December 5, 2011
TO: Jonathan Penner
Ministry of Attorney General
Legal Services Branch – Const./Admin. Law
Constitutional/Administrative Law Group
P.O. Box 9280 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, B.C. V8W 9J7
Tel: (250) 952-0222 Fax: (250) 356-9154 SENT BY FAX ONLY (2 pages)
FROM: Roger Callow
208-2220 Halifax Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7
Fax/Phone: (613) 521-1739
REFERENCE: Federal Court #T-1386-11 Order December 2, 2011
1) The Supreme Court of Canada action sent to you from this plaintiff by Purolator would seem to be ‘pre-mature’. Please set it aside.
2) As the decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Mosley must be first appealed in the Appeal Court of the Federal Court, I ask that you respond earliest to my earlier question to you regarding the fact that there was no detailed analysis on your part of Justice A.W. MacKenzie’s ban nor does any such reference appear in Prothonotary Roger Lafreniére’s Decision dated November 9-2011.
3) For a Canadian citizen to be banned from court by a Justice for reasons best known to herself hence interfering with ‘due process’ requires the highest standard of the law. This plaintiff has been sidetracked for 25 years in pursuing his rightful statute laws of compensation under the Collective Bargaining Rules; mainly under the ruse that he lacked the necessary status which the courts deemed only the Union could act in his interests.
4) As the current charge against Justice A.W. MacKenzie does not relate to the original case except in an incidental manner, my status for a first time is not at question. Certainly no such claim was made by you nor is there any such reference to such in Lafreniére`s Decision. The thrust of your action which was accepted by the Federal Court was that the ‘Statement of Claim should be struck on the gounds that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action’.
5) If CA038538 laid by this plaintiff contesting MacKenzie`s action had proceeded as expected in Vancouver considering that a $10,000 surety had been paid by this plaintiff for the purpose; there would have been no need to make this appeal to the Federal Court. Regrettably, an un-named Vancouver Court clerk, for reasons best known to himself, rolled up the legal books and returned them to the courier. His authority appeared to be an a priori interpretation of MacKenzie`s ruling. As the clerk was not a direct participant of the court procedures in this matter, an appeal was made by this plaintiff to Chief Justice of the B.C. Court of Appeal, Lance G. Finch to either accept or reject this action. There was no response hence my appeal to the Federal Court of Canada; the only court to accept my charge although they are seeking to dismiss this very serious challenge to the Justice System without ,it seems, giving much consideration as to the precedent being set.
5) The contumely visited on this plaintiff as a consequence of Prothonotary Lafreniére’s Decision but one accepted on Appeal by Justice Mosley, is that there was a fundamental abuse of the Rules of the Federal Court. No notice of a hearing was given by Lafreniére`s action in Vancouver nor, for that matter, of Mosley on Appeal in Ottawa. The Legal Books were never called for nor was this plaintiff`s normal right observed to select the location of the Appeal which would be in Ottawa where the action was laid as opposed to Vancouver. A judge as opposed to a prothonotary would also be in order.
6) Normally striking the Action on the grounds that the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to review decisions made by judges of provincial courts may have merit but not in the particular circumstances of this case as MacKenzie’s action truncated the normal appeal sequence through the B.C. Courts to the Supreme Court of Canada. Whose jurisdiction is it under such circumstances, the question needs be asked? Parliament does not want to interfere in judicial matters but has little choice if this Federal Court Decision is upheld. Writing this plaintiff’s action off, as Justice Mosley has done as ‘an abuse of the process of this court’ does not entertain the level of abuse to the judiciary at large due to this Federal Court stand.
7) The above are unusual conditions to be sure for any case, but the stakes are high. I submit Justice MacKenzie`s ban should be defeated because it must be defeated otherwise the progression of justice in all courts of Canadian law becomes meaningless. For example, revising the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to apply to all Canadians except those individuals excommunicated from the law is a disingenuous act in the extreme but one currently envisaged.
