JUMP TO HOME PAGE

FEDERAL COURT DEBACLE - November-2015

November 04-2015

TO: Justice Minister J. Wilson-Raybould and P.M.  J. Trudeau

FROM: 'The Outlawed Canadian (Roger Callow) in an outlaw Justice system

 

MESSAGE:

1) This missive is to provide a focus on the many letters to the 'incoming Justice Minister' on file at the Justice Ministry (SEE also OCTOBER-2015  employeescasecanada.com) The window of opportunity for the Trudeau government to act is very narrow otherwise they will end up in the same position as B.C.'s Justice Southin  in 1986 and her 'missing memo notes'.

 

2) The central request is that the Justice Minister assign an agent to assist the courts in unraveling the debacle that this legal issue has become for me.

 

3) A second request refers to the removal of the Hon. B. McLachlin from office for dereliction of duty as it relates to the many unacknowledged complaints made to the Judicial Council of Judges by me of which she is President. That failure of this oversight body has had deleterious effects for this litigant in lower court challenges. In brief, who runs Canada...McLachlin or the Prime Minister?

 

4) A third request calls for the dismissal/suspension of Federal Court Chief Justice, Paul Crampton. His replacement should place T-2360-14 laid by this Plaintiff alleging, as it does, fraud on the part of not only the original conspirators in this 30 year unresolved labour case but the court processes as well, back on the docket before an Ottawa judge as requested.

 

5) A fourth request asks you to define what is going on in QC with two judges acting on the same case; one the hearing judge and the second, a 'supernumerary judge' who wrote the Decision on Oct. 23-2015? (running a court within a court)

 

    15 day response time, please

    Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow

Oct 25 (1 day ago)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

to alan.shanoff@sunmedia.ca  

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

MESSAGE: I enjoyed your 'river version' analysis of the laws but it falls far short of what judges do in terms of the 'wind version' of the courts. SEE employeescasecanada.com for the wind version of the courts.

 

1) the river is a seen agent in nature; the wind is an unseen agent of nature. Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic) links the two forces with this famous line: What must be avoided at all costs, is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law. The river is long on the law while the wind is long on justice.

 

2) While it does not appear on the internet, I filtered the Employee's Case through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (protection of individual vs the traditional law protecting property rights).

 

3) From my experience with many courts in the past 30 years in an unresolved labour matter, the courts count on the public and media to be oblivious of the 'wind' to cover-up their scandalous actions (which are being exposed for a first time in Canadian jurisprudence).

 

4) Coming up in NOVEMBER-2015 are two accounts a) lengthy letter to Trudeau mailed on Oct. 14-2015  and  b) a Q. & A. session on November 07-2015 which pinpoints how the Justice System has been 'ubered' (external attack from unexpected quarters) by this case currently under Appeal in SK.

 

The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System

 

P.S. As of the Federal Election, I declared the credibility of the Canadian media to be supplanted by the Internet so that direct Canadian media contact is truncated.

 

November 06-2015

TO: Justice Minister Hon. J. Wilson-Raybould & Rt. Hon. P.M.  J.Trudeau  by mail

FROM: Roger Callow (The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System)

              employeescasecanada.com

 

REFERENCE: Letter dated October 30,2015 (received Nov. 05-2015) from Federal Court Registry Officer Jo-Anne Clement. (enclosed). Excerpts from my returned material are included.

 

MESSAGE:

1) If the newly invested government of P.M. Trudeau and Justice Minister J.Wilson-Raybould do not meet the challenge posted by Registry Officer Clement, it is not only the demise of the Federal Court System at stake but all Canadian Justice as well. As such, the Trudeau government is hardly out of the starting gate and their credibility as a government is on the line in a fashion never before envisaged with the destruction of democratic Canada as a consequence.

 

2) The perfidy of the Federal Court is reflected in their deflection of this issue into the hands of Vancouver Prothonotary, Roger Lafrenieré on two occasions: T-1386-11 and, more recently, T-2360-14.

 

3) Both cases were to be before a judge in Ottawa. Regrettably, Lafrenieré  jumped the gun on both occasions with a secret enquiry which was rubber stamped by Judges in further secret hearings. Considering that he was named for fraudulent activity in T-1386-11; Chief Justice Paul Crompton should never have approved his appointment to handle T-2360-14 under any circumstances

 

4) For example, Justice Mowat, in a secret hearing, imputed Section 51 of the Federal Court Rules to a submission that I was then currently making to the Appeal Court level amid considerable Registry obfuscation.

