TO: Peter MacKay - Minister of Justice FROM: Roger Callow
284 Wellington Street 208-2220 Halifax Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8 Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7
Quote from Court of Appeal for Ontario How to Proceed with a Civil Appeal
p.15 These forms are meant only as guidelines and only contain the major forms used at the Court of Appeal.
Complaint: Under the guise of rules, the courts (8 of them on this case) are manipulated in such fashion that a registry action supplants a judicial response. There is no appeal to what can only be labeled as the Praetorian Guard usurping the proper functioning of the court. I label it 'running a court within a court'.
See faxed letter to Sandra Therould - Deputy Registrar- no response in June 02-2014 unsigned letter (also included) which could be designed to procrastinate events past pre-determined due legal dates.
1) This unresolved legal case before 8 courts and over 30 judges in which lay-off victim in June of 1985, B.C. senior teacher, Roger Callow, has never received compensation (including pension rights) under the collective bargaining rules, has turned out to be a major embarrassment for the Canadian judiciary who seek to bury this issue by burying the target employee.
2) In the second Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004 which was not heard under the 'ultimate remedy' terms of the collective bargaining process; my legal advisor made this devastating pronouncement: "You have exhausted all remedy under the law." The factum outlined how an original conspiracy between Employer and Union (sweetheart deal) had mushroomed into a 'conspiracy of judicial process'; a charge no court would wish to hear. I was to be left in a state of perpetual limbo which explains why Canada sank to Third World status.
3) In September of 2010, I filed S106159 in B.C. Supreme Court requesting back pay as well as to be retained on salary (which exists apart from judicial proceedings as I never should have been released from pay until legal proceedings were finalized). This action was taken because the Employer and Union - the only two the court would recognize in this issue - along with the court refused to finalize this case which at one time was ordered back to litigation by court order.
4) In the first piece of obstruction since 2004; B.C. Supreme Court Justice A. McKenzie in October of 2010 dropped S106159 from the docket 'for reasons best known to herself' which I appealed under CA038538 (fee paid) to which the B.C. Appeal Court under Chief Justice Lance Finch never responded. Nor did B.C. A.G. Suzanne Anton although the B.C. Justice System wrote you a letter justifying her lack of action. Hence you inherit the B.C. mess just as you inherit the Ontario mess due to a second letter (included here) from the Ontario Justice System declaiming A.G. M. Meilleur's role in Ontario irregularities in this case.
5) Hicks, Morley, et al portrayed the above story in their factum as this personage filing CA038538 and then turning around and requesting the return of the fees. Of course they ignore the fact that as there was no response from the B.C. Appeal Court nor government on any level, I turned to the Federal Court -see 7) & 8)
6) In 2013, I made a second appeal to the B.C. Appeal Court only to receive a clerk's response quoting the law in this case which I rejected out of hand insisting on a judge's response. That response is the 'A. Cullen Creed' of July 23,2013 which is the topic of current legalities in Ontario due to the nature of that Creed which did not take argument nor quote pertinent laws making it, I submit, ultra vires; particularly as it excludes this litigant from court under any circumstances - at least in B.C. (That is the source of appealing outside B.C. under the laws of 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice'.)
7) As to the Federal court, two secret hearings were held; one before Vancouver Prothonotary, Roger Lafrenieré (it should have been before an Ottawa judge) who claimed insufficient evidence was produced to indict the MacKenzie Creed which was rubber stamped by Ottawa Judge Mosley, again without a hearing. The matter was tied up over rule application (much like this current Ontario caper) in which newly appointed Chief Justice Paul Crampton in 2009 failed to arbitrate. (This is one of the references made from SCofC Registrar Roger Bilodeau's letters.)
8) In a more recent appeal to the Federal court in 2013, Madame Justice Gleason rejected a hearing of the 'Cullen Creed' citing the earlier decisions of Lafrenieré and Mosley claiming, as she did, that she was not permitting the action to go ahead because 'it did not make for an originating argument'.
9) A detailed letter was sent to you on August 30-2013 outlining how these two Orders put an end to the course of justice in Canada; particularly the Cullen Creed which omits the all important 'may only proceed with the permission of a judge' without which inclusion makes any such Order mere anarchy.
10) The key difference in the above point is that while I contested the MacKenzie Creed; I accept the more obnoxious Cullen Creed as evidence that the courts have abandoned this 29 year case leaving the matter open to the compensatory claim. Due to the exclusionary provisions of that Cullen Creed, I cannot make that appeal in a B.C. court.
11) Legal actions in Ontario courts have been highly problematic (A)#12-54944 (B)DC-12-1872 (C) #13-59060 Ottawa Registries)
A) R. Maranger j. did not even deal with the 'MacKenzie Creed'
B) The appeal before a 3-man court concluded that Ontario Courts have no jurisdiction over the judges in other provinces. (The 'inherent jurisdiction' plus 'natural justice' claim was over-ridden) That matter is subject to appeal on costs which Osgoode Hall would frustrate as to 'forms'.
C) This unusual hearing Order was regurgitated in a page 1 story by the Ottawa Citizen on April 28, 2014. The Citizen would not print a Right of Reply account by me. The role of Justice McKinnon 'undermining the course of justice' was referred by me to the Canadian Council of Judges. It is his judgment which is under appeal
12) The matter of the appeal for costs in B) was reviewed as to proper forms and re-submitted only to fall down a black hole. A.G. Meilleur was not interested in finding out why. This action was returned with the Appeal of #13-59060 due to confusion regarding forms. While I feel that the forms are sufficiently complete; I am re-issuing these two appeals using the specific forms mailed to me. (The Ontario Justice System would do well to review their internet rules for consistency.) I trust that no objection is to be made by the respondents for reasons of 'late dating'.
13) The horrendous error on the part of Justice McKinnon is that he 'cowboyed' my earlier appeal #13-58607 to be heard after Hicks, Morley et al hi-jacked my case with the latterly laid #13-59060 rather than providing a defense to #13-58607.
14) McKinnon second guessed #13-58607 erroneously as it had to be re-written to include the Union as the Employer now asked for all issues to be discussed.
15) At this stage, the only court competent to deal with all issues is the Supreme Court of Canada.
16) Hence the Appeal Court of Ontario is little more than a 'speed bump' as whatever decision they reach on some matters will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada on the topic of discussing all matters.
17) I have taken the liberty of filing the Appeal to include the Union as Hicks, Morley et al failed to include them in the lower court action.
18) Truly this case has received the apt label of being the 'cluster-fuck case' and now requires special attention to resolve this matter.
19) I am requesting that Justice Minister Peter MacKay assign an officer of the Judicial Department to expedite this case through Ontario courts considering A.G. Meilleur's non-involvement response. I also request an examination of CA038538 in B.C. Supreme Appeal Court in September of 2010; the unresponded to document by the court which began this current round of legal actions.
20) In the event of the failure of the above request, I turn to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and NDP leader Thomas Mulcair who, along with their provincial counterparts if need be, to provide the necessary support.
21) Of course should I have to refile again in Federal Court for all issues as requested by the Employer; that action would serve as a most embarrassing yardstick to the Ontario Justice System...or what would be left of it.
cc SCofC Hon. R. Wagner
cc ON Registrar (Osgoode Court) Huguette Thomson with revised forms
plus June 2-2014 fax to Deputy Registrar Sandra Therould
cc new rule forms (take precedence) to adjust factums (April 24-2014 & May 14-2014 sent to Employer and Union
NB: At this time, I do not include an Appeal for Costs from DC-12-1872 sent to Osgoode Hall which appears to have disappeared down a black hole.