JUMP TO HOME PAGE

REPLY 25A #13-59060 APRIL 03-14(h.d. April 10)

Also included in #13-58607 (h.d. May 15)

 

PART  I

Oral Argument #13-59060 H.D. Apr.10-14 & #13-58607 H.D. May 15-14 (Ottawa Superior Ct.)

AS TWO HEARINGS - NOW ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA - IN OTTAWA COURTS HAVE ALL THE EARMARKS OF A PRE-WRITTEN REPORT WITH THE PRESIDING JUDGE(S)  MERELY PERMITTED TO ASSIGN COSTS, THIS ACCOUNT IS NOW INCLUDED AS REPLY25A  APRIL 3-2014

N.B. Due to the effect of the judicial finding of the April 10-14 hearing on the May 15-14 hearing, it is submitted here that the presiding justice must - if this matter is not to be appealed accompanied by a probable sanction against the presiding justice - deal with these three questions:

A) Is it the intention of the Defendant to use a finding of 'frivolous &vexatious' ruling in this hearing to apply to the May 15 hearing? If not, then what is the purpose of this separate hearing? If so, then the court should assign $30,000 'maintenance' to this writer. Considerations on that aspect:

Question posed to the Law Society: May a Defense Council, rather than responding to an action, launch instead their own action and arrange to have it heard before the main action laid by the Plaintiff with the aim of derailing the main action?

1) As a general rule of law, two actions affecting each other may not exist in tandem.

2) The specious argument by the Defendant would no doubt be that such is not the case as the one they subsequently laid takes precedence in being heard first.

3) This type of logic cannot hold. Two judges operating in two separate courts are provided with different materials and therefore are not able to give a judicial finding from one court taking into account that their particular decision impinges on the actions of the second court.

4) As such, Hicks, Morley et al for the Defense are perverting the course of justice in a significant way and will forever change the practice of law should Defense Counsel be permitted to 'run a court within a court' with this type of practice. In short, there would be bedlam if it got known that the Upper Canadian Law Society (UCLS)through their inaction has sanctioned this insidious practice.

5) Note that the objection does not apply to lodging a concurrent Defense or a Defense in the future. It is solely a protest against acting a priori to gain unfair legal advantage in court.

6) For this reason, I have requested $30,000 in maintenance fees from the court of #13-59060 being heard on April 10-2014 in Ottawa Superior Court. (The main action #13-58607 is slated to be heard May 15-2010 in the same court.) I cannot imagine Hicks, Morley taking a precipitous action such as this without prior complicity with the court. SEE NEWSLETTER on web APRIL 07-2014 for rebuttal to the UCLS

 

B) What is the detailed definition of the 'Cullen Creed' from B.C. Supreme Court (July 23-2013), an order on the judge's own recognizance who, for reasons best known to himself, took no argument and quoted no laws to unequivocally bar this writer from - at least - B.C. Courts? Does the court accept this document as being valid or is it ultra vires? A prima facie case may be made for the purpose. The court here operates under the rules of 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice'

 

C) What is the stand of the court regarding the central question in this case which the Employer refuses to answer; namely, is the Employer obligated to pay compensation under the collective bargaining procedures to this laid-off teacher (June of 1985) in West Vancouver, B.C ? If so, how and when should this be paid?

 

1) That the Employer would like to escape all his fiduciary responsibilities under the collective agreement process is understandable, although no sympathy need be extended. Currently, that end is being sought by requesting a 'frivolous and vexatious label' to be attached in Ontario as a means of escaping court scrutiny of this most important issue to the credibility of the collective bargaining process. From their factum on January 23-2014, it is clear that their intention was to obviate the subject matter of #13-58607 with their own action originally filed for January 16 but now postponed to April 10. This matter has been forwarded to the Upper Canadian Law Society as it is clear that the Employer was seeking to gain advantage by a process which would bring the rule of law into disrepute. What if every Defendant filed a separate hearing to pre-empt a duly laid  hearing? There would be bedlam.

