QUOTES: 1) "Man, this guy must be a Charles Atlas-type if people (judges) from all corners feel the need to pile on him non-stop?"
2) "The curse of the world is not decisions taken, Blake reflected, it's the decisions shelved, bought off, sidestepped." War Dance Tim Sebastian
RESPONSE OF CALLOW TO C.MCKINNON j #13-59060 APRIL 10-2014 HEARING DATE
(1) Roger Callow is a litigant possessed of seemingly inexhaustible stamina. His behaviour suggests that he views the Canadian court system as something akin to a perpetual, all-day, all you can eat buffet. Having been rebuked by the courts and tribunals of British Columbia, the Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Callow has now taken aim at Ontario. Ontario lacks the jurisdiction to deal with this case. As a result, Mr. Callow's litigation must be stopped. Now
Response (R) This is the Justice McKinnon I saw in court. The rest of the 25 page judgment appears written elsewhere with a few inserts from the good judge. His conclusion apes the conclusion of all those justices preceding him in this matter of alleged systematic judicial abuse. That desperation is reflected in McKinnon's Decision in that running throughout all these denials is a fear that this matter could end up in the Supreme Court of Canada for a third time...and that would never do....
(2) Immediately at issue is an action brought by Mr. Callow in this court which is scheduled to be heard on My 15,2014. The Respondent in that action is the Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver SD #45) ("the Board"). Mr. Callow's action, contained in Ottawa court file #13-58607 appears to comprise a Statement of Claim, a motion purportedly asking for judgment in accordance with the prayer for relief contained in the Statement of Claim, and an appeal to the Court of Appeal in Ottawa, Ontario from the judgment of Associate Chief Justice Austin Cullen of the B.C. Supreme Court, dated July 23, 2013 made at Vancouver, B.C.
R. Immediately at issue is NOT an action brought by Mr. Callow. Rather, it is an action from the Respondent who has usurped the Judicial Process by laying a subsequent action #13-59060 with the purpose of undermining the main action. That was the source of my appeal to the Upper Canada Law Society regarding the Respondent's action. Should all Defense lawyers follow this course, it would be bedlam. The central point to be made here is to ask why the Respondent did not file a defense for all his points for #13-58607 which I was quite prepared to accept. In short, why two courts on the same topic? This above procedure is unnecessarily now - due to McKinnon j - a constitutional matter as I am denied a proper hearing under the law. As stated in court, if Justice McKinnon were to interfere in any form with the hearing of #13-58607 on May 15-2014, I would use the term 'judicial malfeasance' as opposed to the common terminology of 'judicial bias'. While he stopped short of declaring that the Respondent did not owe any compensation as they requested; it is clear that by demanding Callow be stopped now that he precludes a Supreme Court of Canada appeal.
Hence the matter of compensation remains an open question; particularly now that for a first time, the Employer admitted for a first time that they wished 'all issues' to be discussed.
For this reason, the Union must be included and the only Court in Canada to deal with all issues is the Supreme Court of Canada.
(8) Mr. Callow has been remarkably imaginative in engaging in offensive conduct outside the courtroom, denigrating Canada's judiciary and legal system....
R. 'You will probably end up in his bad books' was the salacious appeal of the Employer's Counsel to McKinnon j. "You mean I have good books?" (Certainly not for the legal fraternity and politicians associated with this case.)
A Detailed History
(9) 4. His termination initially went to arbitration. The arbitrator upheld the termination. The arbitrator's decision was set aside by Southin J. who was then a member of this court. Her decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
7. There was no settlement.
R. I was left - as it turns out - in a permanent state of limbo in defiance of the laws of habeas corpus, ultimate remedy and 'there can be no process without judgment' . Therein lies the accusation of systematic judicial abuse. No compensation has been paid (which includes pension rights). Judges merely quoting each other in an unending circle does not bring anyone any closer to the truth of this matter and the entire justice system suffers accordingly. In this, the courts would oftentimes off load responsibility onto the B.C. Labour Board whom never had a Section #12 hearing to discuss this matter of obvious fraud. The courts, in that regard, can intervene in matters of fraud. Justice Mary Southin's 1986 judgment, which this account would gloss over in which she ruled the arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable' as well as noting that the Employer did not sanction the lay-off of a teacher in June of 1985 under BILL 35 provisions (The arbitrator claimed 16 lay-offs were made with Callow being the necessary 17th knowing full well that I was the only lay-off that year. The Superintendant's letter of June 26-1985 quoting that authority appears to have been fraudulently written plus it was dated 4 days before BILL 35 was declared law on July 1-1985.)
