AFTERMATH - #12-54944
Ottawa Superior Court Nov. 01-12 Justice R. Maranger
BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com (27 year unresolved legal case) CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’ Pulitzer Prize potential for reporter who breaks the Canadian media boycott.
Background: This targeted senior teacher in West Vancouver, B.C in 1985. is the victim of a government conspiracy in which the government was hi-jacked (BILL 35) and the judiciary was co-opted (over 30 judges including 4 inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada to sanction a ‘sweetheart deal’ between an employer and a union. No compensation (including pension rights) has been paid in defiance of the laws of habeas corpus, ultimate remedy, plus the fact that ‘there can be no process without judgment’. That state of affairs reduced Canada to Third World status. Hearing #12-54944 reduces Canada to being a failed state.
CANADA: A FAILED STATE
Conclusion: For those who wish the 25 word or less version, no Canadian employee should hold Union membership nor contribute to a work pension. That shifts the whole nature of Canadian society in a significant way due to the precedent set by the Employee’s Case as now all employers will quote Maranger’s decision to justify this action: Employer: ‘If you do not sign a $1 settlement for all costs regarding your lay-off/dismissal, you will not be able to collect your pension.’
1) I feel like Ralph Nader (Unsafe at any speed) who was pilloried by the Big 3 auto makers in the early 1960’s for claiming that there were unsafe cars on the road. You would think that he was the prime source for these car defects due to these attacks. Today, car recalls are a common feature. Similarly, the courts would have you believe that this plaintiff was fully responsible for ‘unsafe judges’ on the bench as they breached law after law by inverting the question by using ‘form’ to triumph over ‘content – oftentimes with the assistance of their administrative structures. They seek to expunge the interests of this employee and, in the process, destroy the very underpinnings of law in Canada. From that there is no return as Canada is now under ‘the rule of judges’ supplanting, as it does, ‘the rule of law’. The last stage of that debacle unfolded in an Ottawa court room on November 01-12 and is the focus of this lengthy account detailing systematic abuse suffered by this plaintiff over a span of 27 years. Canada’s Third World status has now been surpassed by the ramifications of the above hearing reducing Canada to being a failed state. Don’t expect to find a rational explanation from Maranger’s Decision as the issue is conspicuous by its absence although an enterprising reporter could get hold of the digital copy of that hearing which is detailed below.
1) The Wizard of Id: Immigrating Peasants: `We understand you have law and order here` Sir Rodney: `Sort of… Nobody may Order the Law out of existence no matter how bad it gets`.
2) `…First of all, we kill all the lawyers`. Shakespeare (N.B. some lawyers become judges)
3) `The lawyers and the judge, absorbed in the excruciating legal minutiae that see substance subsumed by procedure…` Crime of War Peter Hogg
4) `In every organization there will be one person who knows what is going on. This person must be sacked.` Conway`s Law or the `law of the whistleblower`
5) `We all like simple answers. We don`t like hard jigsaws` The Science of Murphy`s Law R. Robinson which explains needless court obfuscation and the consequent shying away of media coverage.
6) `Problems arise from deciding which dimensions to attend to, and which to ignore`. Ibid
7) ‘Those who respect the law and like sausages should not watch either being made’. Otto Von Bismarck
8) `Democracy is not merely an institution nor simply a concept but a profound structure of faith`. Yuan Zhiming a Tiananmen Square advocat. Canadians quite simply forgot ‘to stand on guard for thee’ in the leading civil case in Canadian Jurisprudence: The Employee’s Case Canada.com
9) ‘If people faced the truth about how governments work, there would be revolutions all over the earth. So they blame the misdeeds of the government on individuals. Feast Day of Fools James lee Burke The same now applies to the Canadian Justice System.
10) ‘You can’t live your life trying to make people understand something they don’t want to understand.’ True Blue David Baldacci Which explains why Hitler depended on the judges and teachers to carry out his Nazi aims.