2) What is not so understandable  is if the courts absolve themselves of any responsibility in having the Employer respond to the questions to the Defendant outlined above. The term 'plausible deniability' doesn't even come close to such court duplicity but that was the pattern of two earlier hearings in Ottawa courts and now a challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada.

 3) In absence of a definitive response to the above three questions before this court today, the court is bound to accept this plaintiff's assertions to be the case.

4) In question C), the court must accept that the Employer does, indeed, have  financial obligations to this employee under the collective bargaining rules.

5) Those obligations consist of 29 years back salary plus interest appropriately compounded as this litigant should always have been retained on salary until a resolution had been found in this case. This amount belongs to this litigant apart from judicial findings.

6) Regrettably, the Cullen Creed failed to assign any compensation which explains why this court is being asked to act accordingly to fulfill that shortcoming.

7) Due to the exclusionary action of the Cullen Creed in B.C. courts, the Ontario Courts are asked to function under the rules of 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice'.

8) While considering the Cullen Creed to be 'ultra vires'; nonetheless, this litigant is prepared to accept this document as testament that the Judicial Order has abandoned this 29 year unresolved legal matter and, as such, the above compensation may be assigned.

9) As there is no judicial finding in this case, no other compensation may be assigned by this court.

10) Contrary to earlier assertions by the Employer, the above matter is not one related to the Labour Movement to be settled in such as the B.C. Labour Board although it should be noted that they were consulted on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, no hearings were ever held as to why progress was not being made before a court re-ordered arbitration.

11) The Employer lost the argument regarding the nature of BILL 35 under which this targeted teacher was laid-off. The court ruled that as an 'imposed' agreement by government as opposed to 'consentual' agreement between union and employer, the courts could intervene.

12) The court quashed the arbitration favouring the Employer and ruled the arbitrator 'patently unreasonable'. It was not the Employer, the Union, nor this plaintiff which quashed the arbitration - it was the court. Nor was it any of the above three which ordered the matter back to arbitration after the Employer refused to return employment as recommended by the court - again, it was the court. In short, this matter is a court matter whether it be in B.C. or, under the terms of natural justice and inherent jurisdiction, in any other Canadian court. This important aspect of the case is entirely lacking from the Employer's Statement of Defense.

13) A re-ordered arbitration, after the employer failed to return employment - as recommended by the court - was never held due to the Employer's failure to return to court.

14) The perfidy of the Employer's case is illustrated in their Statement of Defense (Jan. 23-2014)   as they seek to misconstrue this case; the central point being that this is not a settled matter as the Employer would have it; it is an unfinished court matter due to the many courts which  would permit them to duck out of their responsibilities. SEE REPLY25A  FEBRUARY 20-14   p. 16 #2  Preamble to Supreme Court of Canada Appeal 2004 'This preamble makes an unusual request regarding habeas corpus' p.17...'Simply put, how can the justice system of Canada in all good conscience deny Mr. Callow access to the court to resolve this 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 rule 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.'

19) The thrust of the Employer's argument to date is that this B.C. legal matter does not belong in an Ontario court. If not, where can it be tried? The court must state their position.

20) If so, why does the Employer quote B.C. court actions to support their stand which I have labeled 'sucking and blowing at the same time' in other documents? For example, being declared a 'frivolous and vexatious' litigant whom may only proceed with court authorization in B.C. would, it seem, apply in any court and yet such as the Federal Court has participated in hearings on this case.

21) Hence if the Employer is seeking to enact a similar 'frivolous and vexatious' label in Ontario, such a 'redundant' application must be based solely on Ontario legal experience.

22) Two earlier case hearings in Ottawa Superior and Divisional Court regarding the 'MacKenzie Creed' are currently pending in the Supreme Court of Canada and hence are unavailable for referencing in this court for the purpose as no causal connection exists between the MacKenzie Creed of October 2010 and the Cullen Creed of July 2010.

23) Therefore a prima facie case must be made solely on the points made in the Cullen Creed.

24) No argument has been produced by the Employer as it relates to the Cullen Creed as outlined in 23).