(14) & (27) are the most reprehensible sections of this Decision as it relates to both the 'MacKenzie Creed' of October 1-2010 and the 'Cullen Creed' of July 23-2014 as the section without seeking leave to do so (underlining done in Decision) is patently false but used here to justify unjustifiable actions by two B.C. Supreme Court Associate Chief Justices. Evidence abounds that since the 'vexatious' label was attached in B.C.; that 'permission of the court to proceed' was included in all court actions. While MacKenzie's Order added the necessary 'with permission of the judge to proceed' (otherwise Canada would sink to Third World status); Cullen's Order does not - as specifically pointed out to Justice McKinnon. For that reason, while I rejected the MacKenzie Creed (death by a thousand legal cuts); I accepted the more egregious Cullen Creed as court abandonment of this issue and hence compensation apart from judicial findings could now proceed. That was the focus of #13-58607 and not the topic before McKinnon j. Hence his Order is unconscionable in that regard which is why a copy of this account is being forwarded to the Canadian Council of Judges who, I submit, must suspend Justice McKinnon until this matter of filing tandem lawsuits can be ironed out.
(15) Mr. Callow then sought to appeal the 2010 Vexatious Litigant Order to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. As a condition of proceeding with the appeal, the court required that Mr. Callow post security for costs in the amount of $10,000, which he did. After posting this security, Mr. Callow, days later (false. RC) asked for it to be returned to him but then failed to take the required steps under the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009 to effect same.(How could I as the courts by now only recognized the Union to represent my case and they were doing nothing). Instead he commenced an action in Federal Court....
R. The major problem with all these appeals to the B.C. Appeal Court under Chief Justice Lance Finch is that there is never any response to my actions although they seem happy to keep my fees. B.C. Attorney General, Suzanne Anton, permitted the Justice Department to write a letter to Justice Minister MacKay rationalizing her failure to investigate. Hence all B.C. Judicial matters are now a federal concern.
(16) & (17) This reference to the Federal Court is another mish mash. I forwarded concerns over this court to Justice Minister Peter MacKay as well as to his predecessor. There was no response.
(18) Mr. Callow's attempted "appeal" to the British Columbia Court of Appeal from the 2010 Vexatious Litigant Order...
R. The term in law is 'frivolous and vexatious'; neither term of which was used in the MacKenzie Creed.
(20)-(24) The Justice Maranger claims: #12-54944 Ottawa Superior Court Nov. 4-2013 This matter was appealed to the Divisional Court DT-12-1872 as Maranger j. did not deal with the all-important MacKenzie Creed which was hamstringing my legal actions in B.C. The Divisional Court refused to intervene on the grounds that the judiciary of one province may not judge another province. No detailed argument was given in court to that effect which explains why I sought a Supreme Court of Canada response as this level appears to be the only court - if the Ontario judges are correct - to make such an evaluation. But how to get there when all sorts of judicial blocks are set in my way?
(25) This section on my failure to pay court charges to the Employer is most incomplete as I detailed in a letter to Hicks,Morley April 21 (8).
Other Vexatious Conduct:
(31) (b) (i) Excerpts from commentary in the "pleadings"/ filings with the court Pages 13,14,15
R. A breath of fresh air in this turgid diatribe in which the writer would seek to demonize me as a means of distracting attention from key judicial abuses.
(c) Reporting the lawyer for the Board to the Law Society of Upper Canada for no apparent reason other than the fact he represented the Board in launching the present Application.
R. A gross misinterpretation of the charge of laying an action 'in tandem' as a means of manipulating the court into making themselves a part of the Employer's argument apart from its judicial role. (If not so, why didn't everything get handled in #13-58607 where I had no objection to the Employer's Defense?)
Application of the law to the facts
(40) (iv) It is plain and obvious that any actions about the Determined Matters cannot succeed in the Ontario Courts.
R. My sentiment exactly but not for the legal rationalization given. Rather, the change came at the end of the hearing on April 10-2014, when I received an answer to my question from the Employer for a first time in 29 years. The Employer claimed that they wished all issues to be discussed under which they asked the court to cancel out any obligation to pay compensation to me. The fact that the court did not give them that finality suggests that the claim for compensation still exists. By including 'all issues' (something I had not asked for in #13-58607 knowing Ontario's limitations in that regard); the matter is now opened up to the role of the Union. The only court capable of handling that proposition is the Supreme Court of Canada which explains why I am asking for a 'by' from the Ontario Court of Appeal should the Supreme Court of Canada deny a hearing under a 'special request' made directly to SCofC Judges. In short, while one should not have to place the matter in the negative, no court has claimed that this issue should NOT be resolved and that includes the Ontario courts to date.
