BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employeescasecanada.com (30 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems and over 30 judges. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears due to Registry, Ministry & Court obfuscation. I feel like Ralph Nader in 1961 trying to convince the public of dangerous cars (Unsafe at any speed). Who knows, maybe recalling judges and chief judges may become standard fare in the future - just like automobiles. To be sure, the current system is not working as now the Canadian Justice System has been shattered in its entirety by this case. The current case in Federal Court (T-2360-14) alleges fraud on behalf of the Respondent Employer and Union plus the court processes over the past 30 years. It would appear that the Respondents misrepresented themselves to this petitioner as to the their authority. #550-17008208-157 currently extant in Gatineau, Quebec, will see if the French Canadian courts suffer from this 'English disease'. Premier P. Couillard is being kept fully informed as to court progress as well as, now, the Quebec RCMP



1) 21st century democratic Canada is well and truly fucked.

2) To place this indictment into some perspective; what the Defense lawyer is doing for Senator Duffy - namely destroying the institution of the Senate - in the microcosm is what this writer is doing in the macrocosm to the entire Canadian Judicial System.

3) From that there is no recovery as symbolized in the Employee's Case by the failure of our oversight committees including Parliament (PLACARD: GANG OF FOUR: HARPER/MULCAIR/TRUDEAU/MAY) In short, there is no point in voting this fall in that the only change, if there is one, is the 300 unelected PMO office members who run this country (badly if judged by some legislation) over which there is no press coverage.

4) How does this relate to a hearing in Gatineau Superior Court, Quebec (across the river from Ottawa) on Monday, June 8 (550-7008208-157) in which the Employer is co-opting the law by proposing a block on any purported Appeal implying the usual 'fix' found in other court systems assigned to muzzling this case? SEE web THE CALLOW LETTER for a definitive legal account.

5) Included in this account on the web site version is a 16 page rebuttal to the West Vancouver School Board regarding the illicit lay-off of this teacher in June of 1985 under the imposed B.C. Government BILL 35 (only B.C. teacher so laid off under this piece of ultra vires legislation before it was withdrawn in the 1990's). No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid which is a denial of not only the collective bargaining rules but the rule of contract as well.

6) In short, I was the target of a government conspiracy in which the B.C. government was hi-jacked and the judiciary was co-opted to sanction a 'sweetheart deal' between employer and the local union (in a bid to thwart my documented charge of fraud against an administrator = 'whistleblowing')

7) The key to the Gatineau hearing (as well as the Federal Court hearing T-2360-14, is the revelation of the 'missing memo notes' which are a record of meetings held in June of 1985 on this topic. They were called by Justice Mary Southin (r. 2004) and later returned 'because she did not use them'. Conspicuous by their absence from my 2004 request under the 'access' laws are those meeting notes which, it is submitted here, would reveal the fraudulent activities of the original conspirators as well as be a harbinger of the fraudulent cover-up in the next thirty years by the courts.

8) In that endeavor, the anti-employee is MIA. The genius of the Old Boys Club was seen in 1985 when no media attended the 11 day arbitration later quashed by the court with the arbitrator labeled 'patently unreasonable' leaving me, as events turned out, in a 30 year 'limbo'. All law is at an end under those circumstances. No ethical Canadian should take up Journalism.

9) The Canadian spirit of World War II is dead as symbolized by the Employee's Case; namely, going overseas to fight for human freedoms against the Nazis. Today we fight unpopular proxy wars where billionaire investors tell us what to think and do.

10) The Rebuttal for Monday's hearing (see web: THE CALLOW LETTER) should be of interest to all those interested in Canadian law (which should be everyone but, to date, is limited to this writer).

11) As one consequence of this case; I have canceled Canada Day on July 1 as Canadians no longer deserve a birthday. I have renamed it ANTI-JUDGE DAY.