25) Should the court reject this litigant's bid for compensation as outlined in 9); an appeal paralleling an earlier appeal solely on the MacKenzie Creed can be expected.

26) I doubt very much that the employer would appeal a court decision favouring this employee as it would provide him with the necessary leverage to arrange a settlement outside of court with the Employer; something both parties desire.

27) Failure of this petition, considering past legal events before 8 separate courts and over 30 judges in this, the lead civil action in Canadian Jurisprudence, can only lead to the complete smashing of the Canadian Justice System, an ignoble end to democratic Canada.  

28) The key anomaly is that nowhere has any court or tribunal stated that this case should NOT be legally resolved. The Justice System does not operate in negatives but that is the status of this case now which explains why the Justice System with its systematical abuse in this case has devolved into anarchy; a most ignoble end for democratic Canada. The facts would show - as exemplified by Justice Southin's action in quashing the arbitration - that the School Board did not authorize the Superintendent's letter to lay off this teacher although he quoted their authority. In short, the Justice System has been party to a massive fraud.

29) Due to the lack of a definition of the Employer's Case, I wish rebuttal time after his presentation. I may also intervene during that presentation due to the failure of two earlier Ottawa courts to pose key questions to this Employer.   

PART  II

 

HE FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA IS INCLUDED AS REPLY 25A (#13-59060 APRIL 10-14 HEARING DATE & #13-58607 MAY 15-14 HEARING DATE). A COPY IS ALSO ENCLOSED TO HON. MADELEINE MEILLEUR, THE NEW ONTARIO A.G. WHOM I HAVE ASKED TO APPOINT TOP JUDGES TO THESE HEARINGS (NO CHIEF JUSTICES NOR DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICES NEED APPLY).

OPEN LETTER TO PMO (CANADA)– APR.07-2014

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN  and  U.S. NEWS)

 

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com (29 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. Canadians awoke in the New Year to a Justice System in tatters and without leaders to rectify this national debacle negatively affecting 35 million Canadians. In brief, the dual debacle of the credibility of the courts is matched by the debacle of government irresponsibility leaving 35 million Canadians in the lurch. Current series is now addressed to the Prime Minister's  Office due to the failure of P.M. Stephen Harper to fire his incompetent Justice Minister and now awaits the necessary leadership to face up to this issue of national importance. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears. I feel like Ralph Nader in 1961 trying to convince the public of dangerous cars (Unsafe at any speed). Who knows, maybe recalling judges and chief judges may become standard fare in the future just like automobiles. To be sure, the current system is not working.

 

QUOTE: '...prosecutors of attempting to deflect from the weakness of their case by laying a smokescreen of irrelevant evidence, ''creating an elephant in the room that is impossible to ignore...."  While the above quote by lawyer Michael Edelson is on another unrelated case; the legal tactic used here by the 'prosecutors' is similar to the Hicks, Morley (for the Employer) approach recently appealed to the Upper Canada Law  Society.

 

JUSTICE SYSTEM OF CANADA 'UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED'

 

REBUTTAL TO LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA' LAW CLERK, ALDONA-MARIA BIGOS (Mar.26-14) Your #2014-135167

Question posed to the Law Society: May a Defense Council, rather than responding to an action, launch instead their own action and arrange to have it heard before the main action laid by the Plaintiff with the aim of derailing the main action?

1) As a general rule of law, two actions affecting each other may not exist in tandem.

2) The specious argument by the Defendant would no doubt be that such is not the case as the one they subsequently laid takes precedence in being heard first.

3) This type of logic cannot hold. Two judges operating in two separate courts are provided with different materials and therefore are not able to give a judicial finding from one court taking into account that their particular decision impinges on the actions of the second court.

4) As such, Hicks, Morley et al for the Defense are perverting the course of justice in a significant way and will forever change the practice of law should Defense Counsel be permitted to 'run a court within a court' with this type of practice. In short, there would be bedlam if it got known that the Upper Canadian Law Society (UCLS)through their inaction has sanctioned this insidious practice.