(46) In the result, orders shall issue:
1. Declaring that Roger Callow may not, without leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice institute further proceedings (included purported appeals) in any Registry of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Ontario Divisional Court, or the Ontario Court of Appeal in any way pertaining to or in any way connected to the subject matter of the proceedings in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Registry file numbers 12-54944 and 13-58607 (Ontario Action #1 and #2 respectively) or in any way pertaining to the 1985 termination of his employment.
R. Of course, McKinnon j. has exceeded his authority in a manner that defies judicial logic. Why have Appeal Courts if the lower court may deny access to the litigants? He should be immediately suspended for that action alone. It is interesting that he includes the terminology 'except with leave of a judge'; something lacking in the Cullen Creed which I was protesting in an Ontario court due to the absolute blockage of me from any court access.
2. Dismissing the action commenced by Mr. Callow in Statement of Claim contained in file number #13-58607 (On Action #2)
3. Dismissing the motion brought by Mr. Callow currently scheduled to be heard on May 15, 2014 in respect of file number #13-58607.
R. While McKinnon quotes applicable law in this regard; it would appear that the launching of #13-59060 after the fact was designed to obviate any discussion of the Cullen Creed and its fatal legal flaw as noted above.
end of Order
'What needs we fear it, for none can call us to account' Lady MacBeth
Asking the judges to sit on judgment on themselves has led to such as the vitriolic attack seen above. While no one admits it in the judiciary, the mistake was made by the Supreme Court of Canada which would have left me in a permanent state of limbo in 2004 without compensation. The Union movement would be sacrificed along with the collective bargaining process in that regard. Now that all issues are on the table as per the request of the Employer in #13-59060 (there is no justification why '90,000' judges listed in these earlier factums could NOT have asked that question of the Employer), the only court capable of handling this matter, as now the Union is involved, is the Supreme Court of Canada. Will they force me into an Appeal Court in Ontario which McKinnon j. would deny me access and, I submit the whole direction of his not so pathetic attempt to, on the one hand, claim that this issue has no place in Ontario, and contradictorily, on the other hand, attempt to throttle an appeal so that the matter can't be heard thus blocking an Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada? This end blocking is not new for that is what the B.C. Appeal Court and the Federal Court have done in different fashion. In such an eventuality of the Ontario Court ghosting this issue should the SCofC reject my direct Appeal, the Judicial Order will end...with a whimper. I need publicity to stop judges from fronting for the SCofC. McKinnon's detailed account is nothing more than a pathetic judiciary wishing to have the last word for the judicial record. (This rebuttal as a matter of course will not be filed on the Judicial Record.) As for employers? The 'West Vancouver School Board Final Solution' will be the mantra for all those employers who wish to escape their fiduciary responsibilities by hiding a dismissal behind a lay-off with these words to the targeted employee: "If you do not sign a $1 quick claim for all issues, you will not collect your pension." Think about that one, fellow Canadians. I may be the first 'Outlawed Canadian' but surely not the last under these conditions.
SCofC Hon. R. Wagner
Ezra Levant(SUN) Kate Heartfield (Ottawa Citizen) Peter Mansbridge (CBC)
P.S. I hope in this appeal that the SCofC does not make me jump through more jurisdictional hoops such as forcing an Ontario Appeal Court Hearing in which I merely provide a one page request to pass on my Appeal so that I may once again approach the only court which is competent to now deal with all issues as brought up by the Employer for a first time in #13-59060: namely, the Supreme Court of Canada. The problem here as noted above is 'ghosting'. For example, I have sent actions with payment to the B.C. Appeal Court for which there is no response. Without a response, I lack the necessary SCofC Section #40 qualification to appeal to the SCofC. Already I have a matter of costs for DT12-1872 on Appeal at Osgoode Court which has been ghosted. McKinnon j. , it appears, would be setting up a ghosting of any Appeal I may make of his decision by pre-empting any such action making his 'with permission of a judge' a meaningless statement. Judges such as McKinnon merely make the SCofC look weak in need of protection by their underlings. Of course another SCofC hearing will prove embarrassing in juxtaposition to their 2004 Decision to leave me in limbo. However, those judges are there to face up to the tough questions even if it relates to their own conduct. Deny me thrice for a hearing, if need be, but let the judges have the final say on behalf of 35 million Canadians. Truly, it may be said that the Justice System has lost its way under such as. McKinnon j. who is being referred to the Judicial Council of Canada to be sanctioned for his 'extraordinary' judicial behavior although I strongly suspect the answer from that body would parallel the desultory response of the Upper Canada Law Society as these bodies appear to protect each other at the expense of real justice. In short, the Cullen Creed without its all important qualifier - with permission of the judge - has set a very dangerous precedent for all judges and the legal system in general and would escape censure under such as McKinnon's Order.