12) This protest Placard from 10 years ago still says it best: STAY OUT OF A CANADIAN COURTROOM UNLESS YOU FIRST BUY THE JUDGE



JUNE 03, 2015




Roger Callow                                   Lavery, de Billy esq. for the Employer  

208-2220 Halifax Drive        v.      Ste. 4000, 1 Place Villa Marie

Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7                    Montreal, Que. H3B 4M4

TEL/FAX: 613-521-1739                Tel:514-871-1522  Fax:514-871-8977

Plaintiff (self-represented)           Defendant SENT BY REGISTERED MAIL



Que. Premier Couillard

Montreal RCMP fraud Division

Canadian Judicial Council

Governor General of Canada


N.B. A copy of T-2360-24 Federal Court is included in court copy and de Billy copy   Vol. I

________________   June 03-2015

(Roger Callow - Plaintiff)



N.B. Personal pronoun will be substituted for 'this plaintiff' as a matter of convenience.


PREAMBLE of the Defendant p. 1

A) Most of these generalizations made here are either misleading or incomplete. My rebuttal is done on a Section by Section below.

5. (b) there is res judicata with regards to the so-called issues raised in the Notice Response: The charge of fraud raised in Federal Court          T-2360-14 raised for a first time supercedes other judicial considerations. There is no time limit for accusations of fraud.

550-... focuses on the key element in that fraud; namely, the 'missing memo notes' from June meetings in 1985. The Defendant makes no mention of these notes in his factum nor my request for that evidence.


B) '...that Callow be prohibited to institute any legal proceedings in the province of Quebec regarding the so-called issues raised in the Notice.

Response: The real fear is that an Appeal Court hearing would provide the necessary background for a Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) hearing which is anethema to the judges. Sidetracking this issue has been, it is submitted here, typical for a judiciary through careful selection of judges appointed by the Office of the Chief Justice. Court registries are also used in questionable fashion to divert this issue. The SCofC is the only body which can handle this case. I have even appealed to the Governor General in Council to make a direct Appeal considering the failure of the oversight bodies including Parliament. The point of the lower court appeals is to gather as much information as possible to prepare for the SCofC. The 'secret memo notes' of Justice Southin are foremost in that bid.

A SECTION by SECTION rebuttal best deals with other material outlined in this section.


Lack of Jurisdiction of the Defendant

C) I have been expelled from the B.C. Courts with no recourse in that province. (Cullen Creed). Permission of a judge to proceed has been denied me. Logic tells us that there must be a court somewhere in which I may contest an unresolved labour case in which no compensation has been applied (includes pension rights). It is submitted here that under the rules of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice that other court systems may be utilized. My focus here is to obtain the 'secret memo notes' in order to facilitate T-2360-14 in Federal Court. In Quebec, I have requested the assistance of the RCMP fraud Detail in Montreal to that end. This is the first time that the police have been involved in this civil matter. Premier Couillard has been kept apprised of developments as I am concerned about machinations in the Office of the Chief Justice which plagues this case in English Canada. Hence only Court Appeal processes should be recognized and the central tenet to 'prohibit this plaintiff from instituting legal proceedings in the Province of Quebec' should NOT be sanctioned including the oversight of the Chief Justice as a means to deflect any Appeal. What is requested is other than a parochial definition of this case which now negatively affects 35 million Canadians in all provinces.



Background of the Defendant p.2

C) Rebuttal on a SECTION by SECTION basis below would draw many of the 'pedantic' conclusions here into question.


1)  After wading through the Defendant's Factum, did I see any reference to the key questions raised in my motion No.550-....?  No. It is noted, however, the completeness is well suited to a Supreme Court of Canada challenge.


a) Where are the 'missing memo notes' from Justice Southin in 1986 which form the basis of my allegations of fraud against the Respondents as well as the Judicial Process? The matter of fraud has no time limitations and takes precedence in law over other legal concerns.

