ottawa Superior Court is guilty in a 3-page cover-up (CV 20 82889) by the same Master who covered-up the MacLeod Decision earlier which turned Canada and the entire Justice System on its head. Cavanagh LLP for lawyer Alexander Bissionette (B) illegally approached the court without notice to me in a bid to quash the fraud allegation against B in a unilateral manner on March 10-2020. Rather than putting a flea in Cavanagh's ear and sending him on his way, Master Kaufman is once again playing 'ducks and drakes' with the Justice System. He should not have proceeded until the Law Society evaluated Cavanagh's private 'side-bar'. If I had been present, I would have seriously questioned this statement: (4) At the heart of the plaintiff's complaint is the suspension of his driver's license following a medical concern (no details given) to the Ministry of Transportation. That was NOT the point of the charge of fraud against B who failed to produce the Partners Agreement (as does Cavanagh LLP in his defense) outlining the relationship between the Doctors and the Corporate structure at Towngate Family Medicine. At the very least, Kaufman should have given me a chance to respond. As he didn't do that, I am referring him to the Provincial oversight body (c/o A.G. Doug Downey whom is also remiss in this matter) which should suspend him until this matter is cleared. Kaufman is obviously trying to upstage the Legal Society in taking its own action against B. Kaufman should never have been permitted to sit on this action which should never have been permitted in the first place. I now also include charges against Dixon esq. for Cavanagh LLP for his unilateral action to the ON Legal Society.
cc P.M. Trudeau 'Repository' whom still refuses to invoke a trusteeship over the Ottawa Courts in this matter.
REASONS FOR DECISION
3) (1) Unknown to this Plaintiff, Cavanagh LLP approached the court in a request from the same Master over the MacLeod j. fiasco reported elsewhere, to scrap CV 20 82889 for being frivolous & vexatious. When I learned of this perfidy, I notified the oversight bodies. There has been no reply. I never received a copy of Cavanagh's argument. Master Kaufman did not order such to be available to me. This Decision is dated April 30-2020
(2) Kaufman notes his earlier action re MacLeod j. On March 30-2020 which turned the Justice System on its head with no oversight bodies responding. For specious reasons without taking argument, he quashed my case against MacLeod.
(4) This point is encapsulated above focusing on Kaufman's perfidy.
(5) It is not entirely clear what Mr. Bissonnette's (B) role would have been in the series of events that led to the suspension of the plaintiff's drivers license. RESPONSE (R) Of course it is not clear as Kaufman did not provide me the opportunity to rebut Cavanagh LLP in this gross distortion of the written hearing. It would appear, however, that Kaufman is out to excuse B from my charges of fraud with the oversight bodies.
(6) In this one, Kaufman seeks to further distance the matter from B: The next six paragraphs do not mention Mr. B. By conjoining this action with the MacLeod Action, he seeks to relegate all concerns to the canceled driver's license which, as noted above, is not the basis for charging B with (civil) fraud.
(7) The plaintiff is self represented, and his claim must be read generously. This is legal speak for 'the plaintiff is an idiot and need not be considered at all.' He defeats his own argument with this quote: ...A cause of action and the facts supporting each of the elements of the cause of action must be pleaded. How can I do that when Kaufman failed to order that a copy of Cavanagh's request be made available to me for a response?
(8) Here, reading the claim generously, the plaintiff's core complaint is that Mr. B withheld information, which was presumably favourable to the plaintiff....Kaufman got that 'in one' until he deviates from the topic of the Partner's Agreement to go dancing off with the canceled license theme.
(9) These are serious allegations and of course they may not be true. Kaufman could equally have said 'may be true' which is reflective of his duplicity.
(10) ...The Statement of Claim does suffer from drafting deficiencies (Oh dear, that old bogey again. Maybe this account is more to the liking of Kaufman but I digress), and the plaintiff could have been more specific in his allegations against Mr. B. (Oh, but I was but Kaufman errs with the error of omission on that point) but this is not one of the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the claim is apparent on the face of the pleading (which as noted is deficient entirely due to Kaufman's personal perfidy.
(11) The defendant's request is denied. What??? Cavanagh LLP lost? Hence the illicit approach of Cavanagh LLP is covered up. And which Plaintiff is ever going to appeal a winning case? Kaufman should have been a magician on stage with his hat and rabbit on this colossal stunt.