5) Note that the objection does not apply to lodging a concurrent Defense or a Defense in the future. It is solely a protest against acting a priori to gain unfair legal advantage in court.

6) For this reason, I have requested $30,000 in maintenance fees from the court of #13-59060 being heard on April 10-2014 in Ottawa Superior Court. (The main action #13-58607 is slated to be heard May 15-2010 in the same court.) I cannot imagine Hicks, Morley taking a precipitous action such as this without prior complicity with the court.

 

REBUTTAL:

7) I suppose that I should count myself blessed that I received a two page tome signed with both names from the UCLS as the usual response from extra-legal personnel is a phone call from the youngest clerk in the office labeled Beth, or Indigo, or Jennifer just saying 'no go'. Some courts do not even respond keeping the fees to apply, no doubt, to their Xmas fund.

8) In the opening paragraph of her 'omnibus bill' , clerk Aldona -Maria covers the full gamut of the case concluding with this line: 'You feel that you may have been denied justice and you appear to be seeking the Law Society's assistance in this matter.'  (She neglects to point out that without a judicial finding as earlier ordered by the court, no compensation according to the collective agreement has been paid so, yes, I 'may' have been denied justice.)

9) 'After reviewing the information you provided, we (is this the 'royal we'?) have found that the concerns you raise are not something that the Law Society can deal with. (Do you mean that they are not competent to deal with the question outlined in 1-5 above?) We can only act on complaints that provide information suggesting a lawyer has done something contrary to our Rules of Professional Conduct. (Ah, now we have it. No legal counsel has ever pulled this stunt before hence there is no rule on it...way to go, UCLS!

10) In her redundant letter where she 're-invents the legal wheel' , Aldona-Maria points out the inability of the UCLS to intervene in matters within the purview of the court which, as any idiot can see from #1-5 is not the question that I asked of the UCLS.

11) A copy of this account is being forwarded to the new ON Attorney General, Madeleine Meilleuir whom I have tasked with finding out what happened to an appeal for costs (DT-12-1872) to Osgoode Hall which appears to have fallen into a black hole.

12) It should also be known that her ineffective predecessor had been more of the problem than the solution in this case in Ottawa. If ,as the current A.G., she sanctioned that silly letter from the Premier threatening legal action; Ontario voters have much about which to be concerned. Only amateurs threaten legal action.

13) Much is made in letters such as the above that I am not represented by legal counsel implying that bureaucracies speak only to other bureaucracies. My 'uniformed' reaction?...a fool and her legalities are soon parted if the media hop on this one.

14) A copy of this letter is included to Opposition leaders Horwath and Hudak  to 'put their money where their mouth is' on an issue of national importance as the credibility of the legal system is more important than one evasive UCLS letter.

 

cc  ON Trial Lawyer's Association

SCofC Judge R. Wagner

Premier Wynne/Opp. leaders Horwath/Hudak      (Wynne copy to A.G. Meilleuir)

P.M. Harper/Opp. leaders Mulcair/Trudeau/May ( no copies - waste of time)

CBC's Peter Manbridge

Ottawa Sun's Ezra Levant

Ottawa Citizens Editorial editor Kate Heartfield

Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver S.D.#45)

Chief Justice - Osgoode Hall

 

 

PART III

ADDENDUM TO HICKS, MORLEY 'FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT' RECEIVED APRIL 02-2014

REPLY OF ROGER CALLOW (RESPONDENT TO #13-59060 H.D. APRIL 10-2014)

'THE LAST HURRAH'

QUOTE:  90,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong or, in this case, Canadian judges, would appear to be the thrust of Hicks,Morley's (HM) argument. "Oh, yes they can, if they are a part of a government conspiracy" as I maintain.

1) As a general reaction to the voluminous and salacious compendium on the above issue by HM, I am reminded of that old dictum: 'Confuse them with science (of laws in this case) and confound them something found out behind the barn (all those provocative newsletters of mine included under Index 'X' which, I submit, should be compulsory reading for all law students).

