A) ACTION 12-54944 (filed July 13-2012) Roger Callow vs Board of School Trustees #45 (West Vancouver,B.C.)
B) REPLY TO DEFENDANT (August 27-2012)
1) The Plaintiff claims:
(a) A request to be placed back on the teachers salary grid of School District #45 (West
Vancouver) as per collective bargaining rules regarding salary continuance during
(b) This salary would consist of back salary to November 4, 1985 with interest
(c) The actual and total amount of settlement cannot and need not be applied by this
court as such an adjudication would interfere with the Employer - Union’s right to
negotiate a finalization of this long outstanding issue as decreed by the B.C. courts.
(d) Costs and whatever additional amounts that the court deems fit to assign.
(e) Should the above be assigned, there is no need for this court to act further.
(f) The over-riding authority for this court to act is one of natural justice. In the words of
Justice Estey (St. Anne-Nackawic) ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a
fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.’ Estey’s comment bears
observation here for at least two pillars of the law are at stake. The first claims that
there can be no process without judgment. The second is that under the collective
bargaining rules, there must be compensation.
(g) Three concepts of justice are at question here: 1) habeas corpus 2) there can be no
process without judgment 3) there must be ultimate remedy under the collective
(h) This court is asked to focus only on 3) above although all 3 points become valid in the
event that the petition is defeated.
(i) A special application has been made to Ottawa Chief Justice Hon. Charles Hackman
with regard to the necessity of appointing special judicial counsel to this case due to its
unique and national importance. It would appear that variations to Rules 15
(Intervention) and 22 (Special Case) are required. Further, the court may wish to handle
this matter at the Appeal level. SEE APPENDIX III – 3 pages
(j) The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried in Ottawa
2) The efficacy of the lay-off of senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985,
has never been tested in law although many attempts over the past 27 years have been made
by the plaintiff to obtain a conclusion from which compensation could flow. No compensation
has been paid in this unresolved legal case despite the participation of over 30 judges and 3
inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. Being ruled out for jurisdictional reasons
pervade court responses with no hearing of the issue.
3) Salary was prematurely cut off in an untimely manner on November 4, 1985 before
arbitration hardly got under way.
4) The arbitration favouring the employer did not stand up to a court review and re-arbitration
was ordered. No such arbitration took place due to the failure of the only two interests that the
court would recognize; namely, the employer and the union, to finalize this legal matter. The
plaintiff was placed in limbo.
GENESIS OF THIS CURRENT APPEAL IN ONTARIO
5) This current appeal in Ontario is based on a thwarted serving of CA038538 (Vancouver
Registry) objecting to a prohibitive Order from Associate Deputy Chief Justice of the B.C.
Supreme Court, Anne W. MacKenzie dated October 1, 2010 who, on her own Order,without
quoting any authority; without taking legal argument; without holding a hearing; dropped
S106159 filed by this plaintiff in September of 2010 seeking a possible finalization of a 25 year
unresolved labour matter. SEE APPENDIX I 1 page
6) The thwarted serving consisted of an un-named Vancouver court clerk rolling up the legal
books and returning them to the courier for reasons best known to himself in January 2011.
This action followed on the payment of a $10,000 surety by the plaintiff to ensure that
CA038538 be heard. An appeal to Chief Justice of the B.C. Appeal Court of the Supreme Court,
Lance Finch, to either acknowledge or reject this clerk’s action received no response. This step
was taken because there is no judicial appeal procedure against administrative actions.
APPENDIX II 2 pages
7) MacKenzie’s Order was problematical in that while she stated on the one hand that this
plaintiff was to first seek permission of the court to act in British Columbia, on the other hand,
she barred – again for reasons best known to herself – this plaintiff from any action on the
matter of his lay-off in a B.C. Court of law.
8) The Appeal of her Order was made to the Federal Court (T-1386-11) which, in two hearings in
which legal Counsel were not consulted as to time and place, an Order from Vancouver
Pronothotary, Roger Lafrenieré upheld MacKenzie’s action. In that report , Lafeniere does not
deal with the text of MacKenzie’s Order. The second matter regarding the action of the un-
named Vancouver court clerk in blocking CA038538 was not dealt with and is at the core of this
current appeal to the Ottawa Court.
9) It should be noted here that, for a third time, the Supreme Court was appealed to in the
matter outlined in #8, but declined to hear this matter.
10) The plaintiff has been a resident of Ontario for the past 25 years and is collecting a partial
pension from the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund.
11) That partial pension is based on contributions to the B.C. Teachers Pension Fund transferred
– after 4 years of correspondence – to the Ontario Teachers Association as per agreement
between the two provinces.
12) The Ontario Pension Fund administered a pension, not believing they were bound by B.C.
legalities in this matter, the latter of which apparently required judgment before compensation
(including pension) could flow.
13) In order to fulfill the requirements of a full pension, back pay to November 4,1985 to be
appropriately compounded with interest is required from the employer. This would consist of
being placed back on salary until a resolution to this case is found. The current court is not in a
position to finalize this legal matter as noted above. The court is, we submit, capable of
assigning this plaintiff back onto salary until a resolution is found in light of the failure of the
B.C. Court system to resolve this long drawn out legal matter.
