JUMP TO HOME PAGE

Index - page 1

 REPLY 25A(2) #14-61592 Sept. 15-2014; H.D. Sept. 23-2014

 

                                                                                                                   pages

 

A) Fax to Respondents Hicks, Morley et al & Union Sept. 3-2014      2 & 3

 

B) Preamble to REPLY(2) #14-61592  Sept. 15-2014                            4 & 5

 

C) Further Argument on Judges 'Creeds' & 'secret memo notes'        6  -  9

 

D) Fraud on two levels: the original 'sweetheart deal' &

     conspiracy of the court processes across 8 court systems             

     (to be evaluated by the Supreme Court of Canada or gov't.)         10-11

 

E) Action requested - two courses                                                          12

 

F) Detailed Rebuttal to McKinnon j. #13-59060 April 10-2014 H.D.   13-24

 

G) Summary                                                                                              25-26

 

H) Excerpts from #13-59060 transcript                                                  27-28

 

I) Newspaper article: 'Baseball is slow; Justice is slower'                     29-30

 

cc PRIME MINISTER HON. S. HARPER (as no other politician has responded to this national case)

 SCofC HON. R.WAGNER / CANADIAN COUNCIL OF JUDGES (no response to date nor from the Ontario Appeal Court on the filing of two appeals) 

No copy is provided the Ontario Wynne government (no point in doing so) for calling off an investigation into a billion dollar gas plant fiasco.                   

media                                                                 

 

 

 

Sep. 03-2014

TO:  A) Hicks, Morley et al for the Employer  FAX only:  613-234-0418

        B) BCTF on behalf of WVTA

           FAX only:  604-871-2288

FROM:

Roger Callow www.employeescasecanada.com

208-2220 Halifax Drive  Ottawa ON  K1G 2W7

PHONE/FAX:  613-521-1739

MESSAGE:

1)On September 3, I sent an e-mail to 'Rafa' at Hicks, Morley in which she requested my signature of the McKinnon Order of April 23-2014 #13-59060 'as to form'. As the e-mail may not have gone through, I repeat the message here.

2) The essence of the e-mail was that as my computer was infected with a virus last week, I could not download the enclosed consent forms. Faxing directly was also hamstrung by some technical glitch.

3) The virus problem was resolved by my IT specialist so that I am able to download the forms this week so that I may mail my response to Hicks, Morley.

4) In addition, I also asked whether Hicks, Morley was planning to put in an appearance as the Respondent for #14-61592 to be held on September 23-2014 10:00 A.M. in Ottawa Superior Court? This request also applies to the co-respondent Union. Keep in mind that the court is obliged to accept my version of the events should the Respondent(s) not present themselves.

5) Currently, I am composing a REPLY25A which consists, in part, on a rebuttal to the McKinnon j. Decision. SEE employeescasecanada.com September 01-2014 (15 pages)

6) Should the Respondents wish to appear, they should provide their Notice of Appearance with their legal position so that I may include my response in the above Reply.

7) In any event, I earlier requested the 'secret memo' notes from both respondents which, it is submitted here, would reveal a conspiracy without equal by government, employer, union and the courts.

(signed) Roger Callow  September 3-2014

 

 

 

PREAMBLE TO REPLY 25 A - #14-61592(2) for H.D. September 23 10:00 A.M.

SEPTEMBER 15,2014 - NO 'NOTICE OF A HEARING FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS

 

1) Now that the Employer in this case has expressed a desire to discuss 'all claims' for a first time in the 29 year matter of the lay-off of former West Vancouver senior teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985, the allegations of fraud may be made.

2) The above Employer assertion was made in an action launched by them (#13-59060 April 10 Hearing Date) in Ottawa Superior Court in which no compensation has been paid nor are they now willing to pay any in this 29 year matter.

3) The Court ignored their request to discuss all issues. (April 23-2014 judgment; McKinnon j.).

4) Due to other judicial statements, this Respondent teacher is seeking an appeal of McKinnon j's actions as well as a Canadian Council of Judges adjudication. There has been no response to repeated requests to the Council nor has the Appeal Registry at Toronto seen fit to register my appeal although there has been correspondence which has now been referred to a 'duty officer'.

5) Further elimination of an action filed previously to the above #13-59060 (#13-58607) by Justice McKinnon ("cowboying"), led to action #14-61592 slated for September 23-2014 in Ottawa Superior Court which was filed by this teacher.

6) As of the above date, no 'notice of appearance' has been received from either of the respondent Employer nor Union which is now included as discussing all claims forces a presence of the Union; the only body the B.C. Courts will recognize in this allegedly 'sweetheart deal'.

7) As this teacher has no independent standing in B.C. Courts; it is of some puzzlement as to why the Employer would lodge #13-59060 in an Ontario court system. While they failed in their bid; nonetheless, Justice McKinnon awarded them $12,000 in costs which is being appealed along with the rest of his Order which defies any rational explanation other than to unabashedly align the court with the interests of the Employer. A reversal of those charges has been called for by me for maintenance (legal skulduggery).

8) The fraud of the court above in this case is aligned with the teacher's submission that Justice McKinnon's action parallels judicial action in 8 courts and over 30 judges (includes the Supreme Court of Canada) in this unresolved legal matter where no compensation has flowed.

9) From one point of view, #13-59060 filed by the Employer is a slap in the judicial face of the Ontario Justice System...and the Ontario Justice System has reacted accordingly.

10) As the 'Notice of Appearance' time slot has expired; presumably, no presence at the September 23 hearing is indicated by either the Employer nor Union hence the court is dependent solely on material filed by this Applicant teacher. To do otherwise, invites the charge of collusion.

11) Perhaps the reluctance of the Employer and Union to appear relates to the filed request for the 'secret memo notes' from the 1986 hearing in which the court quashed the arbitration, ruling, as they did, the arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable'. I was left in limbo as one consequence.

12) Those memo notes, which are in the hands of both respondents, would, it is asserted here, reveal fraud of not only the original conspirators but also the courts of Canada in a legal challenge without equal as the charge relates to systematic judicial abuse. The first indication of that judicial malfeasance may be found in this Applicant's Preamble to the Supreme Court of Canada (2004) included in this action where it is referenced under a 'conspiracy of process'. This matter has been exacerbated by the courts with the 'MacKenzie Creed' (B.C. 2010 ); the 'Cullen Creed' (B.C. 2013) and now the 'McKinnon Creed' (ON 2014).

