REPLY 25A to #13-59060 Hearing Date APRIL 10-2014 in Ottawa Superior Court
N.B. An extension of the following logic is found in the February 01-2014 newsletter included in this account. (points 11-28)
1) As of this date, I have not received from the Employer, any factum detailing their case in the laying of the above action which appears to be designed to supplant #13-58607 laid earlier by me; the only change being to make the Employer the 'Moving Party'.
2) Consequently, with this REPLY, I am requesting that I be made the 'moving party' as I am asking the court to quash this apparently redundant #13-59060 and to award me $10,000 in maintenance fees.
3) Recently, the Federal Court failed to register the above action focused on the 'Cullen Creed' (2013)due to its similarity to the earlier 'MacKenzie Creed'(2010) from the same B.C. Supreme Court of B.C. denying me unfettered access to that court to finalize an unresolved legal action initiated in 1985 and never resolved due to judicial cupidity. For example, it was not the employer, the union, nor myself as the targeted party which quashed the arbitration, it was the court. It was not the employer, the union which, nor myself which ordered a re-arbitration when the School Board refused to return employment to me as recommended by the court; once again, it was the court. Numerous court hearings since that time have exposed the court's failure to conclude legalities so that the court is now shown to have abandoned its judicial role in order to act as an agent for an Employer who would seek to avoid all fiduciary obligations in this matter creating a precedent of gargantuan proportions calling into question the value of the collective bargaining procedures as well as company pension rights. There is no case like it as this writer is left in a permanent state of limbo. That is an unconscionable action reducing the Justice System of Canada to that of Third World status.
4) While the effect on this writer was the same; there is a world of difference between the two Creeds; the one I rejected (2010) and the one I accept (2013). In the 2013, the Justice System has abandoned this case hence compensation, I submit, must flow, no matter how limited that compensation may be. It's a basic collective bargaining rule entrenched in contract law.
5) Regrettably, Justice Minister Peter Mackay did not dismiss Federal Court Justice Madame Gleason acting in camera from her post in giving her highly specious ruling in rejecting a hearing in the matter of the Cullen Creed noted above which differs significantly from the MacKenzie Creed. That's why this case was re-registered in Ontario Superior Court as #13-58607 which the Employer would seek to usurp with the subsequently laid #13-59060 which is to be held April 10-2013
6) The Supreme Court of Canada Registrar, Roger Bilodeau, recently paralleled Gleason's action by refusing to permit the 3 pre-trial judges of the SCofC to decide on the MacKenzie Creed in this matter of national importance. Not being a judge, he could not use a judicial order to deny a hearing as Judge Gleason did. It is the equivalent of 'Christie closing down two lanes of the George Washington bridge to make a political statement'. In short, Bilodeau usurped the course of justice in Canada by supplanting what should be a judicial decision with a jurisdictional decision which, due to the nature of the Registry Department, cannot be appealed. Justice Minister Peter MacKay failed to intervene in this gross distortion of the judicial process. Bilodeau's letter (SEE January 01-2014) records the terms of the Justice Act in such fashion that one would think that they were reading a list of telephone numbers in the phone book. In this analogy, his conclusion rejecting this case from a hearing is tantamount to saying that the number I called is 'not in service'. To be sure, a preposterous letter but whom is there to call him to account?
7) As there is no appeal to the Registry's actions, first Justice Minister MacKay, and then Prime Minister Harper were requested to take action. There was no response.
8) At this point, it would seem that Hicks Morley for the Employer would, through some unexplained legerdemain, seek to parallel the above actions as a means of permitting the Employer to escape their fiduciary obligations as well as block this writer from his rightful settlement claims including pension rights.
9) It is a judicial disaster without equal as the court and now, Parliament, have acted in concert to deny a Canadian citizen from his rightful claims in court. 35 million Canadians are negatively affected by this apparent government conspiracy which has reduced Canada to Third World status considering that a Canadian citizen is barred from unfettered access to the courts to conclude a legal matter as per court instructions. Otherwise, 'no legal answer becomes a legal answer' in this kafkaesque case; an impossibility in any credible justice system.
