JUMP TO HOME PAGE

REPLY 21A - #13-58607 ON Superior Court (Ottawa) August 27 Registry Date

 

THE FOLLOWING IS A TENTATIVE REPLY TO THE EMPLOYER WHOM HAS YET TO FILE A ‘NOTICE OF APPEARANCE’ . THEIR ARGUMENT IS CONSISTENTLY THE SAME; NAMELY, THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS MERELY RE-ARGUING MATTERS ALREADY DECIDED (RES JUDICATA) WITHOUT EXPLAINING WHY I HAVE NO DECISION FROM WHICH COMPENSATION (INCLUDES PENSION RIGHTS) MAY FLOW. THAT THIS ARGUMENT IS NONSENSICAL IS OBVIOUS ALTHOUGH I RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF THE DEFENDANT TO PEDDLE ANY SUCH ARGUMENT. WHAT I DO NOT ACCEPT IS MYRIAD JUDGES BUYING INTO THIS GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY TO SUCH AN EXTENT AND DEGREE THAT THEY MAY BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE ABANDONED THEIR JUDICIAL ROLE AND NOW ACT AS AGENTS OF THE EMPLOYER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE EMPLOYEE. THAT’S NOT JUSTICE, OR IF YOU WILL, THAT IS NOW THE ESSENCE OF CANADIAN JUSTICE.

 

BACKGROUND – A pejorative account    N.B. personal pronoun ‘me’ substituted for ‘this plaintiff’

 

1) In March of 1985, senior West Vancouver Teacher, Roger Callow (plaintiff), mailed incriminating evidence to the Ministry of Education in Victoria regarding fraudulent actions on the part of an administrator whom, it is alleged, was in the process of altering this teacher’s professional report from a positive to a negative.

 

2) Rather than dealing with this message, the government reacted by passing  BILL 35 which in effect shot the messenger by laying him off on June 26, 1985 for economic reasons. The Bill was operant as of July 1,1985 and was only ever used against this personage. It was recalled in the 1990’s before this case had been resolved (banana republic law).

 

3) In arbitration,sufficient evidence was presented to show that the professional report had indeed  been fraudulently altered as I had caught the administrator changing his professional report from a positive to a negative. Any other School Board would have dismissed the administrator under these circumstances.

 

4) The arbitration favouring the Employer did not withstand judicial review, and it was quashed with the government-appointed arbitrator labeled as being ‘patently unreasonable’. He had converted 16 new teaching positions to read 16 lay-offs adding me as the necessary 17th. (He was aware that I was the only lay-off.)

 

5) In rendering her decision, Madame Justice Mary Southin (r. 2004) made a horrible mistake from which the justice system has never recovered. She requested all memos from the employer which, I submit, showed the extent of this government conspiracy.

 

6) By returning these memos ‘because she did not use them’; she opened the justice system to blackmail, for if there was ever another court case in which it was revealed what she knew, the B.C. Justice System, I submit, would collapse.

 

7) The employer was quick to take advantage of this weakness by refusing to return to legalities as so ordered by the court as well as refusing to return employment to this plaintiff as recommended (not ordered) by the court. Hence the Judicial System of Canada has involved itself in a 28 year continuous ‘Watergate’ which has led to the collapse of the collective bargaining system and all that it implies such as the right to collect a pension paid for by this litigant. Hence Canada is fast moving from being a ‘failed state’ to one of anarchy.

 

8) In 1995 – as nothing was happening - I went to court to have the Order changed from the should return employment to must return employment. The only other alternative for the judge was to order the matter back to litigation. He did neither leaving this plaintiff in a perpetual state of limbo which is against any number of legal adages such as ‘there can be no process without judgment’. In short, no judge may pick up the judicial ball and go home before the game is played out which they have done numerous times over the years in this case.

 

9) Perhaps the most egregious failure was that of the second appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004 which argued that the original conspiracy was compounded by a conspiracy of process thus inviting the Court to sit in judgment of itself.