Further information on web site: www.employeescasecanada.com
April 25, 2014
COMPLAINT REGARDING OTTAWA SUPERIOR COURT JUSTICE C. MCKINNON
HEARING DATE - APRIL 10-2014; ORDER DATE - APRIL 23-2014 #13-59060 (2 hr)
TO: Canadian Judicial Council
'Higher levels of Provincial Court Judicial conduct'
15th Floor - 150 Metcalfe St.
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W8
PHONE: 613-288-1566 FAX: 613-288-1575 SENT BY MAIL
FROM: Roger Callow - Defendant
208 - 2220 Halifax Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7
PHONE/FAX: 613-521-1739 web site: www.employeescasecanada.com
1) The enclosed 5 page rebuttal to McKinnon's j. captures the devastating perversion of the Justice System of Ontario knowingly permitted by Justice McKinnon as he has committed the court system of Ontario to a 29 year B.C. government conspiracy which still goes unresolved and is without equal in the annals of depravity of Canadian Jurisprudence.
2) I warned him against canceling the main action #13-58607 scheduled for May 15-2014 which was laid prior to the Employer who filed an action in tandem - as opposed to filing a Defense - with the sole aim of side-tracking the main action.
3) The transcript would also show that in the event Justice McKinnon should see fit to cancel the May 15-2014 Hearing; I would use the term 'judicial malfeasance' as opposed to the more common legal term, 'judicial bias'.
4) McKinnon's j. attitude is best observed in his opening Order; 1) '...Mr. Callow's litigation must be stopped. Now.'
5) His historical account from B.C. misses out on a vital point on the one hand while his current account did not take into account the revelation for the first time of the Employer claiming that they did not owe any compensation (includes pension rights) to this targeted Employee. No compensation has been paid contrary to Collective Bargaining rules.
6) I have always believed that I had the necessary status to represent myself in court but the B.C. Courts decreed otherwise in my case recognizing only the Union hence I always had to seek the court's permission to proceed - at least in B.C. McKinnon seemed completely unaware of that condition which possibly permitted B.C. Supreme Court judge, Spencer j. not to act on this case in 1995 in an action brought by me against the Employer for deserting this case. The argument of res judicata bandied about by the Employer as some sort of mantra picked up and repeated by various courts is probably based on this 'status question'. The point here is that there is no court decision as known to the judges who would use this argument to base their 'frivolous and vexatious charge'; an unconscionable judicial action under these circumstances.
7) McKinnon's Order in Ontario is tantamount to taking 'court permission to proceed' one step further than the above by cutting out the May 15-2014 session on the one end and prohibiting any Appeal to a Superior Court of his action on the other end. In short, his 'with permission of a judge ' is a meaningless statement.
8) The turn of events which McKinnon j. missed completely related to the Employer requesting that all issues be discussed. Even Hicks, Morley missed on this point, for to discuss all issues would require the presence of the Union which in B.C. represents my case as stated above although they appear to have deserted the scene. Nonetheless, my arguments for the May 15-2014 Hearing would have necessitated a significant alteration to accommodate this point. That hearing is now still-borne due to McKinnon's inopportune Order.
9) Considering that McKinnon j. exceeded his authority in a most significant manner considering the execution of #13-59060 pre-empting #13-58607, that should be sufficient grounds to suspend him immediately from the bench.
10) Attempting to 'ghost' any appeal in Ontario; that is, depriving me of the necessary Appeal Court hearing in order to return this matter to the only court in Canada capable of dealing with all issues; namely, the Supreme Court of Canada, would appear gratuitous but when one considers similar ghosting techniques from the B.C. Appeal Courts and the Federal Court, one may attribute McKinnon's action of attaching the Ontario Court System to possibly the worst judicial scandal in Canadian Jurisprudence to be a dark, dark day for the Ontario court system.