 

5) These contentious matters were referred to the oversight bodies with no acknowledgment. For example, the Canadian Judicial Council under the aegis of the Hon. B. McLachlin has never responded to my many complaints against different judges; a matter compounded by Tory Justice Ministers in their non-response. I am on record for calling for McLachlin's removal.

 

6) Considering the above letter from Registry Officer Clement, the time has now come for the removal of Chief Justice Paul Crompton with a directive to his replacement to place this matter of T-2360-14 back on the docket for mediation before a judge as originally requested.

 

Yours truly 

 

APPEAL (CACV 2783) OF 2015 SKQB 308

 

1) This document is an appeal of 2015 SKQB 308 dated October 2-2015 by Justice J. Megaw whom is accused of judicial bias in failing to consider major points made in this one-hour  hearing on September 24-2015 as reflected in his judgment.

 

2) The targeted goal by Megaw j. appears to be how SK can escape any responsibility under the law for a case with its genesis in the province of B.C. to which he quotes extensively on matters peculiar to SK without really addressing the exceptions of which this 30 year unresolved labour case where no compensation has been paid is a prime example.

 

3) It may be noted here that as a resident of Ontario for the past 25 years, no question as to residency has been raised in B.C. courts on this level. Nor was the Respondent denied court access in 13-59060 which they launched before Superior Court's Williamson j. to discuss all issues.

That judge ignored their request preferring instead to invoke a highly contentious frivolous and vexatious award to which Megaw j. refers. If Ontario court actions are acceptable to Megaw j.; why is not SK capable of taking similar  actions?

 

4) Megaw j. makes the same omission as do the last three courts in Federal Court, Ontario Court and Quebec Court (decision pending) , namely; failing to call for the requested missing memo notes from Justice Southin in 1986 whom quashed the original arbitration leaving this targeted employee in limbo. Both the Employer and Union counsel have those records but steadfastly refuse to provide them. The courts equally steadfastly refuse to request them as I ask.

 

5) These missing memo notes relate to hearings in June of 1985 as outlined in material in the Respondent's factum. The imposed BILL 35, used only against this targeted employee before it was withdrawn (banana republic law) consisted of advice from lawyers and B.C. government officials. In brief, they contain the necessary information alleging fraud by me on the parts of the government, an employer and a union (which has seen fit to join forces in recent years with the Employer in denying any resolution of this long outstanding legal issue.)

 

6) A key notion bought into by the courts is the Respondent's argument that this plaintiff is merely re-arguing 'matters already decided '. They are not specific in stating which matters have been decided and when they were decided (res judicata). By accepting this argument or res judicata, the court hopes to obviate the fact that this plaintiff is in a state of limbo; a state emphasized by the colossal failure of the Supreme Court of Canada to hear this matter on two occasions; the last in 2004. No legal answer may not be a legal answer for a democratic justice system which depends solely  on credibility for its existence. Justice Megaw is well aware of these circumstances.

 

7) A further matter of major bias focuses on the 'Cullen Creed' which is detailed in the plaintiff's factum and emphasized in court. This judicial document of July 23-2013 barred this plaintiff from B.C. Courts 'for reasons best known to the judge'. Without the all-important rider, 'may proceed only with the permission of a judge'; that Order is anarchy as it permits a judge to act outside the law. Justice Megaw had asked both parties in court for their views on this all-important document.

 

8) By failing to directly challenge the Cullen Creed on the basis noted above, the SK court has condoned one of the more outrageous actions in Canadian jurisprudence.  Judges protecting their own is one such pejorative observation by this plaintiff. His assertion p.12  (18)'As indicated, there is no connection between SK and the parties, the subject matter of this action or the contract upon which the genesis of the applicant's complaints is formed. Despite this clear lack of connection, what the applicant argues is that he is prevented from proceeding with a legal action in B.C. and he requires another legal forum to pursue this issue....

 

9) Hence Megaw j. is well-aware of the reason for my presence in SK as is the case for the Federal Court, Ontario Courts and Quebec Court (decision pending).

 

10) Under ANALYSIS , (12) On the material before me, I find I only have to consider the issue of whether or not this court has jurisdiction to hear this matter.

 

9) Conspicuous by its absence is calling for the missing memo notes from Justice Southin which, it is submitted here, would allege fraud against not only the original conspirators sanctioning a 'sweetheart deal' but also court processes. To that extent Megaw j. joins other judges in the charge from this plaintiff of cover-up. Fraud in law takes precedence over all other legal matters.