ACTION CALLED FOR
4) To rescind both actions by Master Kaufman and return both cases he handled to the proper court at large. The Law Society, A.G. Doug Downey, P.M. Trudeau all of whose silence in the past is a direct product of such legal nonsense as perpetrated by Ottawa Master Kaufman, not once but twice.
GANG OF 40 - POST IN STAFFROOM - HIT RADIO TALK SHOWS
TO: Alexander Bissonnette of Mann Lawyers FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff
11 Holland Ave. Ste 300 Ottawa ON K1y 4S1 1285 Cahill Drive #2001 Ottawa K1V 9A7
t. 613-722-1500 f. 613-722-7677 t. 613-521-1739 e:firstname.lastname@example.org
4 pages web: employeescasecanada.ca LEGAL MAILmay
cc Ottawa Superior Court / ON Legal Society / A.G. Doug Downey following in the incompetent footsteps of his predecessor, Carolyn Mulroney / P.M. Trudeau 'Repository'
cc Cavanagh LLP representing Bissonnette (CV 20 82889) in my bid to have him charged criminally by the court hence he should not be representing Vandawaetere in any connection.
cc Towngate Staff
RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF DEFENCE - CALLOW v. VANDEWAETERE (May 04-2020)
Response to Covering letter from Bissonnette(B) to Callow.
A) Service by e-mail, as you request, is acceptable.
B) As to the suspension of time lines due to COVID-19 on March 16; explain to me how Superior Court's Master Kaufman (CV 82889) is able to deliver a Decision on (CV20 83096) on April 30 without providing this plaintiff an opportunity to provide rebuttal argument to an action held for reasons 'best known to himself'?
C) As to your repeated request not to provide staff with correspondence on this case, then whom was I to provide it to considering Dr. Vandewaetere (Dr. V) did not respond for a month? I should have received an acknowledgment of the action immediately with a Statement of Defence provided late...not much later!
D) Further, this Clinic registers Doctors without clients hence my reference to the tax authorities which is outside your purview. To what extent are staff members signing off on questionable tax forms would be a necessary corollary to this investigation so, no, I will not refer all information to you.
E) Why this Cavanagh LLP outfit would permit B to represent Dr. V. while he is undergoing his own trial for fraud noted above is highly questionable as Dr. V. should get her own lawyer. Possibly she tried and was turned down by large firms. I say 'outfit' because the Statement of Defence for B. is the most incompetent legal document which I have ever read. (SEE web)
F) At root of 19-SC-155235 was a request for The Partners Agreement between the corporate body and the Doctor Partners which should be of public knowledge. Mere assertions by B don't cut it...I want to see the actual agreement. Already there have been two cases in which this key information has not been revealed to me with the third case to be launched this Friday (May 8-2020) as known to Cavanagh LLP if they do not produce that Agreement. It seems preposterous - and it is - that 3 actions are to be laid for a simple piece of public document material but that is the Judicial world in which Canadians now live.
G) Perhaps I am 'old school'; but signing legal material with no case number as 'Alexander', I find puerile. Usually I get the over-worked 'yours very truly' designation.
Yours truly, Roger Callow self represented Plaintiff (CV 20 82993)
REBUTTAL TO 'STATEMENT OF DEFENCE' - Ottawa Superior Court
File CV 20-82993
CALLOW v VANDEWAETERE
BY: Roger Callow
1285 Cahill Drive #2001
Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
Dr. Anik Vandewaetere
c/o Towngate Family Clinic (no other address given)
2446 Bank St. Ste 201
Ottawa, ON K1V 1A4
t.613-739-0998 f.613-739-1485 (fax number blocked to this plaintiff;
no e-mail contact available hence delivery is by regular mail.)
N.B. Warning: Due to a taxation investigation which I have called for, this account may seem unnecessarily punctilious.
1) Point 1. is standard boilerplate law: to deny in its entirety the Plaintiff's arguments. As to demanding proof; I do but here is the drawback, presiding Justices such as Deputy Justice Rosalind Conway denied me such as the Partner's Agreement which is a key to two actions and possibly a third against Cavanagh LLP.
2) Point 2. In a civil action, a cost factor must be included. Either provide the Partner's Agreement or pay the default $10 million settlement fee.