13) This court is being requested to issue an injunction requesting those 'secret memo notes' from the Respondents, possibly through the legal process of homologation. Indeed, I submit that the lack of attendance at this hearing by the respondents may be attributed to that single cause.

14) The only other alternative for this court is to arrange a court sanctioned settlement of all issues with this Applicant for $6 million dollars as outlined elsewhere in these filed documents for #14-61592. This offer is invalid if the court does not accept this alternative in court before any other alternative is considered.

 

 

 

FURTHER ARGUMENT ON SIGNIFICANCE OF JUDICIAL CREEDS AS THEY SEEK TO LIMIT MY RIGHTFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS PLUS SIGNIFICANCE OF 'SECRET MEMO NOTES' FROM JUSTICE SOUTHIN'S 1986 DECISION QUASHING THE ARBITRATION THUS LEAVING THIS APPLICANT IN LIMBO.

A) I cannot sign the Decision of Justice McKinnon's Order of April 23-2014 (H.D. April 10-2014 'as to form' as per the Employer's request as I was given no opportunity to peruse that Order before a final judgment was made hence the following REPLY25A launched in a new proceeding is necessary although the Registry has forced me to alter my 'Notice of Claim' to the much weaker 'Notice of Appeal (of a claim)' due to his Order.

B) A litigant is defenseless against such cavalier treatment of a judge deciding on a 'frivolous and vexatious' Order without prior provision of the above materials either through the factum of the Opposing Party or from the bench itself. It would appear to be a glaring deficiency in our legal system.

C) Being forced into converting claims from a 'Notice of Claim' to 'A Notice of Appeal (of a claim)' greatly reduces the status of a litigant. All Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) civil claims must be addressed as 'A Notice of Claim' in which fully close to 85% of such Appeals are rejected without any reason given. This case has been rejected twice by that body leaving this writer in a permanent state of limbo, a first in Canadian jurisprudence. In this case of an unresolved labour case where no compensation has flowed, the situation is particularly egregious as the court at one time ordered the matter to be resolved but has failed to follow through on that level. Now from McKinnon j.'s court comes a request from both litigants to discuss all issues which the judge failed to do prompting this current action.

D) The lower courts, as evidenced here, would seek to emulate the above SCofC record although they are constricted to giving a full history of events leading up to that restricting Order. Most importantly, the phrase the accused litigant 'may not proceed without permission of a judge' reflects the fact that the law limits the litigant so indicted into making a 'prima facie' case in future court hearings. In fact, the lower courts, as evidenced in the Employee's Case in B.C. and the Federal Court as well and now, Ontario courts, would treat any such de facto labeling as final as per the SCofC treatment.

E) The 'MacKenzie Creed'(2010 B.C.) and the 'McKinnon Creed'(2014 ONT.) (rebuttal outlined below) include the 'with permission of a judge'. The Federal Court Decision of Madame Justice Gleason (2013) 'does prohibit proceeding' although no 'vexatious' label had been applied by that court. This shortcoming in her action has been referred to the Canadian Council of Judges. The 'Cullen Creed' (2013 B.C.) does not include the all important 'with permission of a judge'; a point made to Justice McKinnon in court by me. The B.C. Judicial Council of Judges has been notified by me on this account. Justice McKinnon failed to make any recognition of this most egregious exception in his Order and is one of the reasons why I have referred his lack of action to be examined by the Canadian Council of Judges (N.B. While serving in a provincial court, McKinnon's appointment to the bench was federal). In short, this omission on the part of McKinnon j. has created a most dangerous precedent whereby any judge may drop a case from a docket without fear of being challenged. That's anarchy as I pointed out to Justice McKinnon in court. It's also a source of fraud, another assertion made in his court. His failure to fairly adjudicate the 'Cullen Creed' (no 'with permission of a judge') nor to respond to the Employer request to discuss all issues (in 5 minutes)reaching a conclusion that the Employer after 29 years is correct in their opinion that no compensation will be paid leaves Justice McKinnon with my charge of being 'less than competent'. That 'de facto' position of the Employer to pay no compensation would have, in 1995, permitted the court to intervene. By delaying their action for 29 years before being forced to speak out (by me), they have successfully manipulated the laws with court compliance. That is how the Canadian Justice System was destroyed...'justice delayed is justice denied'. A written contract no longer has any meaning in Canada under these circumstances. The reason as to why the 'McKinnon Creed' is more egregious than the 'MacKenzie Creed' (if that is possible) is because there was a hearing on the former which also included 'with permission of a judge to proceed'; a feature entirely lacking in the 'Cullen Creed' which McKinnon j. was charged to examine in all its ramifications...and didn't. In short, we both agreed that only the Supreme Court of Canada could handle this issue but McKinnon j. refused the only route to that court through the Ontario court system.

F) The real terror for the authorities? What if the SCofC heard my case and found in my favour? The Employer and Union could conceivably sue the courts on the grounds that the MacKenzie Creed (both union and employer), the Cullen Creed (employer) and the McKinnon Creed (employer) decreed that the Respondent(s) were not obliged to respond to any filing on my part. Hence the court is in a position of conflict as they are the de facto representative of the employer's interest against those of my own. That explains a general conspiracy which has captured such as Ottawa Citizen's editor, Andrew Potter, in its fold (O.C. April 28-2014 page 1 regurgitation of McKinnon's Order without taking my 'right of rebuttal'.) Indeed, the September 23 hearing is more a test of media presence in court than to any other single cause. 

G) A reading of Justice McKinnon's Order could easily conclude that this Employee was the Applicant and not the Respondent of which he was. McKinnon j. inverted the proceedings to suit an obviously pre-determined judgment reflecting his tunnel vision which I labeled 'judicial malfeasance' in the pending appeal as opposed to the normal 'judicial bias'. I have sought to enlist the assistance of the Office of the Ombudsman in filing in the Appeal Court Registry a Divisional Court action from 2012 as well as the McKinnon j. Order. They have deferred to the 'Duty Officer' of the ON Appeal Court. It would seem the lower courts are bent on obviating a third appeal to the SCofC; the only court which can deal with this charge of systematic judicial abuse across the judiciary in this 29 year unresolved legal matter. The trick, of course, is to get beyond those Registries and lower court judges blocking my course of action.