14) This money exists apart from judicial outcomes as this plaintiff should have been kept on
salary until a resolution was found. That regrettable omission was largely due to judicial
inaction compounded by union and employer intransigence.
15) The provisions of receiving pensions in Canada, we submit, never entailed that a Union
could act in such fashion as to deprive a client of that basic right which explains why no notice
of this action is being provided to the B.C. Union involved in the other aspects of this case.
16) The matter of pension, we submit, is attached in a most unusual and, we submit, illicit
fashion as due process of law has been subverted in this regard.
17) We submit that the Employer has no grounds for objecting to this claim in that not only did
they curtail salary of this petitioner in an untimely manner, they failed to return to arbitration
as so ordered by the court in 1986 in order to get a finalization of this issue.
18) It is clear from the actions of the various Vancouver, B.C. judges , the Employer, and the
Union that they have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that they have no interest in resolving
this 27 year legal matter thus exposing the Justice System of Canada to a level of ridicule
unheard of in Canadian jurisprudence.
19) One advantage of receiving this money rightfully claimed by this plaintiff is that leverage is
possible by which an outside agreement may be signed directly with the employer without
Union interference. The problematical nature of the two laws: 1) there can be no process
without judgment; 2) there must be ultimate remedy under the collective bargaining rules;
would be resolved and the Canadian Justice System would be given some needed relief from
this ‘sword of Damocles’.
20) The over-riding authority for this court to function is one of natural justice. No-one should
be barred from a court of law except under the most stringent of regulations. It is clear that the
Order of Justice MacKenzie does not meet that litmus test.
21) Further, it should be noted that the Employer for a long time had an offer of settlement on
the table which was used successfully by them in obviating court intervention. Currently there
is no offer on the table hence the courts are authorized to intervene.
Text of MacKenzie Decision: (no court number)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Between: Roger Callow Plaintiff
and The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 and West Vancouver Teachers Association
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE (ANNE) MacKenzie Friday, the 1st day of October 2010
THIS COURT, on its own motion, and without a hearing, at Vancouver, British Columbia on Friday, October 1,2010 ORDERS AND DECLARES THAT:
1. The Notice of Civil Claim herein is a nullity and is set aside. (S102159 seeking ‘interim compensation’ (delayed salary) belonging to the plaintiff regardless of judicial findings. RWC)
2. Roger Callow shall not, except with prior leave of the Court, initiate any proceedings in any Registry of the Supreme Court pertaining to or in any way connected with the subject matter of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia Vancouver File Nos. S08723, S075775, S022978, A950147, or pertaining to or connected with the subject matter of his allegations against the Defendents in this action or arising from or related to that subject matter. ( why an unsuccessful appeal was made in The Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada (third trip) plus a Human Rights rejection which explains why Canada is no longer under ‘the rule of law’. RWC)
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. (an unnamed court clerk appeared to be acting a priori by summarily dismissing CA038538 for reasons best known to herself/himself in protesting this action. RWC)
4. The Defendents 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. (how an employer gets away scot free without paying any compensation-includes pension rights-under the collective bargaining rules RWC)
By the court (signed) A. MacKenzie (plus District Registrar)
TO: Rt. Hon. Chief Justice Lance G. Finch FROM: Roger Callow – plaintiff in CA038538
B.C. Court of Appeal 208-2240 Halifax Drive
400-800 Hornby Street Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7
Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2E1 FAX: 613-521-1739
SENT BY FAX ONLY 604-660-2420 www.employeescasecanada.com
REFERENCE: November 17 – 2011 letter from Deputy Registrar Maria Littlejohn signed by ‘Diane’ and my 3-page rebuttal to you of November 25 – 2011. (No response hence this second request).
ACTION REQUESTED: To reverse the procedures seeking to delist CA038538 ‘…This is to advise you that pursuant to Section25(1) of the Court of Appeal (B.C.) this matter has been placed on the inactive list….’
(Littlejohn letter was written knowing that MacKenzie’s Order barred this plaintiff from any court access.)
1) Because of the seriousness of your inaction on one of the most egregious judicial actions in Canadian jurisprudence, a copy of this letter is being sent to the incumbent Prime Minister who has a February 29/12 deadline to take action on this issue.
2) Should you not re-instate CA038538 by February 20-2012, this writer submits that the Prime Minister has no choice other than to take steps to have you removed from office. In the absence of either action, the Prime Minister has no choice other than to resign. Canada and its welfare is more important than one person even if that person is the Prime Minister. MacKenzie’s ‘creed’ must not be permitted to stand if justice is to be served.
3) APPELLANT’S FACTUM (CA038538) OPENING STATEMENT: ‘This is an appeal from an Order of Associate Chief Justice A.W. MacKenzie dated October 1, 2010, which set aside the Appellant’s Notice of Civil Claim. (S106159) The ground for Appeal is Justice A.W. MacKenzie made the Order without notice to the Appellant, without a hearing, and without giving reasons…The Appellant’s right to procedural fairness was violated. This court is asked to set aside Justice A.W. MacKenzie’s Order and reinstitute the Appellant’s action.’
