JUMP TO HOME PAGE  

 

 

TIME SENSITIVE MATERIALS – NOVEMBER 26-12 HEARING DATE

 

November 16-2012    3 pages plus 4 page attachment to SCofC Deputy Registrar Mary McFayden

 

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (27 year unresolved legal case)    CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’  (see ‘CANADA’S  GETTYSBURG  ADDRESS’  for account below)

 

QUOTES: 1) ‘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

2) Justice Estey (St. Anne  Nackawic) ‘What must be avoided at all cost is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law’ …and that is indeed what has happened here.                        

 

To whom it may concern:

A) B.C. Teachers Union Lawyer, Bruce Laughton / West Vancouver S.D. #45 Employer lawyer, Geoff Litherland                (fax) (3 pages)

B) B.C. Supreme Appeal Court Chief Justice Hon. Lance Finch by fax: 604-660-2420 (7 pages)

C) 9 individual Supreme Court of Canada Judges (lettermail)(7 pages)

D) Prime Minister of Canada, Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper (fax) 613-941-6900 (7 pages)

E) no copy to the B.C. Attorney General who took an active role in Federal Court on this issue.

F) media (fax)

 

The Employee’s Case, a pejorative account

 

1) This account is directed to ‘whom it may concern’ due to the failure of all interests listed above to address the most egregious abuse of judicial power in Canada to such a degree and extent that Canada has been reduced to Third World status and is now in the process of becoming a failed state.

 

2) There is little question in my mind that I have been the target of a government conspiracy in which the B.C. Legislature was hi-jacked in 1985 (BILL 35) and the judiciary co-opted (government appointed arbitrator) to sanction a ‘sweetheart deal’ between Employer and Union.

FROM AFTERMATH.54944

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.

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 (Ottawa court #12-54944  Nov.01-12) 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.’

 

3) From AFTERMATH.54944  28) Historical background:  I introduced the November 01-12 Ottawa hearing 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 School 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 School 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).

 

4)  The first court hearing after it was clear that the Employer was not going to obey Southin’s Order to return to arbitration after they refused her recommendation to return employment to this writer shows how the Justice System had committed themselves to only one answer; an outside settlement which never occurred because the plaintiff had been illicitly cut from salary before the arbitration commenced hence the Employer was able to leave this case in limbo at no expense to themselves. No doubt this ‘squeeze play’ approach was deliberate on the part of the courts.

 

No. A950147 Vancouver Registry  June 2-1995 Hon. Justice Spencer  Motion Record TAB 2 (Respondent) p.8  Note 16   

     If, as I think, this law does not permit me to grant any of the relief which this petition seeks, the petitioner appears to be left in legal limbo with his case half heard but incapable of completion. As he points out, both Southin J. and the Court of Appeal by sustaining her decision, found the original arbitration flawed. Southin J. suspected, but did not decide, that the Board may have misused s.130.1(2) of the amending Act to rid itself of an unsatisfactory teacher improperly. Without in any way addressing the merits of any complaint against the petitioner’s performance, I observe that even if he was unsatisfactory from the Board’s point of view, he was entitled to be dealt with according to law under the School Act and not to be made the victim of abuse of authority. Whether he was remains to be decided and the sole person who could decide it is dead. It is hoped that there is some way of addressing that purported wrong.

 

p. 9 Note 19 IBid

     It follows, in my opinion, that the petitioner is bound by any settlement of his dispute reached by the Association.

