JUMP TO HOME PAGE

PROPOSED APPEAL OF QC 550-17-008208-157

dated October 23-2015 Received by Plaintiff Nov. 02-2015

Province of Quebec  District of Gatineau  Hon. D. Goulet J.S.C.

REBUTTAL

This Judgment reflects bias on the part of Justice Goulet whomwas not the hearing judge for the following reasons:

1) The Litigation: points (1) - (5) - no dispute by this plaintiff

2) Factual Content: (6) - (23) - no dispute for most part with stated points.

3) The one glaring error which Goulet j. could not help be aware was that after (9) where the initial arbitration favoured the School Board, there is no mention of the ensuing court  challenge wherein the arbitration was quashed leaving this plaintiff - as it turns out - in a 30 year limbo where no compensation has been paid. Without a discussion of that point, the Decision of Goulet j. is of no legal or moral consequence.

4) If it is important to state in (14), according to this decision, that the Plaintiff is' no longer permitted to institute proceedings in B.C. regarding matters to his termination', where is the necessary 'may proceed only 'with permission of the judge' which Goulet j. notes is the case in (14) with the Federal Court? In short, the Goulet j. Order sanctions the anarchy of the B.C. Justice System in this regard. That is unconscionable.

5) (17) omits the fact that the Ontario Superior Court's  Maranger Decision was unsuccessfully appealed to the Divisional Court and from there to the Ontario Appeal Court where it appears to have disappeared down a 'black hole'. The oversight committees have been called to investigate. At this point that would mean the new Liberal Justice Minister.

6) Analysis: confusing on a number of levels by Goulet j. as follows:

7) (27) and (28) holds the sole purpose of this case; namely, acquiring the 'missing memo notes' of B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Southin in 1986 who quashed the arbitration ruling, as she did, the arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable'. Her recommendation that the Board return employment was dismissed by the West Vancouver School Trustees. They did not return to arbitration as so ordered creating the 30 year limbo for this laid off teacher in which no compensation has been paid (includes pension rights). Those 'secret memo notes' regarding School Board meetings in June of 1985 hold the genesis of all the cases subsequent to Southin j.'s Order.

8) Without viewing those memo notes, Goulet j. has committed the French Canadian courts of Quebec under Premier Couillard to a massive English Canadian government fraud leaving Quebecers without effective leadership.

9) Hence Points (29) - (35) have no meaning leading up to the conclusion that 'the motion to dismiss must be granted.

10) The second part (37) relates to 'Should the Plaintiff be prohibited from instituting legal proceedings against the Defendant in Quebec? (38) states 'with respect and for now, the answer should be no.'

11) 'should' is not an Order. Justice Southin  used 'should' rather than must and created 30 years of incessant litigation. As for 'and for now'; Goulet j. has opened a can of worms inconsistent with any practice of the law. (42) adds 'It goes without saying that this restraint could dissipate quickly if the Plaintiff filed other proceedings in Quebec on the same issue.' In short, Goulet j. would appear to be passing the buck to the Appeal Court.

12) Goulet j. should be dismissed, it is submitted here for such as the above legal casuistry which leads nowhere. To be sure, while this plaintiff has his disagreements with other courts hearing this issue in other jurisdictions, the intention of the court is consistent with their Orders which is not the case here.

13) Added Argument by the plaintiff as follows:

14) It would appear that the document date of October 23-2015, immediately after the Federal Election on October 19-2015, could be construed as action by the Quebec courts to 'clear the slate' before the new incoming Liberal Justice Minister. That is not to be.

15) Unknown to the QC Court is that the Employer's QC Counsel included highly contentious information regarding the Ontario Superior Court's  McKinnon Decision of April 23-2015 which was pointed out to them in oral argument. A current action filed in Saskatchewan makes no reference to this April 23-2015 Order preferring instead to introduce a specious second Order from McKinnon dated September 15-2015 which was 'slapped' on the desk of Scott j. hearing by Ontario Counsel without providing a copy to this Plaintiff nor filing a Notice of Appearance. The whole matter has been referred to the oversight bodies which continue 'to sit' on this issue as no judgment was brought down  regarding 'frivolous and vexatious' behaviour  hence rejected on Appeal by the Ontario Appeal Court. The Employer lost their Ontario Counsel in that regard. This point is detailed here - as it was in oral argument - illustrating why the Quebec Courts must not refer to the McKinnon Order in their judgment. That request failed in Goulet j's Order.

16) The inconsistencies raised above were also raised with the SK oversight bodies with a request that B.C.'s Harris and Co. not be permitted to represent the Employer in the Appeal in SK.

17) The point here, is that both McKinnon Decisions cannot be the correct ones hence the incoming Federal Minister of Justice must give a determination on this point. The SK court was also warned off the Ontario court actions in oral argument which they also chose to ignore.

18) Under the circumstances , both courts by glossing over the deleterious effects of the McKinnon Actions have, it is submitted here, advertently committed the Justice System to egregious judicial errors for which all of Canada is the poorer.

19) Conspicuous by its absence is the plaintiff's charge that this court is guilty of running a 'court within a court' by having a second judge re-open the case at the apparent request of the Defendant to include new information. That request has led to extensive new material from both parties for which Goulet j. would make no recognition. That matter is under consideration by the 'oversight' bodies in Quebec hence a Decision should have been reserved until that difficulty was resolved. Unlike B.C. Justice Southin in 1986 whom returned the secret missing memo notes 'because she did not use them'; the QC courts made no such similar action drawing into question the entire veracity of Quebec's Justice System and consequent Premier Couillard's right to govern.

20) How, in all good conscience, can the Quebec court deny the production of key evidence regarding fraud, as Goulet j. acknowledges, without seeing that evidence? That failure explains why this case must be (unnecessarily) appealed.

21) The most stupendous chicanery committed by the Quebec Court was for Justice Goulet to give the judgment on behalf of Justice Therrien, the hearing judge, substantiating my position of the Gatineau Court 'running a court within a court'; an unheard of exercise in judicial cupidity.

22) Action Called For: Throw this entire duplicitous account out and demand the 'missing memo notes'; the basis of this national fraud. That was my original request.

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow (The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System)

employeescasecanada.com

 

cc Governor General D. Johnston / 'Incoming' Justice Minister & P.M.Trudeau

SCofC Hon. S. Côté

QUEBEC: Premier Couillard / RCMP

SASKATCHEWAN: Chief Justice M. Popescul / Premier Wall / NDP Cam Broton / Regina Leader-Post

CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL (Hon. B. McLachlin President - never replies)