JUMP TO HOME PAGE  

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – JAN.02-2013 p.1-2

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case)    CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’

 

WHY ALL ETHICAL CANADIAN JUDGES SHOULD HANG THEIR HEADS IN SHAME

QUOTES:

A) The lawyers and the judges, absorbed in the excruciating legal minutiae that see substance subsumed by procedure…’ Crimes of War  Peter Hogg

B) ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law’ Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic)

C)  'The law's a farce, sonnyboy. You can plant evidence and suborn witnesses and make sweetheart deals with the prosecution. The only laws we're really interested in making stick are the laws of contract - because if commerce doesn't work we're eating tree bark instead of bread.' Cassidy Morris West

D) 'What needs we fear it, for who can call us to account?'  Lady MacBeth

E) ‘…Sorry to sound as if I don’t trust the soothing platitudes of those in authority.It’s just that I’ve learned from bitter experience not to do so.  Ottawa Sun columnist Christina Blizzard

F)... Even in hoary old Ireland, a condemned man had to give his own name before being executed. Presumably, under similar circumstances, I would - as the targeted individual - be forced to say 'West Vancouver Teachers' Association'. Even Shakespeare let 'Shylock' have a trial! `The Outlawed Canadian`

image004

 

January 02-2013                  

RESUBMISSION (Part VI) TO SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

REASONS FOR RESUBMISSION OF MATERIALS REJECTED BY THE SCofC ADMINISTRATION ON LAST THREE OCCASIONS:

 

PART 1 (Universality of Unions) & PART II (Ultimate Remedy)- COMPLETE  AND REJECTED FOR A HEARING BY THE SCofC 3-PANEL JUDGES (B. McLachlin on first panel and Chief Justice for all other challenges)

PART III – V ; REJECTED BY SCofC FOR REASONS OF RULE APPLICATION (All focus on ‘MacKenzie Creed’):

A) Part III – ‘Mackenzie Creed’ which prohibits court access to this plaintiff for ‘reasons best known to the judge’.

B) Part IV – SCofC ‘Strike 4 – baseball anyone?’

C) Part V  -  SCofC ‘Stage 5 cancer’

D) Part VI-   SCofC ‘Beyond all reasonable doubt’

E) Part VII (pending)- Currently being appealed (Ontario Superior Court’s Maranger(non)Decision Nov. 01-12

#12-54944)- SCofC ‘Beyond all reason’

 

SUPPORTING ARGUMENT:

1) Enclosed are hearing results from Vancouver in the payment of surety money to the Employer and Union held in Vancouver Appeals Court on November 26-2012 and entered here in order to comply with the punctilious rules of the SCofC.  B.C. Appeal Court Justice, Peter Lowry, rubber-stamped, in less than 5 minutes, requests from the Union and Employer to collect surety monies from an account paid into by this plaintiff admidst a written protest to those two parties (due to MacKenzie Creed, I have no standing in a B.C. Court of law).  In brief, Canada has been reduced to a ‘failed state’ as a consequence of this ‘running a court within a court’.

 

2) As CA038538 challenging the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ was blocked by an oral administrative reason by an un-named clerk without judicial standing, an appeal was made to Vancouver Chief Justice (Appeal Court) Lance Finch to adjudicate. He was also asked to be my proxy in the November 26 hearing. He has never responded.

 

3) As CA038538 was never held; how may the legal counsel make claim for their expenses? They assume that because the court canceled the hearing for reasons best known to itself, that the outcome would not only be favourable to them, but also that the judge would assign the amounts claimed accordingly.

 

4) In short, the above is nothing more than ‘judicial theft’ with the collusion of the court.

 

ACTION REQUESTED

5) As the Employer never returned to arbitration as so ordered by the court after the initial arbitration was quashed in 1986, and as this plaintiff was left in a perpetual state of limbo as a consequence where no compensation has been paid due to the failure of over 30 judges to order the Employer to either arbitrate or return this plaintiff to employment (as earlier recommended by Justice Southin in 1986 when she quashed the arbitration naming, in the process, the arbitrator to be ‘patently unreasonable’); then the only reasonable and legal answer (there can be no process without judgement) in this long drawn out judicial debacle is to return this plaintiff to employment with all terms of the contract to apply. This would constitute 28 years of back salary plus interest appropriately compounded as this amount belongs to this writer apart from judicial outcomes (he should never have been cut from salary before this matter was completed).