4. ‘…whose action did not list a docket number and is one of the key questions associated with the accusation that she usurped the law….’ (NB to avoid the ‘judicial record’ RWC)
5. ‘Apparently the above letter follows on the appeal of FEDERAL COURT (VANCOUVER) Prothonotary , Roger Lafreniére, who also – similar to A.W. MacKenzie – `usurped` the law by writing a `pre-mature` decision which was not within his authority to do so according to the rules of the Federal Court…’
6. (a) ‘The assumption here by the surety court and the respondents was that the appeal of the action of Justice A.W. MacKenzie would proceed; an action foiled by an un-named Vancouver court clerk canceling court documents on his own whim forcing the plaintiff outside the law with no legal recourse on any matter before the court.’ (NB A $10,000 surety was paid by the plaintiff to ensure the holding of CA038538)
(b) ‘Mr. Lafreniére makes copious reference to the Deputy Registrar’s letter in complete ignorance of the letter filed by the Plaintiff in this matter on the point best labeled as ‘judicial theft’ (surety)’
8. ‘As to the Federal Court Appeal, perhaps the proper course to appeal Justice A.W. MacKenzie et al actions would be to the B.C. Attorney General. Unfortunately, the B.C. Government was the source of this government conspiracy in 1985. The fact that the Attorney General`s Department is leading the defence of MacKenzie – as opposed to suspending her until the matter of CA038538 is resolved – points to the wisdom of this plaintiff`s approach to seek justice outside of British Columbia although that approach is fraught with difficulties as well if Lafreniére`s fatuous action is any indication.’
9. ‘A copy of this account is provided to MacKenzie`s government lawyer, Jonathan Penner, to respond to these two questions, as there is no purpose in holding a hearing in Ottawa without an unequivocal response to these questions:
A) Justice MacKenzie may have had good reasons to do as she did. But without a hearing and without any definition in her `un-numbered` order, these actions must be declared ultra vires as the only person who can respond is MacKenzie herself and she will not be taking the stand. The course of justice is perverted if her action stands without explanation. Depending solely on procedural excuses as Penner and Lafreniére would have it, just will not do.
B) Perhaps of a more egregious action is that of the un-named court clerk whom, for reasons best known to himself, returned duly filed legal material to the courier. Think of the bedlam should that extra-legal action become commonplace. Organized crime will have a field day. If it should be that litigants may be treated in this fashion, then I submit a very careful statement must be given as to why any litigant is to be deprived of ‘due process’. MacKenzie, I submit, did not do that. Herein lay my appeal to the Chief Justice of the Appeal Court in September. I argued that such as the above action must either be accepted or denied by a Chief Justice. There was no response from Judge Finch. At this juncture, Parliament may see fit to suspend him along with A.W. MacKenzie. That is why his response here is significant.(February 14 – still no response=2nd request)
10. One question which arises here is why Justice A.W. MacKenzie acted as she did considering that all matters she would curtail were the subject of S106159? While not knowing, one such ramification by this derailment of S106159 was that the possibility of a normal challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada was truncated. It should be noted here that there had already been two unheard challenges to this body (“universality of union” and “ultimate remedy”). The B.C. Court could be only too painfully aware of what a third challenge would mean. As it was, this plaintiff made an ‘extra-ordinary’ appeal to 9 SCofC judges. There was no response hence the laying of my action in Federal Court.
In conclusion, do I expect any intelligent response to my actions? No I do not, which is why I give the Prime Minister and Parliament until December 10-2011 to take public action. As such, Littlejohn’s letter is little more than an act of desperation, I submit, to avoid any discussion of the culpable actions of various judges. At this point there is no way of knowing whether the court is acting in defiance of the wishes of the Prime Minister or, alternatively, in accordance with his wishes. That is why it is incumbent on the Prime Minister to make his position clear before December 10-2011.
To be sure, the above authorities would not be getting away with these perceived stunts if it were not for a Canadian media which is other than what it should be.’
addendum ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.’
Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic)
ADDENDUM: to the Rt. Hon. S. Harper PM of Canada:
1) At this time you have done nothing to retrieve Canada’s First World stance in human rights as reflected in a court sanctioned ‘outlawing’ of one Canadian citizen…so stop preaching to other countries on this topic.
2) For the above reason, two submissions were made to:
a) The Supreme Court of Canada in which two clerks repeated the error of the B.C. Courts in usurping the law to block judicial evaluation. Specifically, these clerks misquoted the rules of the SCofC and, in this instance, improperly gave a judicial finding thus keeping this case off the judicial record. (SEE web FEBRUARY 1-2012)
b) The Human Rights Commission ATTN: Deputy Minister Myles J. Kirvan requesting action (SEE web FEBRUARY 1-2012) Second Request Feb. 14-2012.
July 09 2012
TO: Ottawa Superior Court Chief Justice Hon. Justice Charles Hackland
161 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2K1
FROM: Roger Callow
208-2220 Halifax Drive
Ottawa,Ont. K1G 2W7
N.B. A letter (3 pages) such as this should never have had to be written. Unfortunately the plaintiff’s 27 year experience with arguably the rogue B.C. Judiciary which has reduced Canada to Third World status, leaves no other option.