11) ‘We had no choice’ Nazi judge to Spencer Tracy in Judgment at Nuremberg. ‘Oh yes you did’ said Tracy who hanged the Nazi bastard. The spirit of that ‘Nazi bastard’ is alive and well in Canadian courts as evidenced by the Employee’s Case.
12) ‘But I will try. No matter what happens, nobody will ever be able to say “She didn’t try”. Nobody. Intimate Enemies Caryl Rivers …and the professional order of Canadian teachers didn’t try and all Canadian employees must pay the price for their failure.
#12-54944 Analysis WARNING: it’s lengthy
13) A ) ‘The dog didn’t bark’ (Sherlock Holmes) …no media presence B)I smelled the first rat in this hearing when 3 days previous, I received an e-mail from the Employer’s counsel shifting from 2 separate hearings to having everything rolled in to one. A perfunctory presentation in court re-inforced the notion that they had prior information as to the outcome. The second rat related to court arrangements. Outside the door to courtroom #34 was the notation ‘civil case’ without denoting the parties involved as was the case on every other courtroom docket. Indeed, they had to page Employer counsel and his shopworn cohort because he could not find the room. In part, that was because it was a civil case hidden in the criminal court area. I learned from other sources of the location. (I don’t believe that I would have been paged under the circumstances. Rather I would have been listed as a ‘no show’.) Oh, well, nothing that I am not used to from Vancouver`s courts.
14) This court functioned on essentially the same model as the original arbitration which was quashed. Reading both decisions and one would be left with the impression that the legal universe was ‘unravelling as it should’. It took the judgment of Justice Southin in 1986 to dispel that notion (and boy did the right wing North Shore News tabloid have their nose out of joint on that reversal SEE web Red Neck Media). The authorities here (Superior Court Chief Justice Charles Hackman/ Att. Gen. J. Gerretsen/ Premier Dalton MacKenzie) were not about to see another ‘Southin’ in Ontario hence Justice Maranger can expect support on appeal. Indeed, I never expected any such appeal to be any other than a ‘road bump’ on the fifth trip to the SCofC – Stage 5 Cancer which is now in limbo due to the lack of media coverage (for all I know, a reporter may be still wandering the hallways looking for that hearing room!) and the support of protesting Ontario public school teachers in their battle on collective bargaining rights. (SEE Why these teachers are losers further down)
15) Justice Maranger did not have to look any further than his own nose to see that no press was in the room.
His decision makes no mention of my request for ‘interim compensation’ nor would he ask that question of the Defense when I so requested as their factum was conspicuous by its absence on that central question. Indeed, B.C. courts detailed my arguments before rejecting my claims for jurisdictional reasons. Not so Maranger. Unless reporters check the digital record, they would not even know that I was there. He attempts to write off all claims with this quote: “The common example appears to be the situation where a plaintiff seeks to re-litigate a cause which has already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(NB Incorporating the word ‘competent’ into this statement is like ‘John’s Car Sales’ insisting that the word ‘honest’ is placed in front.)
16) The real message for ducking out lies in this point: (6) Finally, a court in the province of Ontario does not have jurisdiction to hear a claim that is inextricably intertwined in all respects with the Province of British Columbia. In short, he is not going to do anything to challenge his judicial bretheran even if it means the sacrifice of the collective bargaining and hence contract rules for 34 million Canadians. That’s why no employee should hold Union membership nor contribute to a pension plan.
17) My introduction to this case was entitled ‘The Elephant in the Room’. In short, I have no decision from which compensation may flow hence putting the lie to so-called ‘re-litigation’ unless, of course, the court is admitting to the fact that ‘no legal answer’ is ‘a legal answer’ in Canada. That’s preposterous. It also flies in the face of ‘there can be no process without judgment’ a key concept in any democratic legal system.
18) Maranger errs by claiming that this case is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with B.C. in that while the present application for ‘interim compensation’ has as its genesis the proceedings in B.C., it does not seek a remedy on those grounds for the entire case as the courts have decreed that only the Employer and Union may act in that regard…and they do nothing (sweetheart deal).
