JUMP TO HOME PAGE  

 

COSTS #12-54944

 

COSTS REPLY to Defendant #12-54944 (Ottawa) November 01-2012

Hon. Justice R. Maranger

 

1) This is a response to the Defendant’s request for costs in #12-54944 made on November (nothing submitted as of Nov.16) as per the order of the court for which submissions were to be received by November 16-2012.

 

2) As the plaintiff, I submit that no costs need be assigned in this case but if they are, they should be in the nature of a token $1. Any larger sum may be paid out of a surety earlier posted by the Plaintiff in the B.C. Court and for which this plaintiff has already collected $1,5553.43 on September 25-2012. Any other venue will be vigorously appealed as ‘double-dunning’. It appears that the Employer just walked in the back door and had the clerk make out a cheque. My remonstrations to the fact that I was not permitted in a B.C. Court to argue this assignment due to the MacKenzie Creed failed to attract Supreme Court of Canada attention for a fourth time. (SCofC Strike 4-baseball anyone?)

 

3) The explanation for the $1 settlement fee relates to the failure of the defendant to answer the central question set to them: ‘Was the defendant employer obligated to pay ‘interim’ compensation and if so, when?’ This was salary apart from any judicial finding and presumably would be added on to any other settlement amount. Regrettably, the court failed to ask this question of the Defendant at my request.

 

4) As the plaintiff was unable to receive a judgment from which compensation would flow in this 27 year unresolved legal matter before over 30 judges including four inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada, the attempt here was to be returned to salary until a resolution could be found. That would comprise approximately 27 years of back salary plus whatever future amount would be granted until the Employer and Union – the only two the courts would recognize to finalize this issue – reached a conclusion.

 

5) This monies owed to this plaintiff exists apart from  judicial outcomes as he should never have been dropped from salary until a resolution was found. That shortcoming, I submit, was at the heart of the Employer defiance in not returning to arbitration as ordered by the courts in 1986 as he was at no pecuniary loss. No succeeding B.C. judge saw fit to order that renewed arbitration  nor return the plaintiff to salary thus leaving him in a perpetual state of  limbo.

 

6) Normally this challenge would be completed in the Vancouver and Supreme Court of Canada but due to a prohibitory Order by Assistant Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie (MacKenzie Creed) in 2010, I was barred from any access to Vancouver courts in this unresolved matter for reasons best known to the judge. That is why the defendant turned to the Ontario courts where he has resided for the past 25 years and is collecting a partial pension from the Ontario Teachers Board which is an amalgam of contributions to both B.C. and Ontario.

 

7) Considering the importance of this issue for all Canadians, I directed all material on this case to Chief Justice of the Superior Court, the Hon. Charles Hackman with copies to A.G. Gerretsen and Premier D. McGuinty asking that he appoint his most experienced justice (the Defendant rejected holding this case as a Special Case before 3 judges). Considering legal action filed against the Ontario government by the Public School Board in Ontario recently vis a vis collective bargaining rights, the political ramifications of these two cases are immense. The failure of this petition does not bode well for those teachers whom, I submit, have witnessed the Ontario Justice System being thrown under the bus on this accord.

 

8) If Justice Maranger is the most experienced Justice that Chief Justice Charles Hackland has to offer, then one can only wonder about the experience of other court justices in Ottawa. His background in Labour law seemed sketchy and his constitutional experience non-existent as  based on his written report although his bottom line appeared to be enunciated in this line: `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.` Given the choice, he would appear to protect the nefarious actions of some judges at the expense of the rights of individuals in all of Canada; namely, to have a voice in a court of law on an undeniable legal matter. What if, I stated in court, the Ontario Pension Board did not grant my petition then where would the matter be heard? Granting this petition would have removed two major criticisms in that a) some compensation would have been paid as per the collective bargaining rules of ‘ultimate remedy’ and b) finalization of the pension question would eliminate the accusation that the Employer with the courts assistance had improperly attached pension rights to the lay-off in such fashion that all future employers may state to laid-off employees: ‘If you do not sign a $1 settlement, you will not collect your pension. The matter of ‘habeas corpus’ would remain until a final solution was met which was beyond the purvey of this court.

 

9) Indeed, the decision delivered a mere 3 hours after the hearing and only quoting  the argument set forth by the defendant smacked of a pre-written report in the offices of the Defendant. This Decision parallels the original arbitration of 1985 which was later quashed by the court and the arbitrator ruled as ‘patently unreasonable’.

 

10) My presentation was preceded by this observation: ’The elephant in the room is that this remains an unresolved labour case in which no compensation has been paid.’ Hence such Decision observations as  (5) ‘Furthermore, Mr. Callow’s claims have been litigated and re-litigated over the last 27 years’ quoting from one case study from the Halton Police Services (2003)…’What I take from the authorities is that any action for which there is clearly no merit (my underlining) may qualify for classification as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.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. ‘What decision’, I had asked in court…there isn’t any nor apparently any ears to hear my complaint.

 

11) Thus ‘saying a thing makes it so’ would be the self-serving atmosphere which pervades a Decision which does little to advance the course of justice. Merely re-iterating the Defendant and his reductionist argument in order to evade his fiduciary obligations is no excuse. Indeed, Maranger failed to ask the central question of this hearing which I invited him to do in absence of any response to it by the Defendant. 34 million Canadians are the poorer for finding out in Canada that ‘no legal answer is now a legal answer’. That is why Canada is now a failed nation.

 

12) Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principals of fundamental justice.”  That last word reads ‘justice’ and is, in this diametrically opposed instance, in contradiction to laws quoted by the judge/defendant. In the words of Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic) which I concluded my court presentation: ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.’ That is what has happened here.

13) Justice Maranger was well aware that this was the court of last resort for this petitioner due to the egregious MaKenzie Order which, in effect, justified a ‘sweetheart deal’ between Employer and Union thus putting the end to the Union Movement in Canada. No employee ,will belong to a Union and contribute to a pension plan under these circumstances. A more proper court response was to be specific as to what redress was available to a litigant being left in limbo which flies in the face of habeas corpus.

 

14) I cannot believe such a facile judgment as this on such a serious precedent-setting issue would be written without a guarantee of protection on appeal. In short, an Appeal in an Ontario court room would be little more than a ‘speed bump’. We have already seen what the Supreme Court of Canada can’t do…would  SCofC Stage 5 cancer be any more successful considering 4 earlier failures? Certainly not without press coverage which I don’t have. It would seem that Canada has been reduced to a media democracy in that regard. To bastardize Churchill: ‘Some Country / Some democracy’.

 

cc ON A.G. J. Gerretsen / Premier D. McGuinty