 

TO: Roger Bilodeau Q.C. Registrar SCofC         FROM: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’

REFERENCE: CA038538 (B.C. Appeal Court) & #12-54944 (Ottawa Superior Court Nov. 01-2012)

MESSAGE:   (SEE WEB  SCofC PART VI  ‘BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT’ for full argument)

 

1) Acknowledgment of your punctilious letter of November 28-2012 is made which - while promising much- falls far short on delivery, as you no doubt realize. A bit of background is required here.

 

2) I submit that the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ is the most pernicious action taken by a judge in the history of Canadian judicial practice. In short, she has run a ‘court within a court’ and if her decision is to stand, it is the end of all law in Canada.

 

3) It is a national disgrace that the media boycott on this story negatively affecting Canada brings into question the efficacy not only of that bureacracy, but the very underpinnings of democracy as well.

 

4) That Order without a docket number 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.

 

6) As the targeted individual, I must prove that, as the senior West Vancouver teacher concerned, I was not laid off by the Board of School Trustees in June of 1985 (for reasons of declining enrolment). To do that, I must have access to a court which has been denied to me by over 30 judges including 5 trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. In short, I must prove a negative without any Canadian forum in which to discount that charge. Hence no compensation has flowed to date in a basic denial of collective bargaining rules making a mockery of the whole legal system.

 

8) Justice Spencer, in his decision in 1995, states the obvious but failed to take action, a position repeated by over 30 judges up to and including Justice Maranger more recently in November of 2012.

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 (be returned to employment due to the failure of the employer to return to arbitration as earlier ordered by the court. RWC), the petitioner appears to be left in legal limbo with his case half heard but incapable of completion… Without in any way addressing the merits of any complaint against the petitioner’s performance (as a whistleblower. RWC), 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….’(my underlining)

 

11) Be that as it may, the MacKenzie Creed was challenged to the SCofC and I still believe – contrary to your letter – that the SCofC had the power to decide whether or not to hear this case. Your denial would appear more to be in the nature of protecting the Judicial Record than to any other single cause. In short, if the SCofC has no record of an appeal being made, then this challenge does not exist in this kafkaesque style of reasoning.

16) Under the above circumstances, I submit that the administration of the SCofC is running a block for the judges and, I might add, not doing a very credible job of it as it usurps the course of justice in Canada.

 

18) One has to question why the Justice System of Canada would sacrifice its credibility for the sake of a rinky dink labour issue. The answer may be paralleled to that of the impeachment of former U.S. President Nixon; not for a third rate burglary but for cover-up. And that is what the Justice System is currently doing to hide their culpable role in a matter known as the Employee’s Case Canada.

 

19) This paradoxical situation may be expressed in this fashion: in short, the MacKenzie Creed cannot stand because it must not stand and the Justice System of Canada cannot follow due process of defeating that proposition without imploding itself due to its own culpability. Evidence would show, I submit if a proper hearing were ever held on this matter, that the request to lay-off this senior teacher in June of 1985, originated with elements within the West Vancouver Teachers Association, the very organization charged with my legal defence. The court was effectively black-mailed into supporting a ‘sweetheart deal’ when Justice Mary Southin (who quashed the original arbitration favouring the School Board) returned secret Employer/Union memo notes- no doubt confirming the above observation - to the Employer and Union ‘because she did not use them’. Hence, due to systematical judicial cover-up before over 30 judges which exists to the present day, Canada was reduced to first, Third World status, and now to being that of a ‘failed state’.

 

20) So SCofC Registrar Bilodeau, you are attached to a conspiracy without equal and this matter can only turn out badly for all concerned. I’m bemused by your opinion that my actions are ‘premature’ after 28 years of systematic judicial abuse.                       