3) Point 4. As to Dr. V's vitae, I request materials as to the following which no doubt would be of interest to the tax department: a) a birth certificate verifying where she was born. If abroad, citizenship papers. b) A copy of her medical certificate from her alma mater University which usually adorns most Doctor's Offices. Again, the Partner's Agreement is necessary to show her role as a shareholder plus other Doctors so listed and what other Directors of Towngate are listed as well. My research shows Doctors listed whom apparently have no clientele. What role does 'Security A' play in her profile? For that matter, is she an active Dr. with clientele?
4) Point 5 and 6. While noting Towngate is licensed with the city of Ottawa and that Dr. Jahagirdar (Dr. J.) was my former family physician, for whom I do not criticize for individual medical treatment. Rather, it was her political action in breaking 'patient-doctor confidentiality' which led to the cancelation of my driver's license for illicit purposes. A.G. Doug Downey ignores this matter in a separate action against Franco Alulio of the Transport Ministry-Medical (CV 20 82943) in which I am currently seeking a court date considering that he does not respond. However, I digress as that is not the immediate question in law here.
5) Point 7. Callow filed on Nov. 8,2019 against Towngate in Small Claims Court: 19-SC-155235. No individual Doctor was named although an action was later laid against Dr. J. for fraud
(CV 20 82659) which was unceremoniously dropped by Justice C. MacLeod immediately after the Conway Feb. 27 meeting. He took no argument hence he turned the Justice System of Canada upside down 'for reasons best known to himself'. B used this split to argue his key point; namely that the corporate structure has nothing to do with the clinic operation in which he failed to produce the Partner's Agreement explaining why. The attempt here was to get my medical file which Dr. J. refused to provide although on Nov. 14-2020, I received a partial file complete with 3 key redacted letters sent by her in Sept. and Oct., the latter one on Oct. 15 prompting her to request my driver license suspension based on recently received material. What material and from whom was the key to my disclosure request. The courts and CPSO (College of Physicians & Surgeons) whitewashed my appeal on those grounds hence I was relegated to the current Partners' Agreement which the courts and the Defence are sidestepping trying to claim that the prime issue of my loss of my driver's license is the basis of my fraud allegations. If so, the lack of disclosure would be noted which is not fraudulent in itself. As to fraud, there are no term limits on the highest charge which can be made in a court of law (apart from treason).
6) Point 8. A correct assertion that I am requesting the court to return my driver's license on the grounds that Franco Alulio perverted the forms in such fashion that they cannot be re-tested. A.G. Doug Downey in his silence is particularly remiss on that point. And then the strangest assertion in this Defence Paper: Towngate defended Callow's Plaintiff's Claim. Unless this Defence consists of the salesman's dictum; 'I would like to help you out...which door did you come in?' this preposterous statement makes no sense.
7) Point 9. A Settlement Conference in the Small Claims Court was held on Feb. 27-2020. In advance, Towngate served a List of Proposed Witnesses which named Dr. V. as its sole witness. Dr. V. was not in attendance.... Hence the Partnership Agreement was never presented by B. nor Dr. V. as I had requested of both. It was the failure of Justice Conway to not order that production which led to my request for her recusal. How and why this case was moved out of the regular court was never answered but seemed to follow on information which I filed on B in December before the Law Society which is in the habit of not responding to their legal mail.
The regular court had the powers to subpoena such information which Conway j. would cover up. For that matter, I didn't need Dr. V's presence as my only request was for the Agreement. In that Feb. 27 trial in which B had a private side-bar with Conway before I entered the room, the Mandamus Court on which B floated his entire case with 'witnesses' suddenly became a 'Dispute Resolution Court' under Conway who claimed...'There is no such thing as a mandamus court' The Registry believes otherwise. They can't both be correct. B was instantly playing ball by converting Dr. V. into his client; the first I had heard of that step. Immediately after that mish mash of a hearing, I went downstairs and filed against Dr. V. In short, the $10 million action against Dr. J. was shifted sideways with the Clinic still on the hook. At this time, the driver license aspect of the case has been displaced by the charges of fraud extant against B and Dr. V with Cavanagh LLP to be added by Friday May 8 if they do not produce that Partnership Agreement. While it is speculation, all attempts are being made to keep Dr. V. from swearing to an affidavit which could be used against her in this regard. Master Kaufman's actions as noted above are regressive in getting at the truth of these charges of fraud.
8) Point 10 While I did not appeal Conway j's Decision (there is no appeal with a mandamus court), I referred her to the oversight body concerned which turns out to be the very one whom gave the marching orders to her in the first place; a cozy arrangement.