Surely if the court is being requested to dismiss this motion, they must see the material on which they would base such an Order. To do otherwise would link the Quebec courts to the 'English disease' should they seek to obviate this question.


b) Where is the argument regarding the payment of compensation which is at the heart of this unresolved 30 year legal matter? Ontario Counsel, whom has dropped representation of the Employer, launched a case in which they asked for all issues to be discussed concluding with their claim that the Employer does not owe any compensation although no detailed reason was given.


2) Relying on the 'frivolous and vexatious' provisions of the law is a badly over-worked cop-out which permits 'less than diligent' judges to favour one side at the expense of the other. In short, one argument is ignored in the judgment on the grounds that it is insignificant and not worthy of due diligent analysis.


3) Conspicuous in that regard is that this case, after 30 years, remains unresolved where no compensation has been paid which is contrary to the collective bargaining rules and the laws of contract in general. The amount of compensation comes back to the legitimacy of the original lay-off which Justice Southin in 1986 strongly questioned recommending that the Board return employment to me. When the Board demurred, she ordered the matter back to arbitration; an arbitration which was never held due to Employer cupidity which has found sanction with all hearing judges. In March of 2001, SECTION 10, Southin sat as an Appeal Court Judge along with a second judge (Newberry) whom also sat on an earlier version of this case drawing into question the matter of ethics of these two judges.


4) Indeed, do the collective bargaining rules apply? While not included in this factum, the letter from the Employer dated February 7, 1996  in my claim would point out that these rules don't apply as the conditions of BILL 35 apply which would circumnavigate the collective bargaining rules.


5) The copious references to the B.C. Labour Board do not include this salient point; namely, that no hearing was ever held in which the question of authority is examined. Nor did the Supreme Court of Canada see fit (Chief Justice Lamers (d.) Cory/B. McLachlin) see fit to examine that very important question in the 1990's. In brief, they sanctioned the 'sweetheart deal' which undermines the whole concept of a union. That shortcoming is the source of all the following imbroglio as the Justice System would seek to 'circle the wagons'. For example, the CBC's dismissal of Jian Ghomeshi for unstated reasons raises the question as to whether the Union is acting 'gratuitously' or under the conditions of the collective bargaining rules; the same dilemma plaguing my case.


6) Hence, while I have a battle with the Respondent, I have a full scale war with the courts; a war which only a third trip to the Supreme Court of Canada can resolve although the lower courts in whatever venue can provide me with valuable evidence. For this reason, I have sought 'special case' status (which the Employer will not agree to) in other courts in order to expedite that process.


7) Much of de Billy's argument focuses on 'residual powers'. The oft quoted St. Anne-Nackawick of Justice Estey is pertinent here:

a) SECTION 21 p.4 (18) Weber v. Ontario Hydro 1995 Sup. Court of Canada

'It might occur that a remedy is required which the arbitrator is not empowered to grant. (i.e. death of arbitrator Lindholm) In such a case, the courts of inherent jurisdiction in each province may take jurisdiction. This court in St. Anne Nackawic , confirmed that the New Brunswick Act did not oust the residual inherent jurisdiction of the superior courts to grant injunctions in labour matters...What must be avoided, to use the language of Estey J....is a "real deprivation of ultimate remedy".

b) SECTION 21 p. 4 (19) Haight v Neden BCCA 2002 'The Court of Appeal said the effect of those and other cases is that labour relations issues must be dealt with by the process set out in the Collective Agreement and/or the applicable statute, subject to narrow exceptions:

(30) The courts retain jurisdiction, however, over disputes which do not expressly or inferentially arise out of the collective agreement (Weber at para. 54) and where a remedy is required that an arbitrator is not empowered to grant, in order to avoid a "real deprivation of ultimate remedy"  (That 'ultimate remedy' was the focus of the Supreme Court of Canada unheard challenge in 2004. RC)


b) SECTION 6 p. 5 (2) Leave to apply for reconsideration of a decision of the (Labour) board may be granted if the party applyiing for leave satisfies the board that (a) evidence not available at the time of the original decision has become available.


