JUMP TO HOME PAGE

IT'S A FRAUD!

 

APPEAL COURT OF ONTARIO

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - Rule 37

(written judgment only)

A) DT12-1872 (Ottawa) For Appeal of Costs only

B) #13-59060 Ottawa Superior Court

N.B. The above two appeals are being rolled up into one as per regulations for combining actions. If history repeats itself, a further appeal of #14-61592 to be heard September 23-2014 in Ottawa, can be expected to be included in a possible combined appeal. Due to the request of the Employer to discuss 'all issues'; the topic of fraud has been introduced for a first time on two levels - circumstances of the original lay-off and systematic judicial abuse over 29 years. Strangely, neither the Employer nor Union has filed a 'Notice of Appearance' for the above hearing drawing into question what skulduggery is afoot on September 23 and will the press be present?

encl. documents including correspondence which is itemized in the Index and is summarized here.

BACKGROUND

1) The above is, as per regulations, included to the Employer represented by Hicks, Morley. Should #14-61592 be included in the future, the B.C. Teachers Union would be included, if possible; otherwise a separate action would be filed.

2) The time-related appeal procedures are fraught with problems which cause no end of difficulties for Registry personnel as has happened here over 4 court systems including unsuccessful appeals to be heard at the Supreme Court of Canada in this 29 year unresolved B.C. Labour matter in which no compensation has been paid.

3) The above state of affairs compromises such basic legal principals as habeas corpus, due process, and 'there can be no process without judgment'. As such, the Employee's Case, as it is labeled, is the lead civil case in Canadian jurisprudence and is headed back to the Supreme Court of Canada for a third time complicated by jurisdictional questions which the various Ontario courts (there have been three) seem most reluctant to discuss.

4) The most recent Ontario court experience was an action lodged by the Employer (#13-59060) as Applicant in which they requested that all issues be discussed while, as the targeted Respondent, I requested that the 'Cullen Creed' of July 23-2013 which expelled me from the B.C. courts for 'reasons best known to a judge' (although reasons were attributed to that action by the Employer which were regurgitated by the judge) in making his 'vexatious' ruling limiting my appeals in Ontario Courts.

5) McKinnon j. of that April 10-2014 hearing and I were in agreement that the only court competent to handle this matter including the charge of systematic injustice by the courts across 8 separate court systems and over 30 judges, was the Supreme Court of Canada(SCofC).

6) McKinnon j. was equally insistent that I was not going to use Ontario courts to proceed on that level. He offered no answer to the question as to how I would get to the SCofC. His Decision is being appealed on both costs - keep in mind that I was the Respondent - and his findings; or lack thereof.

7) McKinnon j's. failure to make any reference to the Employer's request to discuss all issues nor to my request to evaluate the Cullen Creed has led not only to any Appeal noted above (B) but also to the Canadian Judicial Council (he was a federal appointment to the bench) for 'judicial malfeasance' as opposed to 'judicial bias' as I noted in his court. There has been no response to repeated messages to the Canadian Council of Judges. The PMO is kept apprised of these developments.

8) While the court A) did not detail their analysis of the 'MacKenzie Creed' of October 1, 2010; the only question before them. (Their response was that the courts had no authority over a judge in another province without quoting any case law.) While disagreeing with that decision, nonetheless, DT12-1872, is being questioned on appeal as to costs only as the Cullen Creed appears to have taken precedence although no relationship is made between two Creeds. It is submitted here that both are ultra vires and, if the Ontario Court decisions are to hold, only the SCofC may respond. The trick is to get the matter there through the necessary lower court sequences preceding such a SCofC appeal.

Specific procedural difficulties

9) Many appeals are derailed due to the litigants failing to follow jurisdictional procedures as to form. There appears to be no body capable of addressing this shortcoming and is a common problem with the four Registries with which I have dealt.