 

Yours truly (signed) RWC

 

cc SCofC Hon. C. Wagner as representative for 9 SCofC judges

 

p.3

December 20-2012

 

The Editor                                        unpublished letter

(anti-employee) Ottawa Citizen

FAX: 613-726-5858

 

Roger Callow

FAX: 613-521-1739

 

Dear Editor;

     Ian Lee, Professor of Business at Carlton University makes a good point (Ottawa Citizen Dec. 20-2012 A9 when he points out that, by and large, a union employee is restricted to dealing with management only through the offices of the Union.

     Pity the poor union employee who is laid off in a sweetheart deal between Union and Employer. In labour law, a successful petition on the part of such an employee necessitates a second named employee to be laid off and so on until the ‘appropriate’ lay-off candidate is found.

     For the Union, it is a no-brainer as each arbitration can run as high as $50,000 for a Union with nothing to show for the Union’s effort but a large billable time exercise hence they have a vested interest in making sure that the first so-named lay-off victim is indeed laid-off.

 

Yours truly,

 

p.4

A long overdue letter to Editor condemning the current crop of judges

(OTTAWA SUN Dec. 22-12) by Adrian T. Hewitt Q.C.

‘…I have been a practising lawyer for over 64 years and have worked as a lawyer and for lawyers and in law offices for over 71 years. We once had some very good judges and I believe there are still some, but they are few and far between. Most of what is being said and done by judges currently is not the law but represents what they want it to be.The latest decision by the Supreme Court of Canada is a travesty. The majority judges of that court must be reminded that this is Canada. We are not run by some outlaw Arab group…It is vital that judges understand that they are not and are not intended to be lawmakers (or lawbreakers as the case may be. RWC) – that is for Parliament (Judges are understandably  filling a very big black hole here. RWC) If MPs don’t get it right, hopefully they won’t get re-elected. (…and the new gang repeat the same excesses as the old gang! RWC)  signed Adrian T Hewitt QC

(The Employee’s Case takes everything said here and adds some…RWC)

 

January 03-2012

 

Letter to the Editor

 

FROM:

Roger Callow

613-521-1739  PHONE/FAX

Ottawa, K1G 2W7

 

Dear Editor,

 

1) The precipitate action by the Ontario Liberal government in its BILL 115 battle against its professional teachers would appear to have as its genesis BILL 35 which the B.C. Government invoked against its teachers in 1985.

 

2) Both Bills are ‘Banana Republic Laws’. That is, the law is passed to serve a single purpose and then withdrawn before a legal challenge may be mounted. Of course that is a basic abuse of the legal system.

 

3) In the B.C. case, BILL 35,which was declared by the Union  to be the ‘battle of all B.C. Teachers’,  was only enacted against senior West Vancouver high school teacher, Roger Callow (‘The Outlawed Canadian’)  in his infamous ‘lay-off’ and then withdrawn before legalities were completed leaving this target in limbo so that no compensation (including pension rights) were ever paid. That action flies in the face of a basic legal tenet; namely, that there can be ‘no process without judgment’…except, it would appear, in Canada.

 

4) As for the Ontario Teacher Unions seeking a judicial answer in this matter, the prospects are bleak. Based on the many appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada – some of which are still extant – the courts have shown a penchant to ‘duck out’ of this most serious transgression of our legal system.

 

5) If the most recent court hearing in Ontario (Maranger Decision #12-54944 Ontario Superior Court Nov. 01-2013 currently under appeal by me) is any example, it does not augur well for any legal challenge to Bill 115 by Ontario teachers.

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow

 

cc  SCofC Justice R. Wagner

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE OFFER

 

January 08-2013

 

REFERENCE:  #12-54944 Ottawa Superior Court  R. Maranger j.  Nov.01-2012

 

TO: Hicks, Morley et al LLP    via  FAX only:   613-234-0418      RESPONDENT 

 

FROM: Roger Callow  PHONE/FAX: 613-521-1739                      PETITIONER

 

MESSAGE:

1) Thank-you for the courtesy of forwarding  the December 17-2012 judgment for costs for #12-54944 Ottawa Superior Court Nov.01-13 which was not on file when I last checked court records on December 24-2012. While the court saw fit to expedite the original decision within 3 hours of the hearing (which was little more than a replica of your argument); no such notice was received regarding the December 17 missive.