H) The Cullen Creed is the only one which can succeed on that prohibitory level although it costs Canada an efficacious judicial system leaving the government to impose such as the 'notwithstanding clause' or the 'peace, order and good government' clause. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a reluctant camper in this issue to date which reduces his 'law and order' government claim to mere hypocrisy. There is no response from any other politician nor from the media in terms of the depths of this national government/court conspiracy.

I) At time of writing, it is not clear as to the Employer and Union's position in the upcoming hearing although the defeat of the Employer's position by McKinnon would normally lead to them into making an appeal as opposed to my own appeal here. The Union, who has been assigned full power over this case in B.C. (sweetheart deal) is also named as a co-respondent here by me as necessitated by the request of the Employer to deal with 'all claims'.

J) In that regard, I have requested the 'secret memo' notes of all meetings from the 1986 Justice Southin trial in which she quashed the arbitration ruling, as she did, that the government-appointed arbitrator had been 'patently unreasonable'. Those memo notes, it is submitted here, involve the revelation of a conspiracy of gargantuan proportions involving a government (B.C.'s BILL 35), an Employer (West Vancouver School Board) and the Teachers' Union. For example, Southin j. claimed that there was no evidence that the School Trustees intended to lay off a teacher in June of 1985 under the auspices of BILL 35. No trustee took the stand to testify as to lay-off numbers i.e. to perjure themselves although other School Board personnel did so. That flies in the face of a filed document by the School Board which claimed a meeting was held to approve my lay-off. The document did not show the voting pattern although it was marked carried. In 2004, under an access to information request, the School Board produced the above lay-off notice showing that two out of the five (Chairperson Margo Furk and her successor, Michael Smith) were the only ones to sign this Order. Clearly somebody is lying. However, as the 'secret memo notes' returned to the School Board and Union have been kept from this Applicant in #14-61592; hence the reason requesting that the court insist that those notes be provided to me.

K) Hence this story is about a 'cover-up' which is always worse than the original incident. That it is national in scope is to Canada's further detriment.

L) Will the co-defendants produce the secret 'memo notes'? Probably not. Will they choose to even attend? (The court may only proceed with what is filed.) As of this writing on September 15, there is no sign of a 'Notice to Appear' from either. In such an eventuality, if the court acts against them, it would create an unmitigated legal disaster considering the above Creeds. Slapping documents on my desk at the hearing (happened once in Vancouver) without prior notice will prompt a request for a delayed hearing if they are not, indeed, rejected by the court.

 

 

 

 

 

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT (OTTAWA)

REPLY 25A - #14-61592(2)  H.D. September 23,2014

PROPOSED ORAL PRESENTATION - SEPTEMBER 01-2014 FOR ABOVE

'THE COURT OF STAR CHAMBERS'

QUOTE: 'It is easy to be tolerant of the principles of other people if you have none of your own.' Herbert Samuel  

1) This case is about fraud in answer to the question asked of this Applicant by Justice C. McKinnon in an action launched by the Employer #13-59060 on April 10-2014 in Ottawa Superior Court. The anti-employee media was AWOL.

2) In matters of fraud, the court has a distinctive role to act, a question which has not materialized in the case of the 29 year unresolved legal matter to date of the illicit lay-off of former West Vancouver high school teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985. No compensation has been paid as per the collective bargaining rules largely due to judicial 'tolerance'.

3) The above fraud is being conducted on two levels: the first relating to the initial lay-off and the quashing of the arbitration favouring the School Board by the court and the second relating to subsequent systematic judicial cover-up alluded to in the Preamble to the Supreme Court of Canada (2004) which was not heard where the fraud here was described as a 'conspiracy of process'.

4) Subsequent judicial cover-up focuses on the 'MacKenzie Creed' of October 2010 and its apparent successor, the 'Cullen Creed' of July 2013; two Orders from the B.C. Supreme Court which would seek to destroy this applicant's admission to the courts in this unresolved labour case once ordered back to litigation; a litigation never heard leaving this Employee in a state of limbo in which 'no legal answer has become a legal answer' in the kafkaesque world of the Canadian Judicial System. Apparently, the Employer considered this Court Order to be optional; an action no doubt reinforced by the fact that the judge did not order salary continuance. All Canadian law is at an end under these circumstances. These two judges noted above in the 'Creeds' acted on their own recognizance, without quoting pertinent law or taking argument for 'reasons best known to themselves' to ostracize this applicant from the B.C. courts.

5) That the above egregious actions are ultra vires is attested to by the fact that 5 courts (Federal Court and Ontario Courts) have not seen fit to deal with the substance of these heinous documents which set an unparalleled precedent in law for any democratic country. Every judge is now free to bump duly laid legal cases off the docket with their Order disappearing down the same black hole as the 'disappeared' case leaving the judicial record to read that 'this matter has been dropped for lack of prosecution' implying the entire fault lies at the door of the applicant. No politician nor media source has shown the capabilities to deal with such subterfuge. 35 million Canadians are the poorer for such a catastrophic failure.

6) Hence, this applicant is forced to turn to other than B.C. courts for a finalization of this long drawn out legal disaster in which the lower courts and Registries appear to be running a block against a third appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada whose initial failure in 2004 is at the root of successive judicial malfunctions.

7) Why the Employer chose Ontario to launch their claim in #13-59060 for a settlement of all issues was not made clear in their factum nor did Justice C. McKinnon ask that question as his tunnel vision and pre-conceived actions were focused on pilloring this writer appearing as the Respondent, and not as the Applicant in this hearing.  His Order is being appealed as well as referring his actions to the Canadian Judicial Council (which is not responding). A request is further being made to reverse the charge of 'special fees' against this Respondent to one in which the Applicant would pay 'maintenance' fees (for legal skulduggery) to this Respondent.

8) Subsequent legal action is being conducted by me due, in part, to the failure of Justice McKinnon to make any reference in his Order to the above request of the Employer to discuss all issues. His inaction in that regard is unconscionable for that was the purpose of the Applicant Employer laying this action in the first place..

9) The modus operandi in terms of this court and elsewhere, is to reduce the appeal of an issue to that of requesting a 'permission to appeal' order which can be based on a fictitious delay of a hearing or, in Justice McKinnon's example, canceling  out a duly laid action (#13-58607 laid earlier than #13-59060) obviating the claim that this Applicant could only proceed 'with permission of a judge'. It is a specious action included in the report to the Canadian Council of Judges for 'cowboying' (second guessing the definition of #13-58607).