19) Hence the application for ‘interim compensation’ in Ontario functions apart from the main event and explains why only the Employer was named as a defendant. The point here is that these monies belong to this plaintiff apart from judicial findings as I should never been dropped from salary until the cessation of legal action. In short, should there be a judicial finding, this sum could be expected to be added on top of whatever other monies are assigned. That is a key to the collective bargaining process and without which any guarantee, no employee should hold union membership.
20) Granting this petition, while not dealing with the law of habeas corpus, would have alleviated the law of ultimate remedy (compensation must be paid) and ‘there can be no process without judgment (respect for an employee’s basic contract rights apart from judicial findings). Now all three conditions apply.
21) Maranger mistakes with his claim that, as a resident of Ontario for 25 years, collecting a partial pension from the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund (an amalgam of B.C. and Ontario contributions), that I have no jurisdiction in Ontario. Indeed, the paying of ‘interim compensation’ would have enabled me to top up the fund eliminating that aspect of the settlement plus it would show that some compensation had been given. The question needs be asked here what Maranger would do if the Ontario Fund had refused any pension payment? Lodge my complaint at the North Pole?
22) In many ways, Defense Council were correct in claiming my battle was with the judges. Without commentary on an obvious government conspiracy where the B.C. Government was hi-jacked (BILL 35) and the judiciary co-opted to approve a sweetheart deal between Employer and Union; I noted that it was not the Employer, the Union, or myself which quashed the arbitration. It was the court. Further, when the Employer did not return employment to this plaintiff as recommended by the court, again, it was the court – not the Employer/Union/myself – which ordered a re-arbitration. When the Employer and Union failed to return to arbitration, it was many courtroom judges who did not order a finalization of this case. That’s how Canada descended to Third World status.
23) The failure of Maranger to assign ‘interim compensation’ leaves the Employee’s Case in legal limbo and, considering the fashion in which this has happened; Canada is reduced to being a failed state.
24) Every Employer will be quoting this precedent-setting case in order to obviate their financial obligations to their employees; particularly by cutting salary to anyone contemplating legal action against them.
A philosophical analysis on how our courts operate
25) Similar to the chaotic atmosphere of the military, ultimate order is maintained through ‘the salute’. In the Judiciary, that anchor is the anointed ‘The Judicial Record’ For example, The MacKenzie Creed whereby a judge, on her own volition, without taking legal argument, without quoting relevant laws, may ban a litigant from the courts. That action was not numbered and therefore does not exist in ‘The Judicial Record’ which was the court intention of course. It’s called ‘running a court within a court’. The Employer’s legal counsel on NOV01-12 claimed that I ‘charged the judge’ (CA038538). The Vancouver court, in their desperation, did their usual and hid by an administrative decision to block the filing at the courtroom door; a decision compromised when I asked Chief Justice of the Appeal Court, Lance Finch to mediate this action. He did not reply so I turned to the Federal Court which, under highly dubious circumstances ‘whitewashed’ MacKenzie’s action. Anyone reading Federal Court, Prothonotary Roger Lafreniére’s Decision without reading my rebuttal (SEE web) would, like anyone giving cursory attention to the original report from the arbitration and the November 01-12 hearing in Ottawa, would miss the damage being done by these courts in that regard. As soon as the Vancouver courts had the Lafreniére Decision in their hot little mitts, they dropped CA038538 from the docket, although in a duplicitous fashion, they claimed I could go to court to object knowing full well that access was not available to me due to the MacKenzie Creed. Hence matters were looking up for the conspirators until I launched #12-54944 in Ottawa for essentially the same thing – interim compensation while I awaited a court decision which belonged to me apart from judicial findings – as S106159 which produced the MacKenzie Creed in the first place.