ADDENDUM: Seventeen years later and still no resolution due to systematic judicial abuse

 

From REPLY#12-54944  F) The first hearing that this petitioner called in the Supreme Court of B.C. in 1995 is illustrative of the legal casuistry which the court indulged in over the years. For example, Justice Spenser implies that this is a matter of an Employer doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. One would never know from this account that the ‘victim’ was ‘laid off’ complete with recall rights and that the ‘flawed arbitration’ consisted of an arbitrator converting 16 new positions into 16 lay-offs adding Callow as the necessary 17th when he knew full well that Callow was the only lay-off victim. A ‘pie in the sky’ attitude reflects Spencer’s j. decision making processes as the Union would not sign a final agreement as then this writer would have been in a position to sue the Union with the whole sordid story coming out. And that would never do for the well-being of the Canadian Justice System so like ‘old MacBeth’, they found it easier to go over to the side of the conspirators which, as we now see, has been done at the expense of the validity of the entire Canadian Justice System. Further,’one dead judge does not a curtailment of a hearing make’ as Spencer j. well knew under the rules of ‘frustration’ in which litigants are not to be placed at a disadvantage with such unforeseen events.

 

5)  For 27 continuous years, the plaintiff has initiated actions to deal with the propriety of his lay-off from his senior teaching position in West Vancouver, B.C. on June 26, 1985 under `BILL 35`which became law on July 1 1985. The first two actions – namely, an arbitration and the subsequent court appeal – were supported by the Union. Since that time, the petitioner’s action has been unitary and without judgment for jurisdictional reasons before over 30 judges including four inconsequential appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada. No compensation has flowed. The collective judicial action utilized appears to be one in which the plaintiff’s complaints are diminished in scope as a means of dismissing them.

FROM DECISION OF JUSTICE MARANGER NOV.01-12) COSTS.54944  10)’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.

     The analogy I cite here is of the wife who phones the police to report her missing husband. ‘How long has he been gone?’ she is asked. 2 hours but he was supposed to be back in one hour. All the terminology used above to discount this case could apply to her request…’clearly no merit, vexatious or an abuse of process, no chance of success’ to enjoin police activity. 27 years later, she reports that he still has not returned, only to be told that she is seeking to re-litigate a cause which has already been decided. Go figure….

 

6) From the NOVEMBER 18-2012 Newsletter (see web for full account under  NOVEMBER 2012):

 

3) Plagueing this case since 2010 is the egregious MacKenzie Creed which cannot stand because it must not stand. What Associate Deputy Chief of the British Columbia Supreme Court Anne MacKenzie did in an un-numbered Order so that  no record would appear on the anointed ‘judicial register’  was, on her own authority, without taking argument, and without quoting relevant laws, dropped S106159 laid by this plaintiff seeking compensation (includes pension rights) for his lay-off. In effect, both documents would disappear down a black hole leaving as the only trace on the judicial record that S106159 was disposed of for want of prosecution due, one presumes, to a failure to be placed at the foot of this plaintiff. Even worse, this writer was barred from all access to court, even in terms of appealing this unconscionable decision under CA038538.

4) Trips #3 and #4 to our erstwhile Supreme Court of Canada were further foiled when that illustrious body hid a judicial decision behind an administrative decision, a low form of judicial chicanery.

5) To cut a long story short – although it is detailed on the web site – no employee should hold Union membership nor contribute to a pension program as employers may now duck their fiduciary responsibilities with this line: ‘If you do not sign a $1 settlement for all grievances associated with your lay-off, you will not be able to collect your pension.’  That forces a marked shift in Canadian society and one on which the media would remain mute. That’s outrageous .

6) The second ramification relates to a litigant obtaining a judicial injunction such as the above against an opponent and then proceed to court where that opponent has no standing.  That’s inconceivable but it happened in the Employee’s Case when the Employer and Union robbed the surety posted by this Plaintiff for CA038538 which was never heard. My remonstations about my lack of court recognition fell on deaf ears. SCofC #3 and #4 Strike 4 – baseball anyone? That is how Canada became a Third World Country. (That action is to be ratified on November 26-2012)

7) On November 01-2012, I sought  interim compensation (the focus of S106159) in an Ontario court room where I reside and am collecting a partial pension from the Ontario Teachers Fund which is an amalgam of pension contributions from both B.C. And Ontario. I have no other court available to me. This compensation exists apart from judicial findings as I should never have been removed from salary before a conclusion was reached. Presumably, if a conclusion were reached, this 25 years back salary would be added on top.