In the vacuum created by Hicks Morley for the Employer and judicial decisions bereft of any substantial analysis of the facts before them, I posit the following legal yardstick borrowed from National Post columnist, Andrew Coyne as it applies to other issues:
'...the famous four-part Oakes test, named for one of the Supreme Court's earlier post-Charter of Rights decisions. It is supposed to guide the court's thinking in deciding whether a given law may be considered a "reasonable limit" on Charter rights, but the logic can be applied more generally.
For any proposed compromise, that is, ask first is it a matter of some urgency-in the court's language, is it aimed at some "pressing and substantial objective?'
RESPONSE: Without a judicial finding as to the propriety of the lay-off, I may not collect compensation including pension rights. The courts currently, are quite within their rights of assigning 29 years of back salary immediately as this sum belongs to me apart from judicial findings as I should never have been dropped from salary until a judicial finding was made. Hence my appeal is "pressing and substantial" although earlier courts have argued that I make no substantive case without being specific in that charge.
'Second, is it likely to achieve it: is it "rationally connected" to the objective?'
R. The connection the Employer would draw which the court readily buys into is that this matter is res judicata; that is, the matter has already been decided by the court and that I am seeking to re-litigate past decisions. In this accusation, both entities are not specific as to which decisions and when were they passed? In the case of the MacKenzie Creed (2010) and the more recent Cullen Creed (2013); these two matters have not been given due process by the courts. The former has been recently obviated by the Bilodeau letter. The latter has yet to be adjudicated. While both Creeds originate from the same court, we do not know the relationship between these two arbitrary actions. It is clear, however, that both would rob this writer of his rightful access to court and in such fashion that these judges have, as it is maintained here, acted 'outside the law' which is now the issue. Of course the challenge is but one more step in seeking a legal conclusion in the over-all matter as substantiated in Rule one above.
' Third, is there some other way to achieve the same objective at less harm to principle: does it "minimally impair" it?
R. The only other possible remedy as encouraged by the courts as early as 1995 was for the Union and Employer to sign an outside agreement which would bind this employee. While the Employer was prepared to sign, the Union did an about face -as noted by my legal counsel in1999 - by first stating that they would sign a settlement without my approval and then reversed themselves by saying that they would not sign without my approval for the agreed sum between the Employer and Union. The B.C. Labour Board unwisely condoned that position of the Union in 2002 claiming that the Union had done 'nothing wrong' by doing nothing at all (their other option was to go back to arbitration as earlier ordered by the court). That decision prompted both the Employer and Union to desert any action and they joined together to thwart any resolution to this day. Keep in mind, that status applied to 2002 and did not claim that 'nothing should be done' although it is the source of a pension embargo which no-one foresaw in 2002. As a sidenote, the reason why the Employer was prepared to sign was because only the Union could be sued which would, of course, reveal the underlying conspiracy leaving not only the Union's reputation in tatters, but also stuck with the entirety of any settlement reached thereto (estimated at 95% of all monies). In brief, the B.C. Labour Board were covering for a disreputable Union in this matter. Hence, the courts are obligated to reach a conclusion under these circumstances as 'outside settlement' does not preclude the necessity of the court's obligation. That's another way in which the Justice System as operated as an agent for the conspirators.
' Last, simply, is the good achieved proportional to the harm?'
R. Decidedly not for the credibility of the Justice System in Canada reminiscent of this quote: 'The cover-up is always worse than the crime.' The Affair Lee Child The stonewalling of the court is paralleled by the stonewalling of the incumbent Prime Minister in Senategate which now negatively affects 35 million Canadian citizens. One might say the Justice System has added insult to injury by burdening the government with a call for legislative action in the face of judicial incompetence (if not something worse). It's a charge without equal in democratic Canada as both credibility and responsibility of the two institutional entities are compromised to such an extent and degree that no filibustering can withstand. Without excusing the Employer and Union for their nefarious actions, the authorities have brought this matter entirely on their own heads with their 'expeditious approach' to dealing with a 'troublesome pedant'.
10) The current state of affairs is best coined by this line from Lady MacBeth: 'What needs we fear it when none can call us to account.'
That's how we get wars and 'Arab springs'.
POINT OF VIEW
11) Looked at from the point of the conspirators, SCofC's non-action by Registrar Roger Bilodeau is the logical progression from a legal system which is never going to admit that they were wrong; even if their action leads to the demise of democratic Canada.