 

10) The whole point of judicial action for 30 years is to ensure that no hearing is ever held to adjudge the propriety of a teacher lay-off which should never have taken place (if Southin j.'s Report is any example).Such a hearing would of necessity force the presentation of the missing memo notes ...and that would never do for a justice system compromised beyond all recall in this issue.

 

11) p.9 (9) Without limiting the right of the plaintiff to prove other circumstances that constitutes a real and substantive connection between SK and the facts on which the proceeding is based, a real and substantial connection between SK and those facts is presumed to exist if the proceeding:

(k) is for enforcement of a judgment of a court made in or outside SK or an arbitral award mad in or outside SK.

12) When the Employer did not return employment to this teacher as recommended by the court, Southin j. ordered the matter back to arbitration. Nothing transpired. All subsequent court dealings in B.C. did not deal with that key fact explaining why as the targeted employee, the justice system saw fit to leave me in limbo; a limbo perpetuated by the Supreme Court of Canada by failing to hear a case which has placed the entire course of justice in Canada in jeopardy.

Megaw j. is well aware of that point.

 

13) p.11 (10)1 After considering the interests of the parties to a proceeding and the ends of justice, a court may decline to exercise its territorial competence in the proceeding on the ground that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum in which to try the proceeding.

 

14) Note here in the above condition that the SK Act does not contemplate a SK court walking away from a litigant without ensuring that a litigant is tended to in the name of justice. Megaw j. was deficient in his Order by not stating which court should hear this issue although he implies the Supreme Court of Canada would be a suitable forum for the constitutional questions. Unfortunately, due to the structure of our legal system, I must first jump through hoops at the lower court levels which have consistently thrown up a bulwark against any progress to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) (for a third time). The above transgression is a major flaw in Megaw's Order.

 

15) Supreme Court Act (SCofC)

40. (1) Subsection to subsection (3), an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any final or other judgment of the Federal Court f Appeal or of th highest court of final resort in a province, or a judge thereof, in which judgment can be had in the particular caswe sought to be appealed to the Supreme Court, whether or not leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been refused by any other court, where, with respect to the particular case sought to be appealed, the Supreme Court is of the opinion that any question involved therein is, by reason of its public importance of any issue of law or any issue of mixed law and fact involved in that question, one that ought to be decided by the Supreme Court or is, for any other reason, of such nature or significance as to warrant decision by it, and leave to appeal from that judgment is accordingly granted by the Supreme Court.

 

16) Regrettably, the four major leaders in Federal Parliament as well as the media have failed to acknowledge this case. The Governor General, in this void, has to date refused to act under such as 'we, the people'.

 

15) The above flaw is emphasized in f) the fair and efficient working of the Canadian legal system as a whole.

 

16) Through his parochial approach - consistent with all other courts dealing with this issue - Megaw j. would seek to justify his actions with a narrow interpretation of SK laws at the expense of such as f) above and hence does a disservice to the over-all conduct of justice in Canada in general and in SK in particular.

 

17) 'Throwing in the term "natural justice" does nothing to enhance the validity of the arguments being advanced. I find the suggestion that an exercise of "natural justice" will somehow overcome the jurisdictional problems in the case before me to be specious, at best.

 

18) In front of Megaw j. was the Preamble to the Supreme Court of Canada (2004) from which this conclusion is drawn: An evaluation of the principles enunciated here are completely lacking in his decision.

Preamble to Supreme Court of Canada Appeal

(This Appeal denied in June/04 – explains why Canadian Justice System imploded) 

This preamble makes an unusual request regarding habeas corpus 

     The correctness of the lay-off of teacher Roger Callow from his teaching position in West Vancouver in 1985 has never been properly tested. That fact flies in the face of the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada and yet over 30 judges up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada has not seen fit to insist that Mr. Callow be provided the key evidence of School Board meeting notes pertaining to the matter of his lay-off. To that extent, the judicial system is a part of the conspiracy charge which Mr. Callow has laid against the Teachers Union and the School Board and yet, due to the nature of the law, can only be referred to obliquely. Should the Supreme Court of Canada proceed on the frivolous and vexatious charge by which Mr. Callow is estopped from being granted a legal hearing without insisting, in this most unusual of cases, for the necessary disclosure of evidence to be provided to him; namely, the School Board meeting notes of 1985, then all Canadian law is at an end. Conversely put, it may be asked, how may Mr. Callow defend a negative which is a logical impossibility; namely, that he was not indeed laid off by the West Vancouver School Board in June of 1985? 