 

 

ACTION

10) In the event that the Respondent Employer and Union shy away from presenting the 'secret memo notes' in the current hearing (#14-61592) slated for September 23, 2014 at 10:00 A.M. (one hour) a request for the Employer and Union to produce that evidence supporting the accusation of fraud (concealed by Justice Southin in 1986); it is submitted that the court has carte blanche to act against them and should act accordingly if it does not wish to be accused of complicity.

11) As outlined in REPLY 25A (1); that action above may be held in abeyance if the court makes final judgment for all outstanding issues in this legal matter in agreement with this Applicant for an unprejudiced offer of $6 million dollars. This figure goes up, not down from there. A 30 day time frame for payment is included and a return to  this court should the Respondent(s) ignore this Order. THAT AGREEMENT, IF IT IS TO BE MADE, MUST BE ACCEDED TO BEFORE ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE ACTION IS CONSIDERED. OTHERWISE, THE OFFER WILL BE TAKEN OFF THE TABLE.

12) Failure on this level by the presiding justice to take decisive action apart from denying my right to present my Notice of Claim in response to the Employer's wish to discuss all issues (cancelled May 15th meeting), can only lead to a continued bleeding within the judicial system as now applications to the B.C. Judicial Council and the Canadian Judicial Council (Federal Court) now exist as well. In short, both the Applicant and the Respondent are demanding a court adjudication of this issue. How can the court deny the submission of these two litigants on this basis? Why, in other words, have courts in the first place, if they are not going to make final decisions? 'There can be no process without judgment'.

 

 

 

 

ADDENDUM:

Following is a rebuttal to the 24 page Decision of Ottawa Superior Court Justice, C. McKinnon dated April 23-2014 which is under appeal as to content and award of 'special fees' of which a reversal of that cost is requested.

QUOTE: DEDICATION TO THE 'MCKINNON CREED'

1) '...The ruling is commonly called the "right to be forgotten"; it's better described as "the right to hide an unflattering and inconvenient history that needs to go away now, please". This, of course, isn't a right at all, and is actively hostile to democratic decision-making, which depends on information being transparent, not hastily buried under camouflage... Second, where information can't be hidden, it may be slowed down...In democratic politics, as in life, fair decision making depends on having equal access to information....' Democracy requires access to information Ottawa Citizen Shannon Gormley Sept. 8-2014 C6

2) '(6 yr. old) Frances learns something in this moment that will allow her to survive and function for the rest of her life. She finds out that one thing can look like another. That the facts of a situation don't necessarily indicate anything about the truth of a situation. In this moment, fact and truth become separated and commence to wander like twins in a fairy-tale, waiting to be reunited by that special someone who possesses the secret of telling them apart.

Some would simply say that Frances learned how to lie.' Fall On Your Knees Ann-Marie MacDonald

 

Preliminary Statement:

McKinnon's Decision is not unlike earlier judicial orders from which he takes extensive references; many of which are inaccurate reflecting his tunnel vision as he seeks to justify the unjustness of the actions of an Employer who would escape all fiduciary responsibility in the matter of the lay-off of senior West Vancouver, B.C. teacher, Roger Callow in June of 1985. His Overview is quoted here demonstrating his purple prose against this Respondent in this matter of systematic judicial abuse over 8 court systems and over 30 judges rather than against the Applicant Employer who would seek to discuss all issues in an Ontario court. MacKinnon makes no reference in his glaring omission on this point nor to the fact that with no judicial finding, compensation (includes pension rights) cannot be awarded .

(1) Roger Callow is a litigant possessed of seemingly inexhaustible stamina. His behaviour suggests that he views the Canadian court system as something akin to a perpetual, all-day, all you can eat buffet. Having been rebuked by the courts and tribunals of British Columbia, the Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Callow has now taken aim at Ontario. Ontario lacks the jurisdiction to deal with his case. As a result, Mr. Callow's litigation must be stopped. Now.

Response: On one point, Justice Cullen has pinpointed the problem of systematic injustice in that no one lower court can address this issue across 8 separate court systems and over 30 judges hence they are merely a 'speed bump' deflecting a Third Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The only other body who has the power to deal with this 'systematic abuse' is the government under such as the 'notwithstanding clause' or the peace, order and good government clause of the Constitution. The failure of the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take his responsibilities seriously in this matter will no doubt one day be the legacy that he leaves behind for no democratic county may leave a litigant in a permanent state of limbo which has happened here due to capricious judicial actions; Justice McKinnon's Order being no exception.

(3) 'The Statement of Claim is an iteration of the same claim that Mr. Callow has been attempting to advance in various courts across the country for 29 years. The 'appeal is from an Order of Associate Chief Justice's Order declaring that Mr. Callow be effectively barred from the courts of British Columbia in respect of the claim being advanced.

R. So how does one go about challenging such a Provincial Order to the Supreme Court of Canada when he is blocked from so doing in the first place? Answer: By initiating actions in other courts under the rules of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice. 5 courts outside of B.C. have failed to deal with the exclusionary nature of the 'McKenzie Creed' (October 2010) and the 'Cullen Creed' in detail which both go a long way beyond a mere judicial restraining Order and hence, need to be examined by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) for it would appear that both Orders are ultra vires. Further, such Orders are questionable in that the Employer and Union are not bound with this exclusion explaining why the two joined forces to extract money from a surety in a B.C. Appeal Court hearing where I had no standing (or, contrary wise, being represented by a union working against my interests.) That was one of the challenges ducked by SCofC's Registrar, Roger Bilodeau.

(5) 'Background history of this case from which this line is extracted: '...For the ensuing 29 years, Mr. Callow has challenged the legality of his termination. These challenges have taken various forms in various jurisdictions starting with the arbitration of his lay-off grievance in British Columbia....Over the 29 years, Mr. Callow's  attempted actions and appeals have evolved into what are essentially criticisms of previous courts and adjudicators' final termination respecting his termination("the Determined Matters"). He has been unsuccessful in all these proceedings....'