8) I find it interesting that when I make a legal appeal in a province outside B.C.; I am disposed of by the court claiming lack of jurisdiction. However when the Employer launches a case in Ontario, (13-59060 McKinnon Order where I am listed as the Respondent; Justice McKinnon falls over himself in granting status to the Employer) That case is under Appeal as well as further machinations on the part of McKinnon in a subsequent trial  which has been referred to the oversight bodies. Hicks, Morley dropped representation of the Employer at that point. TAB 36 TAB 3 pp. 9-10 The key to requesting courts other than those in B.C. to attend to this case under the terms of 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice' lies in the highly irregular Order of Justice Cullen, whom on his own recognizance, without taking legal argument, nor quoting relevant laws expelled me from the B.C. Judiciary. His Order lacks the all-important..."may only proceed with the permission of a judge". Hence, should I be successful in acquiring evidence of judicial fraud involving the respondents or the judicial process; I may not access B.C. courts. That's anarchy which the Supreme Court of Canada must respond to and explains, in part, my enclosure here to the Governor General in Council considering the failure of Parliament to even acknowledge this major transgression.


GENERAL  This section highlights excerpts from the Respondent's factum.

9) SECTION 36 TAB 4 pp. 13-14 PREAMBLE TO SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPEAL- 2004 holds the crux of this issue.


10) SECTION 36 TAB 4 Unpublished 'Right of Rebuttal' to Ottawa Citizen p. 1 article April 26-2014 is revealing from a public perception.


other considerations from the Employer's factum:


11) SECTION 1 - McKinnon j. #13-59060 Ontario Superior Court 2014

This action was launched by the Employer in a highly unorthodox fashion as it should have been filed as a Response to my #13-58607. In this action, the employer requested that all issues be discussed. McKinnon cancelled my date of #13-58607 forcing me to refile as #14-61592 in a hearing fraught with fraudulent activity involving further questionable activity on the part of McKinnon which was referred to the Canadian Judicial Council. No reference is made to that case by the Employer nor to the fact that #13-59060 is under Appeal.


12) SECTION 2 - Spencer j. #A950147 Vancouver Registry SC of BC 1995

This judgment holds the horrendous error of the Justice System in declaring this case a matter for collective bargaining when the point was not even raised by this plaintiff (requested a return to employment due to the Employers failure to return to arbitration as so ordered by the court) and an Employer who did not advance the collective bargaining (cb) concept (would contradict their assertion that the imposed Bill 35 circumnavigated those cb rules). Further, Spencer j. was well aware of the laws of frustration in which no litigant is made to suffer at the hands of an unforeseen glitch in the law (death of arbitrator). His choice was simple: either order me back to work with all terms of the contract to apply or order a renewed arbitration. He did neither praying, it would seem, for an outside settlement. All B.C. court cases were built on his erroneous thinking.


13) SECTION 3 Hollinrake j. et al CA020560 B.C.Court of Appeal 1997

Oral Comment: 'Mr. Callow, you have a right to a judicial decision.' "Great, then where is it?" 'Not my jurisdiction' "If not your Department, then whose Department is it?" 'Jurisdiction. I don't know but not mine.'

(6) As I see it the real problem here is the dispute between Mr. Callow and the West Vancouver Teachers' Association. If the Employer is correct, the WVTA is incidental to the imposed conditions of BILL 35 where the Union has no standing in these proceedings based on the cb rules. (In fact I was faced with a sweetheart deal as I submit the 'missing memo notes' of meetings held would show.)


14) SECTIONS (6-10) B.C. Labour Board Letter Decisions By not holding a Section 12 complaint, the letter written by the Employer in 1997 included in my claim would be still-born thus truncating any valid appeal I might have. The bottom line for the Labour Board is that by failing to accept a buy-out, I was to get nothing. My legal counsel, Paul Conlin addressed that argument ably in the Preamble to the Supreme Court in 2004. In effect, when the Union and a client disagree, the courts must intervene, or else what is a court of law for?