11) I have been dunned $10,000 for Hicks, Morley's legal caper in which they launched this allegedly fraudulent #13-59060. A more appropriate response would have been to award me $30,000 maintenance fees as requested ('legal tomfoolery' in answer to the judge's question) for perverting the course of justice with the judge's compliance. Hicks, Morley could just as easily presented all their arguments from #13-59060 in #13-58607 without any complaint from me.
cc SCofC Hon. R. Wagner
Attorney General of Ontario
Roger Callow April 25,2014
Right of Reply to Ottawa Citizen's article (April 26-2014) by Andrew Duffy entitled "Ontario judge lowers the boom on 'vexatious' Ottawa litigant"
Plaintiff has spent 29 years treating courts like 'all-you-can-eat buffet,' judge fumes.
1) The impression I receive from this article is that Duffy was handed a 'dirty biscuit' by his editor with this admonishment: 'Don't publish the web site address' which, incidentally, is www.employeescasecanada.com
2) As noted in his article, I have been a common sight with my placards in downtown Ottawa for the past 10 years pillorying the legal and political bureaucracies. Judges knees only turn to jelly when they hear the tom toms beating outside the courtroom door. Being a Joe nice-guy doesn't work as I and many other groups have found out much to our chagrin.
3) To reduce this story to its conclusion which I have labeled the 'West Vancouver School Board Trustee Final Solution' now to be copied by disreputable employers across Canada: "We are not dismissing you from your position; rather we are laying you off and if you do not sign a $1 settlement, you will not collect your pension."(as is the case here). Would the 'right to work' brigade ever love that one.
4) Unions understandably do not want to finance court cases as win or lose, they are still left with a legal bill; oftentimes a sizable one as in the case of the original arbitration which was quashed by the court with the arbitrator ruled 'patently unreasonable' in 1986.
5) The effect of that judicial quashing above was to conceal School Board personnel perjury along with their lawyer's role of counseling fraud. It also left me - as it turns out as the targeted person - in a permanent state of limbo where no compensation has been paid including back salary which exists apart from judicial outcomes.
6) To cut a long story short, the fault lies with the Supreme Court of Canada which failed to hear two vital challenges in this case: the 'universality of unions' (1997) and 'ultimate remedy' (2004) under the collective bargaining rules. The Preamble to the 2004 Hearing is particularly insightful as to the conspiracy of the judicial process.(as opposed to the original conspiracy of an imposed BILL 35 of which Ontario teachers are only too aware with their own recently imposed BILL 115)
7) Former Chief Justice Antonio Lamers,(d.) (current) Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin refused that first hearing raising the question of the value of Union membership in Canada; particularly in the face of a 'sweetheart deal' between Employer and Union which I submit was the case here. I have listed McLachlin's name in subsequent appeals as having 'a conflict of interest'.
8) Of far more damaging consequence is the abuse of the 'ultimate remedy' provision of the collective bargaining agreement - in essence - contract violation in which money must change hands in whatever amount. That's when I submit Canada was reduced to being a Third Class Nation.
9) One point that Justice McKinnon and I are in complete agreement is that Ontario is not the place to deal with this issue, particularly now that the Employer has admitted for a first time that they do not have any obligation to pay any compensation as well as requesting that all issues be placed on the table.
10) The proper place is, once again, the Supreme Court of Canada. Regrettably, the good judge had no suggestion as to how I could get there particularly, as he stated in his finding, his decision could not be appealed. Of what is he afraid? That a Third presence in the Supreme Court of Canada would bring into juxtaposition their earlier perfidy in this issue?
11) A major drawback for my legal standing is that the courts, in my case, have claimed that only the Union may represent me (at least in B.C.); a union which has deserted this case and refused me the right to continue at my own expense. Even in hoary old Ireland, a condemned man had to give his name before execution. In this analogy, I would have to respond, 'West Vancouver Teachers Association'. Hence I require intervenor status; again, something only the Supreme Court of Canada can grant now that the Employer has finally requested that all issues be placed on the table for now the Union must be represented.
12) Space limits why I have referred this matter regarding Justice McKinnon to the Judicial Council of Judges although the explanation may be found on my website. He has good reason 'to fume'.
Roger Callow 'The Outlawed Canadian'
'What must be avoided at all costs, is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law' Justice Estey St. Anne-Nackawic
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.'