R. Compare the above statement with the following facts which Justice McKinnon leaves out:

a) The arbitration was quashed by the courts ruling, as they did, that the government appointed arbitrator had been 'patently unreasonable'. (He had converted 16 new hires into 16 lay-offs adding my own name as the necessary 17th knowing full well that I was the only lay-off under the government's imposed BILL 35 (operant date July 1,1985; lay-off letter June 26-1985). That court Decision to quash stood on Appeal by the Employer. The Employer was ordered to return to litigation; a litigation which was never held as they had apparently abandoned the issue.

b) When the School District did not return employment as recommended by the court, the matter was referred back to arbitration; an arbitration which was never held leaving this target in a state of perpetual limbo. Court Orders to this Employer appear 'optional'. In short, they set the clock ticking on this 29 year debt.

c) One should not have to put legal matters into the negative but Justice McKinnon's statement leaves no other choice; namely, that no court has stated that this case should not be resolved so that compensation may flow.

(6) 'In 2012, Mr. Callow brought an action to litigate the Determined Matters in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. His action was dismissed on November 1, 2012 by Maranger j. on the basis that it disclosed no cause of action, was frivolous and vexatious, and that the matter was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.'

R. In that response, no mention is made of the 'MacKenzie Creed' which explains my presence in an Ontario court of law and became the basis for the Divisional Court of Appeal (Ottawa) solely on that question.

(7) Mr. Callow unsuccessfully sought to appeal Maranger j.'s dismissal to the Ontario Divisional Court.

R. The Divisional Court did not deal with the content of the Cullen Creed of which Creed I was prepared to accept as it was a reflection of the desertion of the Judicial System of this case. Hence compensation - in whatever amount - could now be applied.

(8) 'Mr. Callow has also been remarkably imaginative in engaging in offensive conduct outside the courtroom, denigrating Canada's judiciary and legal system.

...These public displays include highly insulting comments about the present Chief Justice of Canada....'

R. PROTEST PLACARD: IMPEACH SCofC CHIEF JUSTICE B. MCLACHLIN Justice McLachlin sat on the original SCofC hearing (universality of Unions) with then Chief Justice A. Lamers (d). She was Chief Justice over the 'ultimate remedy' hearing which was rejected in 2004 creating much more dissonance in the Union Movement and the collective bargaining rules. A form 25C (rule since scrapped) was filed against her for having a conflict of interest.

A Detailed History

(9) From judgment of Shabbits j. B.C. Supreme Court 2008:

'5. The arbitrator died before further arbitration.

'6. The Association...would attempt to settle the grievance.'

'7. There was no settlement.'

'8. Mr. Callow applied to the Supreme Court of B.C. under the Judicial Review Procedure Act for an order requiring the Board to rehire him and pay him retroactive salary. Spencer j. dismissed his petition (1995). He also ruled that Mr. Callow lacked standing. He said that only the Association could take proceedings. He also ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction to address the relief sought because the matter had to be resolved under the administrative law procedure created by the applicable statute.

R. a) I have always believed that I had recognition before the court although, in this particular case, the law denied that right. ('universality of unions' which the SCofC refused to hear...some courts permit a Union client to be heard apart from the Association; others not...I was one who was not.)

b) Spencer j. refused to accept my assertion that as the Employer had abandoned this issue by refusing to return to litigation hence the should return employment should be altered to must.

c) His other alternative was to order the matter back to arbitration beneath a new arbitrator ('frustration' is a legal term denoting glitches in the law for which litigants are not to be held liable). His specious claim that the death of the arbitrator was an inhibiting act for a renewed arbitration did not hold up as he was well aware of the law on 'frustration'. His do-nothing Order permeates the next 19 years of litigation as all successive judges bailed out in terms of providing a judicial finding in this case.

d) And what does one do when faced with an Employer-Union 'sweetheart deal' under the above circumstances? This is the source of the fraud accusations currently being brought to the fore in the upcoming September 23-2014 hearing in Ontario.

10) 'Mr. Callow has made three complaints to the Labour Relations Board under s. 12 of the Labour Relations Code

21) 'The third action against the Board and the Association for conspiring together in terminating his employment and in refusing to reinstate him. The statement of claim in that proceeding was filed May 29, 2002.

22) 'On February 28,2003, Williamson j. heard an application by the Board and the Association to have the third action dismissed, and for an order that Mr. Callow not commence further legal proceedings 'without leave of the court.'

23) 'Williamson j. referred to the 1995 reasons of Spencer j. Williamson said that Mr. Callow was bound by any settlement of his dispute that could be reached by the Association.

R. Panic set in with the Employer and the Union whom, by this point had joined forces to keep any Section 12 hearing from being held as it would conceivably reveal the existence of a conspiracy sanctioned by the courts...and that would never do.... That is the thrust of the September 23, 2014 hearing and why producing the 'secret memo notes' is central to this accusation.

(13) 'In 2009, Smith j. of the B.C. Supreme Court also denied Mr. Callow's application for leave to commence an action for damages against the Association for breach of their duty of representation.'

'16.He now seeks to reframe the same complaint as an action for damages and argues that the administrative scheme established by the Labour Relations Code cannot, as a matter of law, deny him "ultimate remedy" of monetary compensation. For that proposition, he relies on the decision of the SCofC in St Anne Nackawick Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. v. Canadian Paper Worlers Union, Local 219 (1986) 1 S.C.R.704

'16....The Labour Relations Board, on which the statute confers jurisdiction, has determined that no such wrong has been committed. In the absence of a wrong, there is no basis on which the court could award the monetary remedy that Mr. Callow seeks.

R. a) 'What must be avoided at all costs, is a major deprivation of justice under the law' Justice Estey  St. Anne Nackawick  A keynote in this trial.

b) How can the B.C. Labour Board determine there was 'no wrong' without a hearing? By merely stating that the Union had not done anything wrong does not cover the question as to whether the Union did anything right? Again, a hearing would reveal the perfidy of the court system in this conspiracy; something the conspirators were adamantly against for understandable reasons.

c) The Union had a choice; either to return to litigation as so ordered by the courts or to sign an agreement with the Employer. If the latter, then I would be in a position to sue the Union thus revealing the whole scandal. The B.C. Labour Board could only be too aware of that scenario.

(14) '..Mr. Callow has also sought to initiate proceedings in the BCSC against the Board and Association without seeking leave of the Court. (McKinnon underlining). In response, Associate Chief Justice MacKenzie of the BCSC, on her own motion, and without a hearing, declared on October 10,2010, that....'