26) The Third and Fourth trip to the Supreme Court of Canada involved a protest of the MacKenzie Creed in which a $10,000 surety was paid by this plaintiff to ensure the hearing of CA038538, which was never held. I was powerless to go to court to reclaim this fund and figured it would end up as part of the judge’s Xmas party fund. But then the Union and Employer decided to join the party for their share of the pogey. While I remonstrated with the authorities, I had no access to present an argument (MacKenzie Creed) against the Employer and Union. The precedent set here – as I pointed out to Justice Maranger in Ottawa Court was that any litigant acquiring a similar judge’s Order against his opponent could then proceed to court unopposed. That’s unconscionable but has been sanctioned by our court processes thus adding to Canada’s judicial collapse.
27) One of the problems of ‘saluting the Judicial Record’ is that very bad judgments are permitted on the record of which I have detailed a few, and which have the power – as in this instance – of undermining our justice system to such an extent and degree, that it becomes inoperable. In the words of novelist, Bryce Courtenay: ‘If the law exists, it exists in the hearts and minds of a few good people who are its keeper’. Clearly if those people exist in Canada’s judiciary, they are not assigned to my case. I concluded my presentation with this quote from a renowned Canadian jurist, Justice Estey (St. Anne/Nackawic) ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law’ which obviously was ‘water off a duck’s back’ in the Nov. 01-12 hearing.
28) Historical background: I introduced the November 01-12 with this historical approach: On June 26, 1985, The Superintendent for West Vancouver School Board hand-delivered a lay-off notice to me. In that notice, he claimed School Board authorization which, according to Justice Southin, he did not have. No Schol Trustee took the stand in arbitration to attest to this lay-off. Further, he quoted declining enrolment when the School Board meeting notes of that date quoted the creation of 16 new positions with no lay-offs. The arbitrator – later ruled patently unreasonable – had converted those 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs and included this plaintiff as the 17th knowing full well that I was the only lay-off. Quoting BILL 35 as legal sanction on this date flies in the face of a July 01-85 activation date. The Union talked a few other Schol Districts out of using this Bill but kept the one in West Vancouver which, it now appears, was initiated by local Union leaders bent on protecting an administrator against fraud charges (the Union received about 20% of their funding from administrators who were restless with Union membership. The two groups were separated in 1988. Bill 35 was ever only used against this target until it was repealed in the 1990’s before this case was resolved (Banana Republic Legislation).
29) BILL 35 stated that the lay-off provisions applied wherever there was no procedure in a School District for lay-off which was not a problem at the time…last one on; first one off. The key is that local Unions could sign an exemption to BILL 35 with their own consentual agreement with a School Board. The thrust of the School Board case before Justice Southin had been that BILL 35 was a consentual as opposed to imposed agreement.
They lost on that point and the Southin Judgment proceeded. Meanwhile, back at the Union farm, all School Districts were encouraged to sign a consentual agreement with their Boards including West Vancouver. As one colleague put it, we were dumped with a pile of information in our laps in the spring of 1986 and given 10 minutes to vote. What was never explained to those teachers was that only this targeted teacher had court access as they limited themselves to nothing more than a cozy little arbitration by signing a consentual agreement. That was the perfidy of the B.C. Teacher’s Union. To this day, that Union has not been called to account in this unfinished case.
30) The perfidy of the Union leaders in general relates to a philosophy that ‘if we don’t hang together, we will all be hanged separately’. Paradoxically, the opposite pattern is taking place as ‘unctuous Pierre’ The Tory M.P. advocating ‘work to rule legislation’ is going to make mincemeat out of this Union chicanery. The Unions led by the Ontario Public School Teachers should have supported me in the case under Maranger as a means of protecting the entire collective bargaining process. Now they can’t. Ontario teachers are only fighting for their own selfish interests.