     There are good grounds to conclude that Mr. Callow has been the object of a massive conspiracy to deny him access to the laws. In 1986, Justice Mary Southin, in quashing the arbitration favouring the School Board claiming, as she did, that the arbitrator had been patently unreasonable in his conclusion favouring the School Board, had stated that ‘nowhere did the Board express a willingness to lay off a teacher under the new statute’ implying the fraudulency of the School Superintendent’s letter to that effect. Mr. Callow from his experience from the condemned arbitration in which no School Board member was called to the stand to explain how an increase of 16 teaching positions – any number of which Mr. Callow was capable of holding – submits that, while knowing otherwise, he is being denied any hearing which would give him an opportunity to voice his dissent. Certainly no such reference to the lay-off was publicly made in the monthly report in June of 1985 where the additions were noted in arbitration. No mention is made of any lay-off. 

     Considering that Justice Southin in 1986 ordered that all material pertaining to the lay-off of Mr. Callow be made available to the court and no doubt serves as the basis of her conclusion, then we submit such information would be the property of the Union and therefore should be made available to Mr. Callow even though the court has decreed that the Union has full control of this matter as far as questioning the matter of his lay-off. Both the Union and School Board steadfastly refuse to hand over this vital information. Indeed, it would appear that it was the laying of a conspiracy charge against the two parties which prompted the current frivolous and vexatious charge by which those two have successfully evaded having to produce the vital ‘missing link’ information. The failure of the two Appeal Court decisions of the B.C. Supreme Court to address that concern is at the heart of this appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

     Simply put, how can the justice system of Canada in all good conscience deny Mr. Callow access to the court to resolve an unresolved legal matter which even the court has declared should have been re-arbitrated. The fact that the original arbitrator passed away under a law which would not see the appointment of any other arbitrator calls into play the courts role of inherent jurisdiction in order to finalize this case. Failure to do so up to and including one appeal already to the Supreme Court of Canada is a denial of the letter and spirit of the law in Canada.

"The curse of the world is not decisions taken, Blake reflected, it's the decisions shelved, bought off, sidestepped."   War Dance Tim Sebastian

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. Pierre Elliot Trudeau (1919-2000) '...Every government must accept responsibility for the rights of the citizens within its own jurisdiction. Canada as a whole suffers when any of her citizens is denied his rights, for that injustice places the rights of all of us in jeopardy.' Someone should tell that to the bozos who now run this country but the idea of any entity being more than the mere sum of its parts would escape them. 'The Outlawed Canadian'

 

19) From Quebec QBG 1902/15 (decision pending) comes the following on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Technically, Megaw j. did not have the following document for his purview but I do not excuse him on that account as both the Respondent and the Plaintiff were willing to continue this case on a written party by party basis. If Megaw j. had initiated this process before making an Order, many of the concerns voiced here could have been addressed if I had known the direction in which he was headed. The charge here is one of 'lack of due diligence'.

 

AUGUST 4-2015

INTRODUCTION

     Assuming Qc Justice Dominique Goulet jcw is acting properly with his interference in Gatineau Court's #550-1700-8208-157 (H.D. June 08-2015)               -  and the assertion to the Qc Judicial Council is that he isn't - he has asked the wrong question which should have referred to my reason for being in a Qc. Court in a case with its genesis in B.C. under the headings of natural justice and inherent jurisdiction: I would have responded accordingly:

1) natural justice: In common parlance, a judge may not pick up the 'judicial ball' and go home without first making a court finding so that a litigant(s) is not left in limbo. (Without that court finding; my compensation -including pension rights- is held up...for 30 years and counting.) The oft-quoted Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawick) is germaine here: 'What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.' That is what is happening here.

2) inherent jurisdiction: A trickier proposition as all provinces are understandably reluctant to deal with matters having their genesis elsewhere. The point here is that the 'Cullen Creed' (July 23-2013) expelled me from the B.C. Justice System for 'reasons best known to the judge' as Deputy Justice A. Cullen acted on his own recognizance; did not take legal argument; and did not quote specific laws. Without including the all-important 'may only proceed with permission of a judge, Cullen j. radically changed a basic tenet of law in this unresolved legal matter. The following excerpt from the Charter would have been my response which now appears to be slated for an Appeal Court hearing if I have second-guessed the courtroom judge, Therrien j. correctly. Unfortunately, he didn't ask any questions on June 8-2015 reflective of a pre-ordained judgment based on 'air' as the Employer appeared bent on throwing their case for unknown reasons thus prompting Goulet's j. interference providing them with a 'second kick at the can'. Running a court within a court is a judicial no-no.