R. a) A false statement. Nowhere does MacKenzie j. state why she gave her undocumented Order. Further, 'leave of the court' in CA038538 had been requested as noted by my legal representative. What we have here is the court seeking to sanitize what is effectively an ultra vires judicial action. That's why every effort is being made to block this matter from the SCofC; the only body capable of assessing this claim as the Federal Court and Ontario Courts are quick to disavow their powers over judges in another province. Currently, I was told by the Ontario Registry that my Notice of Claim would have to be altered to a 'leave to appeal' due to McKinnon j.'s 'vexatious ruling' even though his Order is being appealed. The point here is that a Registrar deals on that level; not a judge. Even here, this Order goes well beyond normal judicial action under the circumstances and why I claim MacKenzie should be removed from the bench. What if every judge chooses to run around knocking duly laid actions from the court docket for 'reasons best known to themselves'. There would be bedlam.

b) While disagreeing with Federal Court's Madame Justice Gleason's refusal to hear my appeal on the 'Cullen Creed' in 2013; nonetheless, her actions were appropriate administratively under the circumstances although I rejected her findings on the grounds that while I Opposed the MacKenzie Creed, I accepted the Cullen Creed as proof positive of court abandonment hence compensation could proceed. As to her actions herein, I have referred them to the Canadian Council of Judges and the Minister of Justice for adjudication. There has been no response.

(15) '...As a condition of proceeding with the Appeal (2010 Vexatious Litigant Order), the court required that Mr. Callow post security for costs in the amount of $10,000, which he did. After posting this security for costs in the amount of $10,000, Mr. Callow, days later, asked for it to be returned to him but then failed to take the required steps under the Supreme Court Civil Rules...to effect same.'

R. The specious surety ruling -specious as I was always current with my legal costs- was a ruse as the Employer (and not the court) informed me of this decision after the due date. However, I found out by other means and paid the money to ensure the progress of my Appeal in B.C. Appeal Court. It wasn't 'days later' that I learned that the court would not proceed as the Registry rejected my documents because 'they didn't fit their form'; an oral message given to the courier by a court clerk. No written message was ever received to my requests. At that point, I requested the return of the money because I was barred from going to the B.C. Court to re-acquire these funds which have probably ended up in the judge's Xmas party fund. The effect, of course, was for these machinations to block yet another SCofC challenge; the only body capable of dealing with the excesses of the MacKenzie Creed and later, the Cullen Creed.

(16) & (17) Appeal before the Federal Court of Canada before a Prothonotary and, later on appeal, before a judge for which this litigant was not notified as to hearing dates. The Federal Court under Harper's appointee Chief Justice Paul Crampton, who did not respond to these irregularities in 2011, leaves very much to desired.

(20) - (25) Ontario machinations in 3 different courts detailed elsewhere.

(26) 'The Registrar of the SCofC corresponded with him (Callow) on December 16, 2013 advising him that his matter could not be brought to that court given that he did not "appear to have a final or other judgment of the Federal Court or of the highest court of final resort in a province, or a judge thereof". Letter from Roger Bilodeau Registrar of SCofC.

R. A correct quote from McKinnon but an incorrect response from all Registry clerks declaring the 'ad hoc' addition of 3 Appeal Court judges...but whom does one complain to about Registrars over whom there is no appeal process?

(27) 'Mr. Callow continued to make efforts to litigate in the Supreme Court of B.C. without seeking leave to do so (McKinnon j. underlining) when he attempted to file a Notice of Claim commencing a new legal action. As a result, on July 23, 2013, Associate Chief Justice Cullen, on his own motion and without a hearing, (McKinnon j. underlining) ordered that.... (Callow barred totally from B.C. courts as 'no permission of a judge' was included.)

R. a) What was the source of information for this unfiled claim for Justice McKinnon? This appears to be a clear case of judicial malfeasance on the part of someone supplying this unfiled information.

b) Once again, as with the MacKenzie Creed, no information is given in the Cullen Creed as to why he acted as he did. Once again, there is a judicial whitewash of a clearly ultra vires court order which only the SCofC can delve into considering the systematic nature of this conspiracy.

Other vexatious conduct

(33) a) 'Repeatedly and persistently writing directly to various political officials, agencies, judges (including directly to Supreme Court of Canada Judges)....

R. My God...what next?...writing to a politician, no less. Not to fear as your average politician is as useless as tits on a bull. As to making sure that Supreme Court of Canada judges are being kept apprised of what their Registries are doing in their name?...I make no apologies. The source of the current and past judicial irregularities can be traced to the abject failure of the SCofC to address two questions of paramount importance to the collective bargaining process: the universality of unions (currently, the 'sweetheart deal' has been sanctioned by inaction) and the 'ultimate remedy' provisions of the collective bargaining process which impairs the entire contract scene. If the accusations is that I am rubbing the noses of respective legal personalities in the 'doo doo', so be it for it is long overdue...judicial respect be damned:

pages 14-15: (Excerpts from my web site quoted by Justice McKinnon to justify 'vexatious' label:

a)'The central problem lies with Canada's Judiciary which buys into the Respondent's arguments to such an extent and degree that they should be considered as having abandoned their judicial role in order to act as an agent for the Respondent. That is why, due to this precedent setting case, there is no longer any rule of law in Canada.'

b)'The machinations of a MacKenzie Creed of October 2010 and the Cullen Creed of July 2013 are the last gasps of a smashed Canadian Justice System which will take the rest of the 21st century to unravel. Until that is done, Canada joins such as China where there may be courts, but there is no "rule of law".'

c)'When a judge can derail a duly filed action in such fashion that the deleted action is listed as 'abandoned' on the Judicial Record while the offending instigating action sinks into the proverbial black hole, all justice in any country is at an end. That is the state of affairs in Canada due to systematic nefarious judicial actions in this case.'

d)'...it is arguably a case of the "administration tail wagging the judicial dog".'

'I mention the above point here because those (surety) funds are frozen to which I have no access as I have no status in B.C. courts due to the MacKenzie Creed. I would rather the Defendant receive those funds in payment (of costs) as opposed to seeing those monies end up in the Judge's Xmas fund.'

e)'The action taken by Justice Cullen (absolute denial of any court access for any reason) is so egregious that B.C. Attorney General Suzanne Anton should remove him from the bench.'

f) '...That's how Canada became a failed state: permitting a judge to run a court within a court. No justice system can survive under those circumstances.'