 

2) I further note in the December 17 missive that the court rejected your original claims as being ‘excessive in all the circumstances’. I believe if the media had covered this case of national importance, you would have been lucky to have received a token $1; particularly considering that you were permitted to avoid answering the central question; namely, was the Employer obligated to pay back salary for 27 years as this plaintiff should never have been cut off until legalities were completed?

 

3) Be that as it may, the Vancouver branch of the Employer has been able to access a $10,000 surety fund paid by me to ensure a hearing against the MacKenzie Creed which, as you know, never took place. They charged $1500 for a level of work Justice Maranger assigned you $7500. I had no access to litigate that matter in Vancouver due to the MacKenzie Creed which bars me from any access to the courts, at least in Vancouver, in this unresolved legal matter. Most regrettably, Chief Justice C. Hackland’s appointee, Justice Maranger, failed to deal with this most important  aspect of the case regarding the ban which explained my presence in an Ontario courtroom in the first place and is the basis of the upcoming Appeal in Ottawa Divisional Court  #DC-12-1872

 

4)Considering the balance of this fund is lost to me in any event, I propose the following choice:

     a) With the co-operation of the Vancouver branch of the Employer and my authorization, that you may be permitted by the Vancouver court to collect the full amount of the costs from the surety with my cheque for any short-fall. (I would rather you than the judge’s party fund end up with this money.)

     b) Settlement directly from me for all costs pegged at $5,000.

 

Yours truly,

 

signed) Roger Callow

 

cc Chief Justice C. Hackland/A.G. J. Gerretsen/Premier D. McGuinty

 

JAN.10-2013  A) I applaud the public Ontario Elementary Teachers ingenuity in staging a one-day protest rally under the Human Rights Code (and not, technically, a strike) as they do not quite rightly trust to the management dominated courts. To be sure, McGuinty & Co. could be expected to check out beforehand behind the scenes how the courts would handle BILL 115. So now, where are the Catholic and French teachers on this sort of process? B) I heard a disturbing story over the holidays. A Catholic School District wishes to eliminate some of their Supply Teachers; some with the Board for a long time in temporary appointments. The Union insists on seniority be recognized but here’s the kicker; the Board wishes all Supply Teachers with them to write an ‘aptitude test’ which can be used, I submit, as a means of obviating seniority. When First Bus took on the Ottawa Paratranspo contract (before it was incorporated under OC Transpo) , they wished to introduce similar profiling to eliminate ‘undesirable drivers’. They lost that legal bid along with the bid to introduce their own union and give the boot to the ATU. If only B.C. Teachers had used that human rights approach in 2005 when they were pummeled by the courts (illicitly so in my estimation) with a heavy fine. In 1972, I was part of the longest protest by organized labour in B.C. against the Social Credit government of Bill Bennett. The fatcat politicians stood outside the Hotel Vancouver toasting us on with their drinks as block after block after block of trade unionists strode by…Bennett almost had a heart attack.

 

 

 JAN.11-2013 The Public Elementary School Teachers ‘Day of Protest’ fizzled under the threats of fines as the McGuinty government ‘shot a barrage across their bow’. If I miss my guess, the future of the Union existence in all of Canada - and not just for teachers - is going to be lost here in Ontario (rather than B.C. due to the Employee’s Case). It’s clear that the Union leaders are having to push from behind as opposed to lead in front but the elementary teachers who crossed the picket line going back to work 15 years ago (without even having the courtesy of informing the Secondary Teachers Union) have not changed. To be sure, Tory Opposition leader, Tim Hudak, is salivating at the mouth for his chance to mount more ‘imposed’ legislation as a means of breaking seniority and having 2 beginning teachers replace 1 senior teacher for the same cost. In brief, there are too many teachers so concerned about their popularity that they cannot stand up to students, parents and media blasting away at them. Teachers need be made of sterner stuff as the public only want to know if these ‘intelligent’ people can win their battle. Tactically, the teachers have lost momentum with the cancellation of their ‘protest day’ and one thing that I have learned in my 28 year saga is that one must never, ever, lose momentum. P.S. Who’s the idiot who called off the day of protest based on a 4:30 A.M. judicial document?