SECTION 6 p. 5 (12) Callow argues that the matter of his termination is in "limbo". He asserts that the original panel's decision neglected to deal with two matters. First, the Employer argued in the original application that the Board did not have jurisdiction in a matter that proceeded pursuant to the School Amendment Act. Second, allegedly, a "B.C. government response" to Callow's enquiries noted that the topic of a 'frustrated arbitration' belonged before the courts. Given the fact that the court concluded that Callow could not bring a petition before the Court and the original panel concluded that his Section 12 complaint was untimely, Callow argues that he has no avenue to pursue his petition.


SECTION 8 p. 9 (9) '...rather Mr. Conlin (my legal counsel) urged the Association to pursue compensation based on a recognition that the lay-off was illegal contrary to a statutory scheme (BILL 35), and accordingly, had no effect....' and on p. 17 '...In the latter letter (1997) I set out what I believed to be the relevant legal authorities that would support the suggested strategy. I am disappointed at your failure to respond to these suggestions. It only underlines my previously expressed concern about your apparent indifference to Mr. Callow's longstanding grievance.'


SECTION 9 Sigurdson j. A990790 B.C. Supreme Court 1999

This Section is important for its completeness in outlining Callow's position. SEE pp. 3 & 4 Background & Breach of Section 12

In essence, this Decision rules that the Union and Labour Board 'did no wrong' which brings into question as to whether or not 'they did anything right?'


SECTION 10 Southin, Prowse and Newbury CA026478 2001 B.C. Court of Appeal

A bad taste as two - Southin, Newbury - of the three judges had sat on earlier hearings on this matter. Southin was the original 1986 judge.


SECTION 11  L. Parkinson Vice Chair B.C. Labour Board B117/2002

p.23 (15) last line '...He (Callow) stated that it would be inappropriate to proceed to settlement without Callow's consent as the propriety of the Association's actions had not been finally determined. i.e. Did the Union represent me under the collective bargaining rules which the Employer would dispute referring to the conditions of BILL 35?


p.25 (31) and (32) Callow's lawyer wrote again on March 26, 2001 to find out what action was being taken to bring Callow's grievance to a conclusion. In that letter, Callow's lawyer stated: If you believe you have the authority to resolve the grievance without Mr. Callow's consent then you should do so.(opens way for me to sue Union) If you believe you need his consent to the resolution you propose and he refuses to consent, then surely you have an obligation to resolve the impasse. You cannot simply let the matter rest.

Again, the B.C. L.B. finds no fault with the Union.


14) Williamson j. B.C. Supreme Court S022978  February 2003

p. 3 (18) follows on Spencer's 1995 specious decision that this is a c.b. action: 'As a result,(of being a c.b. candidate), he was without standing and bound by any settlement of his dispute that would be reached by the Association.

In the recent Federal Court challenge, the Union - supported by the Employer - only entered a brief 'frivolous and vexatious' response to the charges of fraud with reference to the McKinnon j. Order in Ontario and ignored that one made here by Williamson j. Obviously, the Union and Employer are not comfortable with the Williamson Order as it calls into their respective authorities in this case - c.b. or BILL 35?


15) SECTION 17 Bastarache/LeBel and Deschamps j. Supreme Court of Canada Appeal of B.C. CA030699   2004.

It was this refusal of the SCofC under the 'ultimate remedy' label which confirmed my limbo status and in so doing, reduced Canada to Third World status. You cannot have 'no legal answer to be a legal answer'. That's tyranny.