REFERENCE: Ottawa Superior Court Hearing # 12-54944
1) Due to the unusual nature of this request under the laws including those of natural justice, this appeal is made to Chief Justice,Hon. Charles Hackland, of the Ottawa Superior Court to appoint a highly experienced justice to hear the above case; a request consistent under the law. Also due to the significance of this precedent-setting case to all Canadians as well as those residing in Ontario, a copy of this letter is included to Ontario Attorney General Hon. John Gerretsen and Ontario MPP for Ottawa South and Premier, Hon. Dalton McGuinty.
2) In short, this plaintiff argues that this court must not be seen to throw in its lot with the ‘B.C. disease’ which already encompasses the Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, the latter on 3 different occasions.
3) Over 30 judges in their wisdom have left a simple labour matter unresolved over a 27 year period in which no compensation has been paid. The central unasked question of the defendant employer from any judge is how they plan to resolve this question. Certainly there has been nothing in their factums on this point. Any Ottawa judge so appointed must ask this question; otherwise, the defendant employer has no case.
4) In sum, the law of habeas corpus, ultimate remedy under the collective bargaining rules, and the basic underlying notion that there can be no process without judgment have been brought into disrepute with this judicial failure In British Columbia plus allied courts to find a resolution in this kafkaesque tale.
5) In September of 2010, this plaintiff filed action S106159 in Vancouver seeking two things: a) a resumption of my salary dating from Nov. 4, 1985 until a resolution to this matter was found; b) whatever course the court could take with the only two powers they would recognize; namely, the Employer and Union, to finalize this long outstanding legal matter.
6) Hence this current petition does not seek a resolution to this issue as it is outside the purview of this plaintiff as noted above although it should be noted that the Employer and Union have done nothing to resolve this dispute; a position sanctioned by the judges.
7) No notice to appear for S106159 was filed by the defendants. Rather, what was received was an un-numbered Order from neophyte appointee B.C. Supreme Court Associate Deputy Chief, Anne MacKenzie, dropping S106159 from the docket and banning this plaintiff in the process from any further legalities in Vancouver courts. She gave no legal arguments nor did she ask for any from the participants. This duplicitous and contradictory Order demands , one and at the same time, that this plaintiff must ‘seek prior leave of the court’ to act under conditions in which the Registry is ordered to ignore any such submission. SEE The Justice Anne MacKenzie Order enclosed here.
8) CA038538 was filed to contest this decision as the only option left to this plaintiff. A ‘specious’ surety of $10,000 was paid to ensure the holding of this court (a sum which cannot be reclaimed due to a thwarted appeal against MacKenzie’s Order)
9) An un-named Vancouver court clerk returned filed material on CA038538 to the courier with no explanation thus nullifying any appearance in this matter.
10) A repeated appeal to Chief Justice Lance Finch to either accept or reject this court action did not meet with a response. Hiding a judicial decision behind an administrative decision has characterized this case even at the level of the Supreme Court of Canada. Such action is considered one of the lowest forms of court manouevres as a plaintiff may appeal a judicial action, but not so an administrative one. SEE FEB. 13-2012 LETTER to CHIEF JUSTICE HON. LANCE G. FINCH enclosed here.
11) The B.C. Attorney General’s Office took the surprising action of defending Justice MacKenzie before the ensuing Federal Court hearing filed by this plaintiff (T1386-11)
12) Rather than a hearing before an Ottawa judge, Vancouver Prothonotary, Roger Lefrenieré, usurped the process and exhonerated MacKenzie’s action without a proper hearing. SEE web www.employeescasecanada.com for his Report and my response. He failed to deal with other matters outlined in CA038538.
13) Matters proceeded to the Supreme Court of Canada for a third time in which an administrative decision displaced the normal primary hearing before 3 judges. Apparently filing 25C listing Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin as having a conflict of interest was not to be encountanced before any judges on this court.
14) A summary of events focusing on the pecuniary aspect of this case is as follows:
i) On June 26, 1985, senior West Vancouver Teacher, Roger Callow, received a lay-off notice under BILL 35 from Superintendent Ed Carlin quoting School Trustee authority. BILL 35 became law on July 1,1985.
ii) As BILL 35 claimed a 60 day limit for arbitration, the Superintendent assumed legalities would be over by November 4, 1985 when salary was curtailed. He was presupposing a School Board win.
iii) The arbitration hardly got under way in 1985 leaving a decision to favour the School District to be brought down by the government-appointed arbitrator in 1986. No trustee took the stand to testify as to lay-off numbers. Material allegedly claiming their support was found to be fraudulent in 2004 under the freedom of access laws.
iv) The arbitration did not withstand a court challenge. No West Vancouver teacher lay-off was listed in the School Board meeting notes of June 26, 1985. The arbitration was quashed and the arbitrator was ruled patently unreasonable (he had converted 16 new positions to read 16 lay-offs adding this petitioner as the necessary 17th lay-off). ‘Nothing was adduced in evidence which showed the Trustees intended to lay-off a teacher in June of 1985 under BILL 35.’ (Justice Mary Southin)
v) When the School Board failed to return employment as recommended by Justice Southin, she re-ordered a re-arbitration. The Board appealed that action and lost. No further legal action was ever taken by the defendant Board or Union.