2) Of course the aim of HM is to derail a hearing that I have scheduled for May 15-2014, the nature of which they have failed to define making their account largely superfluous.

3) The stated aim of H.M. is to seek a 'frivolous and vexatious' denotation against me as a means of canceling the May 15 hearing. The question is why and why did they pervert the course of justice in laying the above submission 'a priori' as opposed to merely providing that information at the main hearing on May 15-2014?

4) I submit the answer to both questions is because they were terrified that an honest judge would recognize the finality of the 'Cullen Creed' and would accept my argument that without the all important 'with permission of the judge to proceed'; that judge would conceivably accept my claim that the judicial system has indeed abandoned my unresolved claim.

5) Contrary to HM's account, I am not requesting a final order on this case as that is well beyond the powers of the Ontario courts although it is recognized that the justice system has left me in a permanent state of limbo which flies in the face of many laws to such an extent, that there is merit to my claim that Canada is reduced to Third World status.

6)HM, however, by laying their case subsequent to my own and arranging to have it heard first as a means of undermining the central hearing, have introduced a legal process anathema to the proper conduct of justice explaining why I seek $30,000 in maintenance fees.

7) This has always been a court matter, not a collective bargaining one, when Justice Southin in 1986 ruled that as BILL 35 was an imposed government bill, the court could rule (I was the only one so laid off under this BILL before it was withdrawn in typical banana republic fashion aka Ontario's BILL 115). She quashed the arbitration and ruled the arbitrator 'patently unreasonable'. When the West Vancouver School Board failed to return employment 'as recommended' by her, she ordered the matter back to arbitration.

8) While HM focuses on my role in trying to seek a finalization of this issue, they ignore the fact that the Employer did not obey this court order possibly because they had illicitly cut me from salary and were not suffering repercussions. I should have been retained on salary until a resolution was found. That is the source of my current bid; namely to acquire all back pay with interest appropriately compounded as my right apart from judicial outcomes on the main topic of the validity of my lay-off from my teaching position in June of 1985.

9) As it is clear from the absolute nature of the Cullen Creed (there is no 'permission of a judge'), I cannot seek such remuneration in B.C. hence my claim under the provisions of 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice' apply here.

10) These claims were made in 2004 before the Supreme Court of Canada. The following preamble is germane here: SEE REPLY 25A April 3-2014 under #14

14   p. 16 #2  Preamble to Supreme Court of Canada Appeal 2004 'This preamble makes an unusual request regarding habeas corpus' p.17...'Simply put, how can the justice system of Canada in all good conscience deny Mr. Callow access to the court to resolve this 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 rule 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.'

11) In the above statement, we see the nature of the conspiracy.

12) First of all, I submit BILL 35 was ultra vires and explains why the Act was withdrawn before this matter was finalized.

13) Secondly, I submit that Justice Southin, from the secret memos that she ordered both the Union and Employer to turn over to her, discovered the existence of a 'sweetheart deal' and government culpability in that regard.

14) By returning those memos 'because she did not use them'; she set the court up for blackmail by the conspirators for should any future hearing reveal that she covered-up a government conspiracy, I submit that there would be hell to pay.

15) Hence a decision was taken - and holds to the present day - to cover-up this fraud at the expense of this writer.

16) Even here, the courts have failed badly in this cover-up.

17) For example, the action by the 'MacKenzie Creed', an Order without a docket number, had no basis in fact to act as I had indeed requested the court's permission to proceed due to an earlier 'frivolous & vexatious' order. HM are wrong in their version of this account.

18) It would seem that the rationale for the MacKenzie Creed (currently being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada) was to forestall another Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) appeal which would reveal the folly of their earlier decision to close down this case permitting the Employer to escape all fiduciary responsibility under the collective bargaining rules.

19) Currently I am in an ongoing battle with SCofC Registrar,  Roger Bilodeau, who refuses for specious reasons to permit this case to go to the judges. His definition of Section #40 found         in HM account 'S' has, I submit, been fulfilled with the Appeal Court hearing in Ontario DT-12-1872. His account falsely redirects attention to a long-ago Federal Court action. Regrettably Justice Minister Peter MacKay failed to intervene in a matter where the Registry has ostensibly usurped the role of the judges.