PROTEST PLACARDS:

a) 'Silly Ass Judges Kill Habeas Corpus'

b) 'For Sale - Justice System'

c) 'Canadian Justice System Broke and Yet is Plenty Fixed as it is'

d) 'Judges approve sweetheart deal, unions gone'

page 15 (c) Reporting the lawyer for the Board to the Law Society of Upper Canada for no apparent reason other than the fact he represented the Board in launching the present Application.

R. A most misleading statement as I told Justice McKinnon in court that I had no objection to the argument made by the Employer if it had been filed as a defense of #13-58607 as opposed to launching their own action (#13-59060) in tandem with my action in order to gain advantage. This is known as 'running a court within a court' and I submitted that if Justice McKinnon were to cancel out #13-58607 that I would use the term 'judicial malfeasance' as opposed to the usual 'judicial bias' in the appeal. He did and I did. That action on his part is also being referred to the Canadian Judicial Council.

page 16 Case Studies quoted by Justice McKinnon which were never presented to me in court...another example of unwarranted judicial action. The key in opposition which I was operating on (although you wouldn't know that by McKinnon j.'s judgment) is included here '....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.'

R. The above situation was possible under the 'MacKenzie Creed' which included the all-important phrase 'with permission of the judge' as does Justice McKinnon's Order. As I pointed out to him in court, the 'Cullen Creed' does not include that caveat. He failed to evaluate that point in his Order which explains one more reason why his Order is being appealed (for dereliction of duty). A prima facie case exists on that Cullen Creed which gives no justification as to why the judge acted as he did despite McKinnon's attempt to fabricate an excuse.

(37) 'Indicators of vexatious proceedings:

(e) 'in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was a good cause of action;

R. Herein lies why Justice McKinnon reviewed the entire proceedings; regrettably without the input that I have provided here. In short, his answer was in before the court hearing. That is far too often what passes for justice in our courts of law. Litigants are powerless to combat this type of 'after-thought' which can only be made on appeal. McKinnon j. conveniently forbade the appeal of his decision to an Appeal Court (done in any event) and canceled out #13-58607 (cowboying) where the arguments provided here could be dealt with. His 'with permission of a judge', therefore, was mere hollow rhetoric.

Application of the Law to the Facts:

(40) 'The bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious proceeding'.

R. I sound like broken record repeating in every court in this sorry saga; 'What has been determined? I am still without a judicial finding as to the validity of the initial lay-off without which compensation may flow. It was the Justice System which ordered this matter back to litigation when employment was not returned to this senior teacher as recommended by the court. That is a judicial problem which should not be made into a personal problem for one of the litigants; namely, this writer. So much for 'competent'. Further, considering many courts were dealing with this matter charged by me with systematic abuse in the above regard; no one court may rule on this issue except the Supreme Court of Canada or the Government. That is why the current Ontario court hearings are a mere 'speed bump' for a Third SCofC Appeal which the lower courts are fighting with a vengeance against any such SCofC hearing.

page 19 (iii) Maranger j. 'The Superior Court of Justice of Ontario has no jurisdiction to overturn an order of a judge of the B.C. Supreme Court, and no jurisdiction to provide a remedy for a violation in B.C. of a B.C. collective agreement.'

R. Then why didn't McKinnon j. pillory the Employer for launching #13-59060 which had, as its goal, to discuss all issues' of this B.C. case in Ontario? He made no mention of this part of the Employer's factum for which I requested $30,000 dollars 'maintenance' (legal tomfoolery). Instead, McKinnon j. awarded the Employer 'special fees' of $12,000 (now under appeal to have those charges reversed). One would think the Employer would launch their action in B.C. where I have no legal standing but wherever would they find another judge like that of a Justice McKinnon from the Ottawa court of Chief Justice C. Hackland?

Disposition

'4. Declaring that the Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver SD #45) will not be obliged to respond to any process initiated by Mr. Callow in contravention of this Order or any document or process inadvertently filed or received by any Registry in Ontario.'

R. In one and in the same breath, Justice McKinnon has repeated the ultra vires action of the MacKenzie Creed of 2010; namely, giving permission to proceed 'with permission of a judge' while claiming the Employer is not obliged to respond. Further, it is submitted here, similar to the MacKenzie Creed, he would interfere with the course of justice by imposing apparently illicit controls over the Registries. If they can ignore my filings, how may I exercise the 'with permission of a judge' of his Order? What is the court for #14-61592 to do should the Employer not file a notice to attend and the decision goes against them?...sue McKinnon j. for such a foolish order? The topic for #14-61592 is focused on fraud; a point which upset McKinnon although he was not prepared to develop the point in court. The Justice System places the topic of fraud in a pre-eminent position in our courts of law which is being raised here for a first time. To be sure the Employer (and now the Union which I include due to the Employer's wish to discuss all issues) does not wish to provide the secret memo notes from the original court hearing quashing the arbitration ruling, in that process, the arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable'. Those requested memos, it is submitted here, would reveal a fraud of immense proportions involving government, the judiciary, an employer and the Union over a 29 year span. 

(signed) Mr. Justice Colin McKinnon Released April 23,2014

 

 

 

SUMMARY

1) At the core of this unresolved 29 year labour matter where no compensation has taken place in defiance of the collective bargaining rules, is the failure of the Supreme Court of Canada to hear two central appeals. 85% of civil cases are rejected for a hearing with no reason given. It is a great burial ground for issues in which the de facto judicial position is to elevate the role of the judge(s) over the laws of the country (whether or not that is the intended outcome)

2) The Employee's Case is unique from any other rejected SCofC case in that no lower court decision exists to fall back on hence 'no judicial answer has become a judicial answer' in kafkaesque Canada.

2) The lower courts do not have the same powers of disposal depending heavily on bureaucratic delay as a means of forcing the aggrieved litigant from shifting from a 'Notice of Claim' to 'A Notice of Appeal' from which a judge may more easily dispose of a case for jurisdictional reasons. Applying the 'frivolous and vexatious label hastens that process as seen here in this case.

3) No one court may deal with the notion of systematic judicial abuse as only the Supreme Court of Canada can provide that overview; but the trick is to get there when the lower courts do everything in their power to frustrate applications to the SCofC; either through judgments such as the above or through Registry applications over which there is no appeal. The government may also act.