vi) Interestingly, in one of the many petitioner appeals, Southin - sitting as an Appeal Court panel at the turn of the century in which two of the three female judges (the ‘maidenform mafia’) had sat on earlier court hearings– denied the fact that she ever recommended re-ordering re-instatement which flew in the face of the facts… ‘I never did’, she had opined.
vii) ‘She (Southin) can’t get away with that stunt’ (Petitioner’s lawyer) with regards to her failure to re-instate this petitioner back onto salary until a resolution had been found. That failure on her part explains why we are in court 25 years later as no other B.C. court was prepared to assign that right according to collective bargaining rules.
viii) For that matter, we submit that any court may assign this petitioner back onto salary as those monies belong to this petitioner despite legal outcomes. Regrettably, the B.C. Courts plus the Supreme Court of Canada has not seen fit to address that wrong which explains our presence in an Ontario court of law.
ix) This petitioner is currently receiving accrued pension benefits from the Ontario Teachers Pension fund which is an amalgam of B.C. and Ontario contributions.
x) Unlike the B.C. Teachers public fund which would await a resolution to this legal case before paying benefits, the Ontario Teachers private fund did not feel bound by these B.C. judicial actions.
xi) Apart from residency in Ontario for the past 25 years, the act of estopping this petitioner from further court access in B.C. leaves him with no other legal options.
xii) If a Canadian citizen is to be excluded from the laws of the land, we submit that such must be done – if it can be done – only under a very stringent application of the laws. Clearly that is not the case of the MacKenzie Order.
xiii) Please note that in this application for interim salary, the applicant is no longer asking for a resolution to this case as that would entail an inclusion of the Union. This action is directed solely against the Employer and is limited as noted above.
xiv) As this case now negatively affects every Canadian, a broad interpretation of the law is required before an experienced judge. For example, the most applicable Rules are RULE 13 (INTERVENTION) and RULE 22 SPECIAL CASE which begins with this statement…’Where the parties to a proceeding concur in stating a question of law in the form of a special case…’. To be sure, the defendant will never agree to these two uncontestable points: 1) In 27 years, no finding in the matter of the lay-off in June of 1985 of former senior West Vancouver teacher has been made 2) No compensation has been paid to the defendant. Hence a judicial ruling in this matter is paramount if this plaintiff is to receive ‘interim’ compensation as outlined in the petition.
xv) The guiding philosophy for such a judicial appointment would be this oft-quoted phrase from Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic) `What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.`
xvi) The political ramifications are catastrophic should employers be permitted to improperly curtail salary as a means of escaping their fiduciary responsibilities under the law of contract.
xv) As a final note in this unusual submission, there is little likelihood of an appeal should the redress the petitioner is seeking be granted.
xvi) On the other hand, there would be considerable fall-out in the event of a failure of this petition as many other aspects of this legal case would then come into play. For example, what employee would hold Union membership and contribute to a pension plan under the above conditions? In that regard, Canada has already been declared a Third World country by this writer. Would the Ontario government be seen to smash the Justice System in its entirety? In short, the present case brings into juxtaposition various legal elements from myriad challenges in B.C. in such fashion that the Ontario court is able to view this case for a first time as more than the ‘mere sum of its parts’.
‘The Outlawed Canadian’
B) REPY TO DEFENDANT (August 27-2012) APPENDIX V & VI
with apologies to Wiley
FORM 25A REPLY (AUGUST 27-2012) TO (Ottawa) DEFENDANT’S (West Vancouver, B.C. School District)
PETITION #12-54944 (AUGUST 22-2012)
BY: Roger Callow (plaintiff)
A) The defendant would arguably treat the above legal case and the court processes with contumely. Without a definitive response as to why they should not be held liable for ‘interim compensation’, which belongs to this plaintiff apart from legal findings, we submit that they have no case. Asking for an extension to address this central tenet from the court is highly disingenuous under these circumstances and the court should expect an immediate appeal should that request be granted. As matters now stand, the defendant has two months (hearing tentatively set for Nov. 1-2012) to provide support for a position which this plaintiff would claim is undefensible.
B) In the event of an unsuccessful petition, the court must ask the Defense as to how this 27 year unresolved legal matter will be resolved as the Defense does not offer any suggestion in that regard. Further, the court should expect to reject outright Associate Chief Justice (Vancouver Supreme Court) Anne MacKenzie’s prohibitive action against this plaintiff barring him from B.C. courts. As well, for purposes of pursuing this matter, the court should declare this B.C. case as having exceeded any reasonable terms of complying with the rules relating to any statute of limitation. Arguably, the essence of the defendant’s casuistical response is that if 27 years of doing nothing has served them well, why not go for another 27 years?
C) It should be noted here that the plaintiff’s interests in this action are limited solely to acquiring ‘interim compensation’ in terms as outlined elsewhere in these legal documents.