9) Point 11. Now B leaps back to the action against Dr. J on January 13-2020 (CV 20 82659) which was dismissed by Justice MacLeod on his own recognizance and without taking argument. In short, I was blind-sided as was the entire Justice System by this inopportune action. Callow did not appeal Justice MacLeod's Order. Knowing how Appeal Courts work in general and in particular in Ottawa, there was no sense in going that route. What I did do was appeal to oversight bodies such as The Council of Judges (MacLeod was a Federal appt.), A.G. Doug Downey, P.M. Trudeau considering that the entire nature of the Canadian Justice System was now placed in jeopardy. There was no response.
10) Point 12 Correct. Master Kaufman on March 30-2020 (COVID-19 break) dropped my charge against MacLeod j. without taking argument.
11) Points 13 and 14 Abuse of process for both In summary, all my arguments which B does not spell out above are an abuse of process against Conway j., MacLeod j. Towngate, Dr. J. Dr. V. in this catch-all accusation.
12) Point 15 Dr. V. did not treat Callow, and had no involvement with Callow's care or medical file, and, as such, did not owe any duty of care to Callow. I am not questioning her as a practicing Doctor rather, I am questioning her as an admitted shareholder. If Dr. J. is also an shareholder, then why didn't she present the Partner's Agreement as that is now the thrust of this legal case. Leave the direct practice of medicine out of it. The central question remains; in the event of a successful prosecution, which insurance indemnity fund will pay the settlement? Is there one or more at Towngate? We are not told. Also to what extent are staff liable in such a charge?
13) Point 16 '...the fact is, Callow has advanced no basis for breaching the corporate veil to seek personal liability against her. So this Agreement which is on file at City Hall is now a big secret? As a shareholder, I submit that Dr. V. is responsible. To which extent depends on providing the Doctor's Agreement.
14) Point 17. If Dr. V. denies everything as asserted here and 'puts Callow to the strict proof of these allegations.' Gladly, I accept the challenge and the first step - I know that I am beginning to sound like a broken record here - is to provide the Partner's Agreement.
15) Points 18 and 19 The usual request to dismiss the action for being frivolous and vexatious
repeating the mistake of over 50 judges in a period of 35 years in the matter of an unresolved legal case which can only be referred to incidentally in this current matter explains a motive for Franco Alulio to pervert the driver license suspension form for fraudulent purposes.
16) Points 20-23 The Plaintiff's Losses B. would count this case over before it has been examined by the court. In short, either produce the Partner's Agreement or forfeit $10 million in settlement.
Yours truly, Roger Callow Plaintiff
TO: Canadian Judicial Council FROM: Roger Callow Plaintiff
Ottawa ON K1A 0W8 1285 Cahill Drive #2001 Ottawa K1V 9A7
e-mail: email@example.com t. 613-521-1739 e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
t. 613-288-1566 f.613-288-1575 web: employeescasecanada.ca 2020 may extenders
cc. P.M. Trudeau
1) I am no fan of the CJC dominated by the Chief Justices whom I claim are giving the marching orders to sitting judges which I have charged with malfeasance. A number of these judges includes one current chief justice in B.C. SEE web: 2018 Hincks cj-fraud. An unresolved 35 year labour problem with its genesis in B.C. under the imposed BILL 35 has the Employer denying that the court has any oversight control over imposed legislation even though they lost an Appeal case on that point. The key is that no oversight body including the CJC has seen fit to acknowledge let alone evaluate these claims for judges I charge with malfeasance including those whom received their original appointment from the Federal Court. That charge relates to both the incumbent and former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Other judges would dispose of this claim by the plaintiff as merely being frivolous & vexatious in order to duck their responsibilities.
2) Hence this charge against Ottawa Justice C. Macleod (CV 20 83096) is being registered to draw the attention of P.M. Trudeau and the necessity to impose a trusteeship over the Ottawa Courts until this matter is resolved; Master Kaufman's bid to quash that Case on his own volition without taking argument notwithstanding. MacLeod, on his own volition and without taking argument, dropped two actions which I had filed against the Ottawa General Hospital and Dr. Jahagirdar of Towngate Family Medicine thereby changing the basic character of the Justice System in a most significant way. In short, powerful influences will avoid court exposure by 'buying the judge' which is a little like the Middle Ages in which the Church sold indulgences.
Yours truly, Roger Callow