 

CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS  1982 (excerpts)

One of the most notable effects of the adoption of the Charter was to greatly expand the scope of judicial review, because the Charter is more explicit with respect to the guarantee of rights and the role of judges in enforcing them than was the Bill of Rights. The courts, when confronted with violations of Charter rights, have struck down unconstitutional federal and provincial statutes and regulations or parts of statutes and regulations, as they did when Canadian case law was primarily concerned with resolving issues of federalism. The Charter, however, granted new powers to the courts to enforce remedies that are more creative and to exclude more evidence in trials. These powers are greater than what was typical under the common law and under a system of government that, influenced by Canada's mother country the United Kingdom, was based upon Parliamentary supremacy. As a result, the Charter has attracted both broad support from a majority of the Canadian electorate and criticisms by opponents of increased judicial power. The Charter only applies to government laws and actions (including the laws and actions of federal, provincial, and municipal governments and public school boards), and sometimes to the common law, not to private activity

 

 

Equality rights:

Section 15: equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.

 

The notwithstanding clause authorizes governments to temporarily override the rights and freedoms in sections 2 and 7–15 for up to five years, subject to renewal

 

Interpretation and enforcement

The task of interpreting and enforcing the Charter falls to the courts, with the Supreme Court of Canada being the ultimate authority on the matter.

With the Charter's supremacy confirmed by section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the courts continued their practice of striking down unconstitutional statutes or parts of statutes as they had with earlier case law regarding federalism

 

In general, courts have embraced a purposive interpretation of Charter rights...

This is tied to the generous interpretation of rights, as the purpose of the Charter provisions is assumed to be to increase rights and freedoms of people in a variety of circumstances, at the expense of the government powers.

 

The only values mentioned by the Charter's preamble are recognition for the supremacy of God and the rule of law,

 

Most importantly, from a lawyer's perspective, is the fact that the principle of stare decisis does not apply to tribunals. In other words, a tribunal adjudicator could legally make a decision that differs from a past decision, on the same subject and issues, delivered by the highest court in the land. Because a tribunal is not bound by legal precedent, established by itself or by a reviewing court, a tribunal is not a court even though it performs an important adjudicative function and contributes to the development of law like a court would do.

Although stare decisis does not apply to tribunals, their adjudicators will likely nonetheless find a prior court decision on a similar subject to be highly persuasive and will likely follow the courts in order to ensure consistency in the law and to prevent the embarrassment of having their decisions overturned by the courts. The same is true for past decisions of the tribunal.

Among the federal tribunals, there is a small group of tribunals whose decisions must be appealed directly to the Federal Court of Appeal rather than to the Federal Court Trial Division. These so-called "super tribunals" are listed in Subsection 28(1) of the Federal Court Act (R.S.C. 1985, Chapter F-7) and some examples include the National Energy Board, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Competition Tribunal, the Canada Industrial Relations Board (i.e. federal labour board), the Copyright Board, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ("CRTC").

Courts of inherent jurisdiction

The superior courts from the provinces and territories are courts of inherent jurisdiction, which means that the jurisdiction of the superior courts is more than just what is conferred by statute. Following the principles of English common law, because the superior courts derive their authority from the Constitution, they can hear any matter unless there is a federal or provincial statute that says otherwise or that gives exclusive jurisdiction to some other court or tribunal. The doctrine of inherent jurisdiction gives superior courts greater freedom than statutory courts to be flexible and creative in the delivering of legal remedies and relief.

16) This whole matter of fraud comes down to a revelation of the 'missing memo notes' and the failure of the various courts, now including SK, to further the course of justice by demanding the revelation of those vital documents without which 30 years of legal action and Judicial Decisions have no meaning.

17) It is now imperative that the RCMP seize the 'missing memo notes' from the respective lawyers holding them.

cc Governor General D. Johnston / 'Incoming' Justice Minister

SCofC Hon. R. Brown

QUEBEC: D. Goulet j. / Premier Couillard / RCMP

SASKATCHEWAN: Chief Justice M. Popescul / Premier Wall / Regina Leader-Post

FEDERAL COURT Chief Justice P. Crampton

CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL (Hon. B. McLachlin President - never replies)