1) This petition is arguably the most significant legal case in Canadian Jurisprudence. What is at stake is the future role of the individual in Canada’s courts of law. In that regard, this petitioner submits that he was the target of a conspiracy in which the B.C. Government was hi-jacked (BILL 35) and the justice system co-opted to sanction a ‘sweetheart deal’ between employer and union so as to deprive this petitioner of his teaching career and consequent compensation (includes pension rights). As matters now stand, no employee should hold Union membership nor contribute to a pension plan. Employers may obviate their fiduciary responsibilities by hiding a dismissal behind a lay-off with this threat: ‘If you do not sign a $1 quick-claim regarding your lay-off; you will not be able to collect your pension.’ That is more than unconscionable. It is a defiance of current laws and practice displacing the individual, as it does, from any realizable access to the justice system. As such, this courts decision becomes the first test of the MacKenzie prohibition. A denial of this plaintiffs access to the Justice System in effect declares him as ‘The Outlawed Canadian’; the first Canadian so designated. It is a designation so heinous that the Justice System of Canada may be declared not to exist for a written contract no longer is worth the paper on which it is written.
2) Whatever the decision by this court, the outcome will reverberate down through 21st century Canada.
Hence such phrases used by the defendant as: ‘no reasonable cause of action’, ‘lack of jurisdiction’; ‘vexatious and/or constitutes an abuse of this Honourable Court’s process’, ‘claim not entirely clear’,’no cause of action is plead or discernible in the Claim’, ‘no real and substantial connection between the Plaintiff’s claim and Ontario’, ‘circumvent these leave requirements’ are hardly conducive to resolving an unresolved 27 year labour matter in which no compensation has been paid contrary to the collective agreement code. As the original arbitration was quashed by the courts, no legal decision exists despite over 30 judges including 3 trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. As matters now stand,‘no legal decision has become a legal decision in Canada’ or, in the words of Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic) ‘What must be avoided at all costs, is a major deprivation of justice under the laws.’ In short, a basic legal tenet argues that there cannot be process without judgment. Apparently that dictum no longer applies in Canada if the current petition is defeated.
3) A brief history of recent events highlights the dilemma faced by this plaintiff.
(i) S106159 (Vancouver Registry) was laid in September of 2010 by this plaintiff requesting, among other things, for this plaintiff to be placed back on salary (from November 4, 1985; June 30 lay-off date) when salary provisions were untimely cut off (before the arbitration was hardly under way). These provisions belonged to this plaintiff apart from judicial outcomes. The failure to return to arbitration by the defendant as ordered by the court, set the clock ticking and the defendant has no-one to blame but themselves for that failure. Due to an earlier prohibition, leave of the court was requested in order to proceed.
(ii) No ‘Notice of Motion’ was filed by the Employer nor Union in 2010. What was received in October was the ‘Anne MacKenzie Order’ (SEE APPENDIX I of ‘STATEMENT OF CLAIM’), a contradictory document which this plaintiff sought to question with action CA038538 but was apparently blocked from registry by an un-named clerk for reasons best known to himself although it is noted that he could have been acting under Point 3 a priori to bar any questioning of her action. Regrettably, Chief Justice Lance Finch did not see fit to respond in clarifying that matter.
(iii) With nowhere to go, the plaintiff proceeded through the Federal Court and Supreme Court of Canada in a process best labeled as problematical leaving him exposed with no decision on any level.
4) Having been blocked in its entirety from the B.C. Justice System plus the Federal Court of Canada plus the Supreme Court of Canada, the plaintiff was left in limbo regarding his claims.
5) The courts, in their wisdom, are the root cause of the above unfortunate state of affairs:
(i) If Justice Southin in 1986 had seen fit to return this plaintiff to salary until a resolution had been found after the Employer failed to return employment as recommended by the court, it is unlikely we would be here today.
(ii) The failure of any number of judges to return this plaintiff to salary or, alternatively, order the matter to be re-arbitrated as per Justice Southin’s Decision which stood up on appeal by the Employer. In short, what the Employer could not gain through the front door, they were able to acquire through the back door due to judicial cupidity.
(iii) In the interim, the plaintiff turned 65 and requested his pension from B.C. There was no response for two years. He then applied, as per the rules regarding inter-provincial teacher transfer provisions, to transfer contributions from B.C. to Ontario from which he is receiving a partial pension. That took another two years. While not knowing, it would appear that the B.C.Teachers Pension fund insisted on a resolution before dispensing pension while the Ontario Teachers Pension fund – not believing they were bound by these B.C. actions – administered some funds although until a resolution is found, they cannot administer a full pension.
(iv) Most regrettably, a boycott by the Canadian media on this legal case has kept the general public ignorant of a matter with national ramifications.
6) The question raised here is which court would this petitioner apply to should the Ontario Pension Fund have refused any pension? Obviously, a court in Ontario. Hence this is one source of the court’s authority to act along with the notion of natural justice due to events in B.C. outlined above. Hence this court is the first test of the effect of the prohibitive order of Associate Chief Justice MacKenzie. That is why it is a turning point in legal jurisprudence. Accordingly , this plaintiff argues that this decision must not stand because it cannot stand if we are to have an efficacious justice system.
7) #12-54944 (Ottawa Registry) does not seek a resolution to this case although it does not rule out court suggestions in that regard. Inclusion of the Union – as was the case in S106159 – has been omitted here which constrains court action even further in this regard. However, the court should have no problem assigning back salary with compounded interest plus placing this plaintiff on salary until a resolution is found. Unless the defendant provides a defense on this level at the hearing, their request for any time extension should be denied. To the degree that it is unlikely that the Defendant will appeal an unfavourable decision is the likeliness that the plaintiff will appeal an unfavourable decision.