 

10) In all other cases where the Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear a civil action (about 85% making it a great burial ground for legal issues); a petitioner is left with a lower court decision. This is not the case in the Employee’s Case (Canada) as there is no extant lower court decision. Hence what they condoned was the idea that ‘no legal answer is a legal answer’ now in Canada. That is anarchy.

 

11) Litigation continued with the courts steadfastly refusing to live up to their responsibilities in resolving this labour matter in which no compensation has been paid. (28 years of back salary which exists apart from legal outcomes as this plaintiff should have been retained on salary until a solution was found.)

 

12) In October of 2010, the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ was an ad hoc creation by the B.C. Supreme Court in which a judge would bar this plaintiff from recognition in the court for ‘reasons best known to herself’. Having access to the laws is fundamental to the efficacy of any legal system.

 

13) The Appeal (CA038538) was refused registration by the Appeal Court of the B.C. Supreme Court for unexplained reasons to which Chief Justice Lance Finch has never responded.

 

14) The same Appeal was registered in the Federal Court of Canada (T-1386-11) which, interestingly, was defended on behalf of the Employer by the B.C. Attorney General’s Department; the same Department which now claims non-involvement. It would seem that what is ‘sauce for the Employer goose is not sauce for the Employee gander’. In a parallel development in Ontario DC-12-1872 to be held Oct. 4-2013, the Ontario Attorney General is not attending in place of the Employer. That case proceeds unopposed.

 

15) Hence the B.C. Attorney General has devolved all responsibility for B.C. Courts in this matter  onto the Minister of Justice, Peter Mackay. Under these circumstances, Premier Christy Clark must remove A.G. Suzanne Anton from her post or alternatively, resign herself as B.C. may now be declared a failed state.

 

16) Not to be outdone by the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ is an apparent successor from the B.C. Supreme Court now labeled as the ‘Cullen Creed’ of July 23-2013.  As the Registry quoted the Mackenzie Creed in rejecting the filing of my most recent claim, I requested that Chief Justice Robert Baumann co-sign that Order. What I received instead was a second Order which, if it can be believed, was more egregious than the first Order currently under challenge in Ontario court (DC-12-1872).

 

17) Cullen makes no reference to the existence of the MacKenzie Creed nor of the unheard Appeal (CA038538). Unlike the MacKenzie Creed, he does assign a docket number but one which chronically precedes the MacKenzie Order. His Order plus accompanying notes would make it clear that the B.C. Supreme Court was abandoning any chance of a court resolution in this unresolved legal case.

 

18) The legal question asked here is what is the status of the Cullen Creed which includes an annotated letter stating that this plaintiff must abandon all approaches to the court; something the MacKenzie Creed did not do as it included the escape clause ‘with permission of the court’. In short, the Cullen Creed makes no pretence in abandoning this unresolved labour case in which no compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid.

 

19) Be that as it may be, this plaintiff accepts the abandonment of this case by the Justice System under the Cullen Creed as a means of now proceeding with compensation claims including 28 years of back salary which belongs to this plaintiff apart from judicial outcomes.

 

20) As it is clear that the B.C. Courts will no longer respond to any claim made by me, once again I approached the Federal Court of whose actions I have asked Justice Minister Peter MacKay to review. Their response is interesting: From Federal Court of Canada Justice Gleason August 13-2013:

‘Please return the materials at TAB B to Mr. Callow. Do not accept them for filing as they do not conform to the requirements of the Federal Court Rules as an originating document and cannot be accepted for filing in T-1386-11 without an order from a judge, which I am not prepared to grant as the issues raised in the “motion for summary judgment” are substantially similar to those struck by order of Prothonotary Lafreniére in file T-1386-11 as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

a) T-1386-11 was filed in Ottawa and was to be heard before a judge in Ottawa and NOT in a secret hearing in Vancouver before a Prothonotary.