31) Why the Ontario Public School Teachers are losers
While excusing the B.C. Teachers in 1985 for not realizing at the time that my lay-off (for whistleblowing) was a ‘sweetheart deal’; such is not the case now as the story is widely known among those teachers. The case is still not resolved largely due to Union intransigence and general teacher cowardice to stand up to their rogue Union leaders. They have earned the right to wear a ‘collective yellow stripe down their backsides’. That failure was not missed by the government and is, I submit, why they deprived B.C. teachers of the right to strike. In 2005, when the B.C. Teachers went on a wildcat strike, they were ripe for heavy court condemnation in terms of a heavy fine and an injunction not to pay striking teachers from a frozen strike fund due to earlier legislation. The McGuinty government plus the Union leaders are all aware of that background hence McGuinty’s ploy to repeat the same process over Ontario’s teachers seeks to replicate the B.C. experience. In this scenario, teachers would first be bullied into destroying their own collective bargaining rights (it worked with the French and Catholic School Boards) followed up with union-busting legislation. The unions are fully familiar with court operations as experienced above but lodge an action to placate angry teachers. The real action – as known to McGuinty and the union leaders – was to take place behind the scenes. In exchange for a facile ‘protecting collective bargaining rights’; the Union leaders will sacrifice all else leaving the teachers in the same position as if they had not worked to rule. In short, the teachers are merely enhancing the reputations of the Union leaders although they claim a ‘moral victory’ as a means of keeping face. At least, that was the plan. With the prorogueing of the Ontario legislature for a number of months in order to get a new leader, teachers are looking at a prolonged action amidst increasing public anger: “We general public are fed up with your delay. Settle the god-damned problem and get back to work!” A decade ago, such pressure in one general strike had elementary teachers going back to work without even giving the courtesy of that decision to their Union cohorts. Every employee loses in that scenario. An employee is better off without a Union than to suffer that ignominy.
32) As appeals to Parliament are concerned, they either represent management or the Union leaders hence no mention was ever made in the House on a matter which now negatively affects 34 million (the population of Canada) individual Canadians. It can’t get any worse than that. It will take a Messiah and most of the 21st century for Canada to work its way out of this quagmire. Incumbent M.P.’s need not apply.
Oliver Cromwell said it best in 1653, when he thundered: `You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately…Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!`
33) As far as ‘The Old Boys Club’ is concerned; they are ecstatic. In one fell swoop, I have managed to wipe out the courts and related bureaucracies, the government, the Unions, the Canadian media…did I miss anyone? leaving a vacuum which will gladly be filled by their interests…Hitler would understand. If there were prizes for this type of thing (A little like Hitler giving his highest civilian award to Henry Ford), this targeted employee would receive the highest accolade they have to offer for this unsolicited help.
34) As matters now stand, no ethical student should take up the practice of law in Canada. Other students should protest outside the law faculty such as happened in the past with military ROTP programs (U.S.) Shun judicial awards (return such as ‘justica awards’). Don’t ask judges to be public speakers. Shun their social events. Canada Day with Canadians vapidly waving their flags proclaiming ‘I love Canada because I love myself’ is to be replaced with ‘Anti-judge Day’. Sport slogans such as ‘Stay out of a Canadian Courtroom unless you first buy the judge’ and ‘Why obey the law? Judges don’t’ or ‘The law is broke yet plenty fixed as it is’. The print media in this regard is dying a natural death in Canada but, where necessary, ignore their pleas for upholding corrupt bureaucracies.
35) The quality of a democratic nation, it has ofttimes been said, lies in how it treats its weakest members. As the ‘Outlawed Canadian’, I am Canada’s weakest member. Due to the nature of that ‘excommunication’, 34 million (Canada’s population) individual Canadians are also dispossessed. It can’t get any worse than that.
36) The story is of biblical dimensions. Any number of a ‘binder full’ of Canadian judges have been nailed to the judicial cross by this ‘anti-Christ’ who, rather than receiving 30 pieces of silver, has had to expend far more than that sum for the privilege.
37) The U.S. President is invited to dust off his constitution in order to accept those Canadian provinces which would apply for statehood in order to live under an intact judicial system.
cc ON Attorney General J. Gerretsen / Premier D. McGuinty