8) The Federal Court is a part of the Justice System and therefore is not immune to actions from other courts, particularly this one as the Federal Court has responsibilities to Federal employees. By following a narrow interpretation of the laws, the Federal Court to date would appear to opt out of those responsibilities in this larger interpretation of the law. `Only following Orders` or in this case `Jurisdictions`is poor balm for 34 million individual Canadians in a case which now negatively affects everyone.
9) Based on the performance of the Federal Court to date, Parliament has every right to invoke the ‘peace, order and good government clause’ of the Constitution.
Roger Callow plaintiff T-1386-11
TO: Federal Court of Appeal - Ottawa
ATTN: Elise Benoit – Registry Officer
by fax only: (613) 952-7226
FROM: Roger Callow (plaintiff)
phone/fax: (613) 521-1739
REFERENCE: Federal Court Docket #T-1386-11 (Justice MacKenzie et al respondents defended by the Attorney General of B.C. – J. Penner esq.)
1) Reference is made to your telephone call on Dec.13 regarding a 2 page ‘COMMENTS’ from Hon. Justice Madame J.A. Gauthier on the above matter. These comments were faxed to me at my request. As of the above date, reference to those comments do not appear on the public Federal Court web site.
2) Nor does any reference appear to my 11 page reply to Justice Gauthier on December 14 requesting further elucidation requesting specific concerns she had as to filed forms made by this plaintiff to the Appeal Court of the Federal Court on Dec. 06-2011; also not on web site record.
3) What does appear on the web record is a disconcerting reference to a correction in my name from ‘Robert Callow’ to ‘Roger Callow’ on Justice Mosley’s Order dated 2011-12-02 with a note that a copy of that report was provided Mr. Callow when he arrived at the reception requesting such copy as notified by a reading of the web posting on December 02-1011 at 4:35 P.M. At that time on December 05, the discrepancy on the name was pointed out and a corrected copy was received by mail on Dec. 07-2011. How can such correction be noted on December 02 on the web site when the error was not spotted until Dec. 05-2011?
4) Of far greater concern is the web notice of 2011-11-30 which states: Letter from Defendant dated 30-NOV-2011 the Attorney General of British Columbia will not be filing a reponse to Mr. Callow’s Notice of Motion (Appeal), received in this office on 17 November 2011, received on 30-NOV-2011.’ Considering that I did not receive a copy of this letter from the B.C. Attorney General and the fact that Justice Mosley brought down his Order two days later raises the question of collusion. The Federal Court has been meticulous in requesting from this plaintiff the appropriate documents and oath recording contact with the respondent B.C. Attorney General. Was similar treatment meted out to the Attorney General? Did they provide evidence and swear as to document delivery? If so, it appears that they may have mislead the court. Perhaps some other reason applies (no back-dating please as per note in 3) above).
5) For 25 years, I have been party to the writing of factums on this case. The ‘shotgun’ rejection by Justice Gauthier in her memorandum suggests that none of the forms filed conformed to rules of the Federal Court – a first time such a total rejection has been received - when I was led to believe that this filing was postponed on the grounds that one of the rule filings may have been problematic hence my request to Justice Gauthier to be more specific. Superficially, her comments would appear to be made in assistance to this plaintiff. Reality is that this is but one more obfuscation set in the path of this writer in denying him any hearing as has been the case with the first two Federal Court rulings where no mention is made of the details of Justice MacKenzie’s Order. That order – made for her own reasons – took the major step of depriving this plaintiff of all access to the courts to resolve an unresolved labour matter where no compensation (includes pension) has been paid. While ‘jumping the gun’ may characterize the first two rulings of the Federal Court’; this latter action by Madame Justice Gauthier could be labeled ‘shot while getting out of the starting gate’.
5) At this juncture, I have lost faith in the Federal Court to handle #T-1386-11 in an equitable manner. If no response is received from Justice Gauthier in the very near future, I will presume that no such corrective action is forthcoming.