b) Lafreniére handled the matter as a judicial review focusing solely on the rights of a judge and not on the actions of that judge other than to blithely note, without being specific, that this plaintiff had not supported his accusations.

c) In a second secret hearing, an Ottawa Judge assigned Rule 51 to his rubber-stamping of the Lefreniére ruling.

d) A plethora of laws was quoted to appeal this matter only to be rejected for filing because this plaintiff had not included a specific rule. As to which one, the judge replied; “See a lawyer.”  “He wants to know too,” I retorted. Harper’s new appointee, Chief Justice Paul Crampton, failed to intervene in December of 2009.

e) With the ‘MacKenzie Creed’, I was seeking to have the Order quashed as being  `ultra vires`

f) With the `Cullen Creed`- while I recognized constitutional challenges - nonetheless, I was asking the court to accept it in order that compensation could now be applied; a feature Cullen failed to address and, due to the nature of his report, it was not possible to turn to the B.C. Supreme Court for the purpose.

g) No doubt Gleason j. was merely following Orders (Indeed, a `note this` marker was still appended to a statement noting that this petitioner was under a `frivolous and vexatious order`leaving the impression that I was to be treated like someone wearing a yellow star assigned to a Nazi courtroom.)

h) No matter what the explanation, Gleason j. must be removed from the bench for gross incompetency.

i) The factum was refiled in Ottawa Superior Court as #13-58607.

 

21) Another problem bequeathed by B.C. A.G. Anton relates to the appeal in B.C. Supreme Appeal Court in which the lawyers for the Union and Employer virtually walked in the back door of the court and in 5 minutes were able to ‘rob the piggybank’ of a $10,000 surety I was forced to post should I wish CA038538 to proceed. That case never proceeded hence the money was in limbo as I possessed no status to go to court to claim it back. Nor would the judge grant me status to appeal any payout which would be determined by the outcome of the hearing of the canceled CA038538. In short, the MacKenzie Creed did not extend to litigants working against my interests. That is a major constitutional question which I attempted to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.  (The Employer chose to accept $2000 less in settlement of the Ottawa account rather than collect from this fund; an action I was prepared to support as I would rather they have these funds in payment then for these moneys – as I told them - to end up in the judge’s Christmas fund.) The 3 page verbose and peurile B.C. Ministry letter excusing Anton from her obligations in this regard was woefully inept and merely exposes a weak vacillating B.C. Attorney General who should be removed from her post by Premier Christy Clark.

 

22) The Supreme Court registry contacted the B.C. Appeal Court Registry and were told that, oh yes, Mr. Callow could appeal the surety matter in their court for which they would extend the time limit and, fool that I was, I believed them and filed such a case and paid the fee. Nothing happened which is typical of this court under Chief Justice Lance Finch which explains why I have called for him to be terminated. It would seem that this fee money is to be added to that judge’s party fund. (In credit to the Supreme Court of B.C.,the fee moneys were returned under similar circumstances.)

 

23) A word here is pertinent as to why Premier Wynne as opposed to Ontario A.G. Gerritsen has been named as the residual person in the upcoming October 4-2013 hearing in Divisional Court in Ottawa. Chief Justice C. Hackland, A.G. Gerritsen and then Premier McGuinty were kept fully informed of the lower court decision which is under appeal. Wynne did not change A.G.’s with her accession. In the event that these courts (2) do not expunge the MacKenzie Creed - the sole topic before them which goes unopposed - then the Ontario Justice System crashes. No person should ever be denied court access based on the whim of a judge not charged with the litigation at hand. To do that is anarchy. MacKenzie (and Cullen) should be held fully responsible for their actions in this matter. Wynne is ultimately responsible for any Divisional Court failure to quash the MacKenzie Creed on Oct. 4-2013

 

cc Chief Justice Paul Crampton  Federal Court of Canada

MacKay/Anton/Hackland/Wynne/Wagner (SCof C)