20) As to the 'frivolous and vexatious' request; there is no purpose for the Employer to invoke such a redundant request from the B.C. Order. It is the seeking of the cancelation of the May 15 hearing which appear to be the prime target.

21) Should the presiding justice for #13-59060 commit to that felony, he/she will have perverted the course of justice such as HM would have them do.

22) And to what end? Whether I appeal #13-59060 or #13-58607 is immaterial to me but if the former is appealed, the perfidy of the court will be exposed due to the fact that they do not have the material - such as The Notice of Claim - in front of them. The court should think very carefully before granting any such HM request.

23) Further, HM misconstrue judicial findings. For example, the B.C. Labour Board ruled that the Union had not done anything wrong which, it would appear begs the question, did they do anything right? Placed in the negative, no court has stated that this case should NOT be resolved and compensation paid. That type of legal casuistry also applies to the SCofC who did not hear this case on the two occasions they were petitioned. With any other case, a litigant is left with a lower court decision but in the unique exigencies of this case, there was no lower court decision. That's when Canada became a Third World nation. As to the Federal Court's Prothonotary Lafreniére's Vancouver Decision (it was supposed to be held before a judge in Ottawa rather than a private hearing in Vancouver), he did not condemn my challenge outright; he merely stated, for reasons best known to himself, that I had not presented sufficient  grounds for my challenge.

24) As to the consideration of 'frivolous and vexatious' labeling - a badly overworked concept in law - most of the applicable rules are double-sided. I will deal with one of them here taken from HM's FACTUM 34. HM highlight one section while I would highlight this one from the same paragraph: '...significantly, the vexatious litigant is not deprived of the right to bring proceedings. Rather, the burden is shifted: the vexatious litigant must establish to the Court's satisfaction that there is a prima facie ground for the proposed proceedings.'

25) HM is incorrect in assigning intervention by both Justices MacKenzie and Cullen (FACTUM #25) when they claim that  the explanation for intervention of these two judges is due to my failure to 'request the permission of the court'. I always have included this consideration as reflected in Federal Court's Madame Gleason's refusal to permit me to proceed before the Federal Court (on specious grounds, I might add, as reported to the Justice Minister, Peter MacKay) Hence both those Orders are redundant and, as such, deserve the full opprobrium of the law.

26) I have always been current with my legal costs despite an earlier bond I had to post in order to have  the challenge to the MacKenzie Creed heard which was never heard in any event explaining why I turned to the Federal Court. The current outstanding charge regarding costs against me from #DT-12-1872 is on Appeal at Osgoode Hall. I have asked Ontario A.G. Madelleine Meilleur to look into the delay of yet 'another legal black hole' which seems to characterize this legal case. HM notes in FACTUM #14, that I 'failed to take the required steps under the B.C. Rules...' to effect the return of my deposit after the failure of the B.C. Appeal Court to hear my case against MacKenzie'. How could I when the courts only recognized the Union as representing my cause and that Union was busy dipping into those funds along with the Employer where I had no representation. My remonstrations fell on deaf ears.

27) From one point of view, the court is acting as an agent for the Employer in this case as they would seek to escape their fiduciary responsibilities under the law. That is a very dangerous precedent and HM makes no reference to the fact that I continue to go without my rightful compensation (including pension rights).

28) In summary, the HM account is 'full of sound and fury signifying nothing' but their actions, as I have sought to show above, set some very dangerous precedents. Will the judges buy into this preposterous presentation at the risk of further judicial jeopardy?

29) HM should be held fully responsible for their nefarious actions in misleading the court to the extent that they do. That's why I submit #30,000 in maintenance fees are justified.

30) Do I expect a justice to read through all this documentation? Not if past performances are any indicator. That is why I have asked A.G. Meilleuir to see to the appointment of a highly experienced justice in this precedent setting case on many levels.