8) The one question central to this hearing which the defendant does not provide is this one: ‘How does the Employer plan to resolve this case.’ In that absence, the court must address the question to the defendant in the event the petition is denied.
9) At root of this hearing is the concept of the statute of limitations. In short, this court is asked to accept that the B.C. Courts along with the Employer and Union have failed to resolve this 27 year legal case in which they have had ample opportunity to do so. To do otherwise, is to accept that habeas corpus, ultimate remedy, no process without judgment, no longer have any meaning in Canada. If the events in British Columbia can be said to have reduced Canada to Third World status; then a continued failure in this regard in Ontario would smash the Canadian Justice System in its entirety.
10) Due to the ramifications of this case, FORM 22A has been filed asking that this matter be considered at the Appeal level with 3 experienced judges as per SPECIAL CASE Rule 22.03 (1) SEE APPENDIX VI.
The essence of Rule 21 quoted by the defense under the heading ‘DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL’ would ,one and at the same time, ask for a dismissal of the claim without ever having to produce any substantive argument as to why the claim has no merit.
11) Due to the significance to the welfare of the Canadian legal code, Ontario Governor General Hon. John Gerritsen and Rt. Hon. Dalton McGuinty, MPP for Ottawa South and Premier, are being provided with documentation pertinent to this legal matter.
CC Chief Justice C. Hackland/ Hon.J.Gerritsen/Rt. Hon. D. McGuinty
West Vancouver Board of School Trustees
FORM 25A REPLY – #12-54944 (Ottawa Registry July 13-2012) APPENDIX VI
LETTER TO OTTAWA CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES HACKLAND
BY: Roger Callow `The Outlawed Canadian` www.employeescasecanada.com
A) What began as a matter of an `apparent` employee lay-off 27 years ago in British Columbia has metamorphosized into a national matter questioning the fundamental notion as to whether judges are masters (judge-made law) or servants of the law. In the former, the judges alot themselves much latitude in an interpretation of the law while in the latter a closer application of the intent of the lawgivers – the legislative function of government – is at stake. In theory, the latter is the preferable state.
1) As Servants of the Law: (as applied to Action #12-54944)
(i) The law of habeas corpus: The propriety of the lay-off of former senior West Vancouver School Teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985 has never been tested in law despite hearings before over 30 judges including 3 inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. Consequently , this plaintiff is in a state of limbo.
(ii) The law of ultimate remedy: Without a finding as to (i); no compensation has been paid which flies in the face of a basic tenet of the collective agreement rules.
(iii) The law of universality of unions: This petitioner has always believed that he had direct access to the courts but in this particular case the courts have deemed otherwise. This petitioner is barred from presenting any evidence in court based on jurisdictional reasons to support his claims of a government conspiracy. At the time of the lay-off, the Union represented both the interests of administrators and teachers which was – as shown in the Employee’s Case – a conflict of interest and one the Supreme Court of Canada should have heard
(iv) The ‘law’ of pensions: It is generally understood that anyone contributing to a pension plan has the full rights of the benefits of that program which should not be entailed in any way. This is a basic argument of #12-54944. Here the Employer has in effect stated that unless this petitioner signs a quick deed, he will not collect his full pension. (Currently, a partial pension is being paid through the Public Ontario Teachers Pension Fund).
(v) ‘There can be no process without judgment’: Justice Horace Hollinrake of the B.C. Supreme Court once opined; ‘Mr. Callow, you have a right to a judicial finding’ but added that it was not within his jurisdiction to assign a judicial finding concluding, when asked the question, that he did not know under whose jurisdiction the matter should fall. Such cupidity as this has plagued this case for 27 years. In short, the Employer was permitted to win through the back door what they were denied at the front door.
(vi) Every individual has unfettered access to the legal system: Without this tenet, our judicial system becomes meaningless. When the courts in 1986 quashed the arbitration with a recommendation that employment be returned to this teacher which the Employer refused to do, the matter was remitted back to arbitration with which the Employer and Union failed to follow up leaving this plaintiff in limbo as noted above. In every other legal case, a denial by an appeal court leaves the plaintiff with a lower court decision; in the Employee’s Case(Canada) as it is now known, this plaintiff is consequently left with nothing, validating this claim: ‘No legal answer is now a legal answer in Canada.’
The plaintiff declares himself ‘The Outlawed Canadian’. Under these circumstances, Canada reverts to Third World Status as bureaucratic interests are permitted to supplant the concept of the rights of the individual in law.
2) As Masters of the law (this term used pejoratively):
(vii) It is in the nature of laws to require interpretation as they describe a general situation without being privy to any particular case in mind. The most common judicial approach is to set a priority to applicable laws. That is the intention which so often goes awry. For example, a judge may choose a picayune rule to obviate more important laws. While the laws account for such divergences; it is most difficult to challenge the courts on this basis.
viii) Judges arrogate ‘judge-made rule’ with improper use of such rules as ‘no merit’, ‘frivolous and vexatious’, ‘failing to prove an argument according to their personal standard’, ‘lack of jurisdiction’, improper use of surety guarantees in order to block appeals’. Many of these filibustering arguments are found in the current Conservative Party defense against the infamous robocalls case as well as the Employee’s Case.