4) In the above case, the precedent (the West Vancouver School Board's Final Solution) set can be paraphrased as follows: 'As the Employer, we are not dismissing you and incurring fiduciary responsibilities under the collective bargaining rules; rather, we are laying you off (different set of laws) with this caveat; if you do not accept $1 for all outstanding claims, you will not collect your pension (as happened here). That proposition alters the work environment to such an extent and degree, that the Union movement and all it stands for is dead in Canada. Considering that the collective agreement is, in essence, the honouring of a signed contract; it is the death knell not only of the judiciary, but also our government. In short, democratic Canada is no more.

 

QUOTE: "Justice? You get justice in the next world. In this one you have the law."

William Gaddis, American novelist  '...It is, as Gaddis suggests in the above quote, the wrong question. "Justice system" is a misnomer, and it's hardly restricted to the United States. It is, at a certain level of notoriety, a political/economic system, susceptible to all kinds of external forces that have very little to do with actual justice. It favours the wealthy, the famous, the connected, the ones who can afford a long, drawn-out trial and a crafty defence team,...causes judges...to fawn and equivocate and work very hard to find ways to excuse their actions....Ottawa Citizen columnist Cam Cole

 

 

 

Excerpts from Apr. 10-2014 hearing/ Justice McKinnon / Ottawa Superior Court

Employer - Applicant;   Employee - Respondent  1 hour  #13-59060

 

p.14 Mr. Callow (C.) Objection. What relationship is there between the MacKenzie Creed of 2010 and the Cullen Creed of 2013?

p.15 C. No, it's significantly different

...In the case of the Cullen Creed, I have very serious questions about it, but I accept that (court abandonment)...so that compensation may proceed. That is the essence of the inquiry (#13-59067) on May 15th.

p.17 C. It's a general  principle in law that you cannot run two cases in tandem and that's what's happening here and in this case, with the addition of setting his case ahead of time, in order to derail the main case. It will be bedlam if that's permitted...because every defence lawyer in the land is going to copy that stunt.

p. 26 C....is there anywhere any judge along the way who has said this matter should not be resolved? They've just left me in limbo land, which the (Employer) would seek to give permanent status and he's done it by saying the wages since 1985 should be cancelled. Wow, I should always have been on salary, according to the Collective Bargaining Agreement until this matter was resolved.

p.28 C. Yes, but the (Employer) set it (#13-59060) a priority to the main event. If he had all this material produced at the May 15th hearing, I have no complaint, but he hasn't done that. He has set his own motion, two courts in tandem, as a means of undermining...That's the source of what I say is fraud and right here he's inveigling the court into committing themselves to that fraud. I don't think that the (court) is in a position, with all due respect, to cancelling that May 15th hearing.

p.32 C. Justice Estey from St. Anne Nackawic...'What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.' He must have been thinking of this case because that's what's being deprived here, justice.

p. 33 Employer He's not going to receive compensation, regrettably or otherwise for what happened 30 years ago.

C. ...So we finally have an answer from the employer, no, they are not going to pay compensation. That's the first time I've had it. Now that's going to be important in the May 15th hearing.

p.37 The Court You go to - you go to the Supreme Court of Canada that's....

C. That's again my question to you, how do I get to the Supreme Court of Canada when they don't accept anything except through an Appeal Court?

The Court 'I can't help you there. You're not going there by way of Ontario.

 

 

 

Baseball's slow,  justice slower

When it comes to getting a straight answer from the courts, be prepared for a long at bat

by Alan Shanoff @ sunmedia.ca  Sept. 07-2014 p. 17

     In baseball, it doesn't matter whether a runner is really safe or out. What matters is how the umpire calls the play.

     In a court of law it equally doesn't matter if an accused is really guilty or innocent, or whether a plaintiff's case has merit.

     What matters is how the judge sees the case, which evidence he accepts and how he interprets the evidence.

     The point of a baseball game is to determine the winner.

     The point of a trial is to resolve (my italics RWC) a dispute and determine a winner.

     Sometimes the wrong team wins the baseball game.

     Our history of the wrongly convicted is ample proof.

     And if we get it wrong in the criminal sphere, where the onus of proof is supposed to be based on the stringent proof beyond a reasonable proof, then just imagine how frequently we get it wrong in the civil sphere (arbitrator converted 16 new hires into 16 lay-offs adding this target as the 17th knowing full well that I was the only lay-off. The arbitration was quashed by the courts labeling the arbitrator as being 'patently unreasonable. I was left in a 29 year limbo where no compensation has been paid-includes pension rights- due to judicial chicanery over 8 court systems and over 30 judges. RWC)

where the onus of proof is based on the less stringent balance of probabilities test.

     ...Case Study from CBC's Marketplace....

     Clearly, the Marketplace episode cast doubt on the credibility findings of the trial judge and whether the trial result was correct. (As over 30 judges were 'in error' the term 'systematic' has been applied here under which no bureaucracy can survive. Further, in my case, we just don't know what the judicial finding would be due to the aforementioned systematic judicial chicanery. RWC)

     In baseball there are limited video-replay appeals, but in the judicial system we have appeals to higher courts. (If one is not thwarted by Registries over which there is no appeal.RWC)

The runaround (RWC)

...(the target) had already appealed his loss to a higher court and had it dismissed.

     Still, he had the right to apply to have the trial judgment set aside.

     But doing so was no easy task.

     He brought a motion seeking judgment based on the Marketplace episode.

     The judge turned him away, telling him to first bring a motion to set aside the trial judgment.

     After receiving legal advice, he contacted the original trial judge seeking dates for a motion to introduce new evidence but was told to schedule a motion date with another judge.

     The trial judge's office told him to bring his motion before another judge, which he did.

     The Court of Appeal told him he should apply in the Superior Court before a motions judge.

 

...And lawyers and judges wonder why people are frustrated by our justice system.

(Amen, brother...when the Justice System does not want to do anything, they obfuscate at which they have become past masters. RWC)

 

Baseball games, at least, always have an ending. ( While the Marketplace target disagrees with his Decision, at least he has one. I have no finding. That's why the Justice System of Canada is in a state of collapse as government and media believe silence is the best course of 'inaction' thereby jeopardizing their own bureaucracies. RWC)