10) The effect of such rejection places the filing litigant beyond the time limits set out for Appeal so that a 'Notice of Motion' becomes a much weaker 'Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal' as seen here which too often receives cursory judicial treatment; particularly if one is not represented by legal counsel. Keep in mind, that legal Counsel are continually being rejected on this basis for which they may charge billable time to their client. Many years ago, I was subjected to an extra court appearance by a legal firm on a matter of probating a will for which I was given a mumbled rationalization. In the specific case of appealing this matter of costs only, my legal advisor believed that the Ottawa courts should have handled this matter as the 'originating court'. (SEE enclosed court returned document as noted in INDEX)

11) I have been told orally by the Appeal Court of Ontario that letters under the stamp of Huguette Thomson, Registrar are sent for which she has never seen. Sure fooled me as the signature of her on the June 2-2014 letter is either hers or a darned good attempt at forgery. At least there was service available from the Appeal Court by telephone. All other Registries give a recorded message that 'they will get back to your within 24 hours'. They never do although I witnessed one SCofC Registry call to the B.C. Appeal Court which was returned within 10 minutes with clerks making judicial interpretations more properly being the province of judges. Talk about the Registry tail wagging the judicial dog! The problem is compounded where some rules are strictly adhered to by some courts only to be glossed over by others. I liked the Registry clerk response which ran thus: 'These rules are only examples of how to proceed'. No wonder Registries are a high pressure appointment and that does not even include the idiosyncrasies of individual judges. The problem would seem to be 'too may laws; too many regulations' but that is what Parliament does best: pass new laws as opposed to first making sure that extant laws can do the job.

Action Requested

12) If the above two actions may be run as one as per the regulations, please act accordingly. The Appeal of both of the the above cases relate solely to the Employer as the B.C. Teachers Union had not been included although I have suggested that the Union be included in the Appeal if that is possible in order to discuss 'all claims'.

13) In the event that the above two actions may not be run concurrently, to approve each to run individually even if the Union is not to be included.

14) Without excusing the original conspirators, this case is a 'dog's breakfast' brought on by the cupidity of such judges as Ontario Superior Court's Justice Colin McKinnon. All Canada is the loser in this regard for 'no legal answer cannot become a legal answer' with a Justice System still expecting to retain any credibility.

How to get appointed Chief Justice...by making pretty speeches

(source: Christie Blatchford Ottawa Citizen Sept. 16-2014 C3

     George Strathy, having just been sworn in as the new chief justice for Ontario...The chief justice's overriding issue on Day 1?

     "There are very serious concerns about the cost, complexity and time it takes to complete legal proceedings," he said. (No change. RWC Even the 19th century author, Charles Dickens, claimed...'it is the business of the court to make business for itself'.)

     "Having been a lawyer and judge in this province for over 40 years, it strikes me that we have built a legal system that has become increasingly burdened by its own procedures, reaching a point that we have begun to impede the very justice we are striving to protect." (Got it in one, George, that is the essence of the 29 year unresolved Employee's Case which is now in your bailiwick. RWC)

     "With the best of intentions (mea culpa or just plain horseshit about that paved path to Hell? RWC), we have designed elaborate rules and practices, engineered to ensure fairness and achieve just results."

     "But perfection can be the enemy of the good, and our justice system has become so cumbersome and expensive that it is inaccessible to many of our citizens." (It took you 40 years to figure that one out?? RWC).

     Christie Blatchford continues...'Sweet naif, he asked that everyone in the system consider how to streamline things and be "user friendly" (at this, anyone who has begged on bended knee the favour of clerks or strained to hear in the province's unamplified courtrooms, would scream with laughter), and pledged to review procedures at the Court of Appeal, where he most recently sat. (Surely, if we are going to appoint judicial bozos to the bench in the first place; then, by rights, we should be able to remove them when they are past their 'best before dates' as opposed to promoting them. A great speech, George, suited to every Board of Trade meeting across the land to which you should be sentenced. RWC)

 

 

 

encl. documents as outlined in the following Index.

 

cc SCofC Hon. A. Karakatsanis / PMO (documents not included)

No copy is included to the Wynne Government for calling off investigation of the billion dollar gas plant fiasco.