12) No doubt the conspirators believed that even permitting the judges to reject my appeal would be seen as giving tacit approval to any judge to act outside the law (as I submit the MacKenzie Creed did) to undermine the course of justice.
13) But is Bilodeau's response any better? Quoting the Rules of the Court as he has done and then concluding - without drawing any link - that I could not proceed is tantamount to usurping the role of judges in Canada thus making them redundant.
14) PLACARD: KING HARPER IS DEAD/ALL HAIL SCofC REGISTRAR KING BILODEAU says it all for the Prime Minister has abrogated Parliament's function to that of the Judicial System. In brief, both responsibility and credibility respectively have been breached.
15) Presuming the 3 judges would permit a hearing of this case of national importance (i.e. the sanctity of a written contract), what conclusion could the court find that would lead to a just decision for this writer without the population asking why it took 29 years of continuous litigation to reach such an answer? That is the source for the claim of systematic judicial abuse. No institution can survive that charge and retain its credibility.
16) Far easier, believe the conspirators, to continue stonewalling. Besides, isn't the incumbent Prime Minister the prize stonewaller of all time? Learn by example?
17) A parallel may be drawn here with police domestic complaints with its attendant 'race to the phone' (first call in wins the race). Here, the race is to the Office of the Chief Justice (8 courts in this case) wherein a 'compliant' judge is appointed to a 'pre-determined' answer. In short, the judge deserts his judicial role to act as a proponent for one side.
18) The level of abuse experienced by this writer with 8 court systems would suggest that an entire river is required to clean this Augean stable.
19) So where is one to turn when the forces for law and government have failed the people? The media should be the logical answer but here it is not.
20) As a general theme, the anti-employee Canadian media will support the institution against the individual (SEE web RED NECK MEDIA). Further, editors control what a writer is to do and, perhaps more importantly what not to do which explains the media boycott on this story. (I have had news reporters apologize to me privately on this level.)
21) To be sure, if the media had attended this high profile initial arbitration under the neophyte BILL 35, the Employer would never have acted as they did. That arbitration in which the government-appointed arbitrator (later ruled patently unreasonable by the courts) converted 16 new hires into 16 lay-offs adding myself as the necessary 17th. Media presence, in other words, was and still is, now all-important for individuals involved in high stakes issues against institutions. The media is still MIA and it remains to be seen as to whether they will appear in court on April 10-2014.
22) Appeals across Canada have gone out to professional teachers to don this Placard Sign: WE SUPPORT THE OUTLAWED CANADIAN and e-mail the photo to me (non-teachers are now encouraged to join this campaign.) Without that public support, there is no reason for the courts to change their ways unless, of course, I stumble on an ethical judge.
23) While the Cullen Creed is even more preposterous than the MacKenzie Creed; nonetheless, it is an absolute definition of abandonment of this issue by the courts which I am prepared to accept in order that back salary (I should never have been let off salary until this matter was resolved) may now be paid... 29 years worth which exists apart from judicial findings.
24) Thus the entire focus of the above hearings is for the Employer to respond to this question: Is the Employer bound to honour the contract for back salary; if so, how and when should this be paid?
25) Hicks, Morley were permitted to duck out of this question by earlier hearings in Ontario. The added question to the Cullen Creed is how this party may proceed in this unresolved case where the courts would only recognize the Employer and Union, both of which have failed to resolve this issue?
26) By refusing to elevate this matter to a 'Special Case' in which the 3-judge Appeal Court would hear this issue, Hicks, Morley et al is, one and at the same time, able to double their billable time without risking having to respond to central questions which the court refuses to address to them. In brief, the Ottawa Courts under Chief Justice Charles Hackland, duck out with a 'King Bilodeau' type response.
27) No employee will hold Union membership nor contribute to a Company pension plan in Canada under these circumstances. In brief, the whole future of Canada is at stake as mirrored in this upcoming hearing on April 10,2014.
28) Placed in the negative, even if the campaign for support (WE SUPPORT THE OUTLAWED CANADIAN)is not successful before the court, at least professional teachers in Canada will be shown not to have traded in their 'yellow star on their shirt' for a 'collective yellow streak down their backsides'. All Canadian employees will be the worse if there is no public acknowledgment of the Employee's Case on April 10, 2014.