16) SECTION 19 Shabbits j. B.C. Supreme Court S075775   2008

p. 3 (28) 7. Madame justice Southin's judgment after a careful review of the arbitrator's decision concluded as follows:

"Mr.Callow was the one and only teacher laid off in West Vancouver purportedly under the provision of the new statute (Bill 35). From all this, I conclude that an arbitrator who instructed himself properly could reasonably have determined that the Board used the new Act for an improper purpose; i.e. he could reasonably have held that the lay-off was not 'due to' any of the factors but due to the Board's desire to terminate this man who was a trouble to it. (e.g. for accusing an administrator of fraud in altering his professional Report from a positive to a negative)

Had the arbitrator found a purpose outside the statute, his duty would have been to reinstate Mr. Callow. (My Vancouver lawyer, Harry Rankin  (dead) argued that she should have ordered me back) Therein lies the importance of the 'missing memo notes' on meetings held by the Respondents in June of 1985 which she returned without comment.

p. 4 (22) There is also the issue of whether for pension purposes I ought to still be considered as teacher under contract, as the legitimacy of my "lay-off" has never been determined.


SECTION 21 Smith j.  B.C. Supreme Court S087238   2009

p.4 (18) and (19) appear at 7)


SECTION 22 A. MacKenzie j. B.C. Supreme Court  S106159  2010

A 'carte blanch' Order for reasons best known to a judge to expel Callow from B.C. Courts. The all-important 'may not proceed without permission of a judge' is included.


SECTION 24 Registrar B.C. Court of Appeal CA038538 2012

Appeal is dismissed due to abandonment by Callow. Not so. MacKenzie's Order undermined my case for which I had sought the permission of the court to proceed contrary to the assertion in deBilly's factum.


SECTION 25/33/35/36 Letters from SCofC Registrar, Roger Bilodeau, insisting on  an Appeal Court Decision before application may be made to the SCofC.


SECTION 26 Cullen j.  B.C. Supreme Court  S106159  2013

Second prohibitive Order. This time, the all important 'may proceed only with the permission of a judge' is missing hence my banishment is complete from B.C. Courts.


SECTION 27  Roger Lafreniére Federal Court Prothonotary T-1386-11  2011

This case was supposed to be held before a judge in Ottawa. Lafreniére 'jumped the gun' with his inopportune ruling.


SECTION 28 Mosley j. Federal Court Ottawa T-1386-11

In a second secret hearing, Mosley imputes Rule 51 to draw his conclusion in rubber-stamping Lafreniére's action.


SECTION 30 Maranger j. Ontario Superior Court  12-54944  2012

The usual 'attempt by the plaintiff to re-litigate matters' without defining which matters and how were they resolved.


SECTION 31 McKinnon j. Ontario Superior Court 13-59060  2014

This case launched by the Employer sought to get a declaration that the Employer owed no compensation to this employee. They gave no explanation nor was this request granted. What they did get was a frivolous and vexatious application against this Respondent as well as costs. This matter is under appeal. McKinnon j. has been referred to the oversight bodies due to other irregularities.

p.2 (3.) THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion brought by Callow, scheduled to be heard on May 15, 2014, in respect of ...13-58607 is dismissed.

The above action I labeled 'cowboying' on the grounds that McKinnon was second-guessing how I would proceed which would have varied as a result of his Order. That's anarchy. SEE SECTION 36 for Appeal


SECTION 32 Pardu/McCartney and Hennesey J  Divisional Court Ontario

DC-12-1872  2013

p.3 (5) '...The Superior Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to overturn an order of a judge of the B.C. Supreme Court (Cullen j. Order-see SECTION (26). No law was quoted in this Decision and raises a very interesting point in law when a litigant is expelled from a province with no recourse. The SCofC ducks out if the action is not completed through an Appeal Court. That's bedlam. This Order is under Appeal. (SECTION 34)


INDEX TAB 2 p. 10 (i) This compensation belongs to the plaintiff as 'deferred salary' apart from legal outcomes and, as such, any court hearing this matter may assign it.