(ix) At root of the Employee’s Case is the failure of the courts to insist on the continuation of salary during litigation as per contract. The Employer curtailed salary illegally on November 4-1985 (lay-off on June 26-1985) as they assumed the arbitration would be completed by that time with a favourable decision to them. In fact, the arbitration did not end until 1986. The arbitration did not survive judicial review. Unfortunately, the court failed to place this plaintiff back on salary until a resolution was found; an omission which eventually led arguably to the destruction of the Canadian Justice System. Every succeeding judge since that time and up to the present, we submit, had the power to place this plaintiff back on salary until a resolution was found. It was that single omission which has placed the judges into a position of acting as an agent for the Employer. Action #12-54944 seeks to rectify solely that factor although any other action by the court is of their choosing.
(x) The lay-off date of June 26, 1985 under the conditions of the B.C. Government’s BILL 35 (Callow being the only target before this legislation was withdrawn in the 1990’s in this unresolved case of Banana Republic justice) pre-dates the operant Date for BILL 35 of July 1,1985 implying a fraud of immense proportions. In short, the B.C. legislature was hi-jacked and the judiciary co-opted to sanction a ‘sweetheart deal’. As matters stand, no Canadian employee should hold Union membership nor contribute to a pension scheme. Hence #12-54944 is the single most important hearing in Canadian judicial history juxtaposing, as it does, all those elements contrary to the proper conduct of the judiciary, into an Ottawa courtroom.
(xi) Justice Hollinrake was wrong as has been every other judge in this matter before the court; there was one function permitted them. When the Employer failed to return employment to this plaintiff as recommended by the court, the court ordered the matter back to arbitration; an arbitration which was never held due to the cupidity of Canada’s judges including the Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada to order one.
(xii) Remember, it was not the Employer, the Union or this plaintiff who quashed the arbitration. Nor again was it these selfsame three parties which ordered the matter back to arbitration. It was the court. If Justice Mary Southin (r. 2004) had seen fit to order this plaintiff back on to salary for the purpose, we would not be here today 27 years later and at much cost to the conduct of justice in Canada. In the words of Justice Estey (St. Anne/Nackawic) ‘What must be avoided at all costs, is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.’ Truly that is what has happened with the Employee’s Case and #12-54944 seeks partial remedy of that deplorable situation.
(xiii) To be sure, the presiding justice in this hearing does not have an enviable task. The ugly truth of the matter is that the judge is being asked to choose between supporting the interests of a large number of fellow judges which are claimed to be suspect as noted above, or, alternatively, the interests of the other 34 million Canadians. The seriousness of this matter is reflected in that in other correspondence to Chief Justice Charles Hackland, it is noted that he could choose to hear this matter with two other judges at the Appeal level as permitted by the rules. The Attorney General and Premier of Ontario are well aware of these requests. The future of Ontario and Canada in terms of the Judiciary and Government demand no less.
(xiv) as for Canadian students: they no longer need to study Nazi Germany to understand how a nation became a pariah country; they can study democratic Canada as to how it shot itself in its infrastructural foot.
cc Attorney General of Ontario Hon. John Gerretsen
MPP for Ottawa South & Premier Rt. Hon. Dalton McGuinty
OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – JULY 13/2012
(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN) ‘Pulitzer Prize’ for an international reporter?
BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com
REFERENCE: Ottawa case #12-54944 Roger Callow vs Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver S.D. #45) filed in Ottawa Superior Court on July 13-2012 (SEE web for legal argument)
TO: The following Ottawa Law Companies & related legal interests for pro bono representation:
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP f.613-230-8842 Carleton University Law f.613-520-3690
CUPE f.613-237-5508 Fraser Milgrain Casgrain LLP f.613-783-9690
Gowling Lafleur HenderonLLP f.613-563-9869 Heenan Blaikie LLP f.613-236-9632
Lang Michener LLP f.613-231-3191 McCarthy Tetrault LLP f.613-563-9386
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP f.613-238-2098 Ogilvy Renault LLP f.613-230-5459
University of Ottawa Law f.613-562-5124
1) This appeal is for pro bono representation in a legal case with national ramifications.
2) This is the second appeal to the above listed parties. The first appeal was ignored; a regrettable omission as the protection of Canadian law should be paramount from the legal fraternity.
3) The first appeal theme was: ‘What to do with a tyrannical king’ or, in this instance, a judge who acted outside the law.
4) The subsequent Federal Court decision (T-1386-11) whitewashed the actions of a tyrannical judge due largely to the failure of support from the legal fraternity. Canada is arguably now a Third World country.
5) Once again, the above parties are challenged to represent this filed case in a hearing which juxtaposes all those past legalities from British Columbia to Ontario in such fashion that the entire Justice System is imperiled to a degree and an extent hitherto unknown.
6) Interested legal interests may contact this writer at PHONEFAX: 613-521-1739 (20 day response time please)
‘The Outlawed Canadian’