 

7) From  APPEAL.54944 : A special mention needs be made of the despicable action of Federal Court Prothonotary, Roger Lafreniére in an illicitly held hearing where no counsel were present. He inverted the question as regards the perfidy of the MacKenzie Creed to one in which the onus was placed on this plaintiff to prove, in effect, a negative: namely, that this personage was in some manner responsible for this iniquitous action which placed him beyond the pale of the courts. This point was recently raised in the following article: (Ottawa Citizen November 13-2012 p.1) ‘Courts planning to assist lawyerless litigants.’ ‘Aim of web  proposal is to help make sense of legal processes’ ‘…However, the report stops short of recommending that judges get new powers to declare someone a “vexatious litigant”, thereby preventing them from launching new legal action without leave. Such powers are “fraught with peril”, it says, and could thrust the courts into an adversarial posture against some litigants, potentially subverting the appearance of impartiality and fairness’. (my underlining)  The Employee’s Case Canada, considering the widespread promulgation of this case among the legal fraternity, was in all likelihood the basis for these report writers. Revising the law is NOT the answer here. Rather dealing with this challenge directly – something Justice Maranger did not feel competent to do – remains the ONLY approach suited to this problem which now defines the future course of justice in Canada. Hence the reductionism of the defendant and the courts has run its course. The MacKenzie Creed cannot stand because it must not stand. Canadian justice is at a cross-roads with this central question in this current trial in an Ontario court system. It is clear from his written decision that Justice Maranger did not feel competent to deal with this question.

 

8) The plaintiff was unable to participate in the hearing of September 25-2012 (FOR COSTS IN CA038538 which was never held) due to a prohibitive Order from Associate Deputy Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court, Anne MacKenzie j. (2010) hereafter referred to as the `MacKenzie Creed’ or `Creed` In that creed, the plaintiff is barred from courts of law (at least in British Columbia) in any matter pertaining to his 27 year unresolved labour case in which, as noted above, no compensation has been paid. This creed which hamstrings pension rights reads in part;

3) Any document or process filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry is a nullity.

4) The defendants in this matter will not be obliged to respond to any process that is filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any document or process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry.

 

9) On November 16-2012, both the Employer and Union faxed a notice of a hearing to be held on November 26-2012 for monies received earlier from a surety fund in Vancouver. My earlier remonstrations, including a wasted appeal to Chief Justice Lance Finch to stop this travesty, went unreconciled (remember, I have no recognition in a Vancouver Court due to the MacKenzie Creed. As CA038538 was never held due to a court clerk`s chicanery which Justice Finch failed to adjudicate, there is no decision from which such payments may be dispensed. That action was sheer robbery and was the topic of my 4th trip to the Supreme Court of Canada which has been obviated by administrative action. Now that I have a Vancouver Appeal Court  date of November 26-2012 to ratify this arrangement, I am re-introducing my SC of C Claim asking that 9 SC of C Judges personally to issue an injunction against this travesty initiated by the Employer and Union.

 

10) In any other democratic country, the Prime Minister most assuredly would call for a judicial enquiry in all matters pertaining to the Employee`s Case. As such, this challenge will remain the measure of P.M. Harper`s political legacy.

 

11) Of the 4 SCofC Appeals (next Appeal, Stage 5 cancer), Chief Justice B.McLachlin was listed with a 25C form denoting a  `conflict of interest`. She was on a panel with former Chief Justice A. Lamer on the first rejection of this case under the `universality of unions` question; a matter of major concern to all employees. She was the Chief Justice at the time of the second Appeal rejection on `Ultimate Remedy`; a cornerstone of the collective bargaining agreements. Appeals #3 & #4 and a possible #5 all have the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ at the core. #3 & #4 were obviated by administrative decisions. #4 is being re-filed immediately now that a November 26-2012 has been set for authorizing surety collections.

 

12) In short, the justice system has set itself up for blackmail by the Employer and Union and the Canadian Justice System is paying the price.