SECTION 36 TAB 3 P.9 Complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council as to conduct of McKinnon j. (Ontario Superior Court but a Federal Court appointee)


SECTION 37 R. Lafreniére Vancouver Prothonotary T-2360-14 2015

Once again, Lafreniére has usurped the judicial process in which I was requesting the mediation services of an Ottawa judge. The Chief Justice, Paul Crampton, oversaw both this case and the earlier one. I have called for his suspension as a consequence. The notion that a 267 page factum detailing fraudulent actions on not only the part of the original Respondents and their connections, but also against the court processes was merely 'frivolous and vexatious'. It is clear that he was not in possession of the longer account. That matter is being appealed.



A) To make the charge of systematic injustice stretching across seven separate court systems (Quebec to be the eighth?), one must have a standing case which I submit my case labeled on the Internet as The Employee's Case (Canada).com by 'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System' would qualify.


B) There is nothing unique about the Employee's Case in terms of court treatment as such treatment as I have received is occurring on a daily basis as reflected positively in the many case studies dredged up by the Respondents to justify their actions and reflected negatively by the many quotations and cartoons seen in my newsletters.


C) Hence the Employee's case is not an aberration in Canadian jurisprudence; rather it is the first exposure of how our judiciary functions under the guise of the 'Old Boys Club'.


D) The legal reason justifying my case as a 'standing case' is that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofcC) sought at two different times - the last one in 2004 - to freeze me in limbo where without a judicial answer, no compensation (includes pension rights) may be collected. All other cases before the SCofC - to the best of my knowledge - leave a plaintiff with a lower court decision in the case of a hearing rejection.


E) Hence the Employee's Case is not a mere aberration; rather, it is in the form of a Gettysburg Address which has changed the face of the Canadian Judiciary forever. Leaving a litigant in limbo flies in the face of such basic legal tenets as habeas corpus, due process, there can be no process without judgment. That's anarchy.


F) Hence the lie promoted by the Respondents is eagerly bought into by a desperate judiciary that matters have already been decided by the judicial bodies and that I am merely re-litigating decided matters. There is no discussion of which matters and what has been decided.


G) By quoting each other, judges assigned to this case are promulgating the spirit that '90,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong' which, of course, they are. When twitted by my legal counsel...'Are you saying all judges are tainted?'; I responded, 'What difference does it make if 90% of the judges are honest when the other 10% are assigned to your case. (To date, I have not had an 'A-level' judge appointed to this case.) And what difference does it make when an aberrant judicial decision becomes a precedent for all judges?


H) Conspicuous by its absence from the Employer's accounts are:

(i) the missing memo notes which, it is submitted, would reveal a government conspiracy (imposed BILL 35 which I claim is ultra vires) in which the government was hi-jacked and the Judiciary was co-opted (quashed arbitration) to sanction a 'sweetheart deal' between the Employer and the local Union. Should the Quebec court fail to order those memo notes (not included in the Employer's factum); then they become part of the over-all conspiracy of cover-up greatly compromising the government of Premier Couillard whom has been kept apprised of this developing court case.


I) The RCMP fraud detail should now prepare to investigate those parties listed in earlier material to them as sources of those memo notes. This is the first time that the police have been called in for this civil matter.


J) This matter is also a direct challenge to the 'anti-employee' Canadian media. For example, the media was called off from attending the 11-day high-profile arbitration hearing in Vancouver in 1985. It's called pack journalism as run by the editors. (For example, on the first day of the Senator Duffy trial, the camera-men were all over me snapping pictures of my protest placards (10 years running on Ottawa streets). On a successive day with different placards including ones referring to the Duffy Trial; I was given the '1000 eye stare' as interest totally dried up. They obviously had been warned-as all news people are warned- what NOT to print. That's why Canada's Third World status established in 2004 by the SCofC has shattered our democracy for without an efficacious media, the higher moral plain of a democracy is lost and we become 'just another pretty banana republic good for tourism but little else'. The problem the Canadian media has is what if an international force of questionable status choose to expose their cupidity?