THE SASKATCHEWAN LETTER - AUGUST 12-2015
BY: 'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System' employeescasecanada.com
TO: Registrar of Court of Queen's Bench ATTN: Jennifer Fabian
FROM: Roger Callow; Ottawa litigant refiling an 'originating application' (SK 3-49)
1) I trust the re-filing of my June 24-2015 application more closely accords with the courts rule and your detailed letter to that effect of July 28,2015.
2) According to that letter, rejection was based primarily on the lack of a court hearing date. I still have not assigned a specific date for a one hour hearing on a Tuesday or Thursday 10:00 A.M. slot set aside for this purpose leaving it to the court to assign any date in the latter half of September. I would participate by teleconferencing if that is the wish of the defendant and court to use that approach although I hasten to discourage an oral hearing in this particular case.
3) My application notes the drawback to these one hour hearings which is why I have requested a written party by party adjudication which would better suit keeping the litigants and court on issue.
4) The major drawback with the oral hearing lies with court processes as it is rare for the appointed judge to conduct due diligence in complex cases such as the Employee's Case as he receives the documents on the day of the trial. Scanning the materials with a pre-disposed opinion by the presiding Justice to 'rid me of this troublesome pedant' characterizes these hearings leading to, in my opinion, many unnecessary appeals along with reference to the oversight bodies in some cases.
5) To date I detect an understandable reluctance of the Saskatchewan courts to entertain an unresolved legal case under the legal provisions of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice with its genesis in British Columbia. Having been expelled from that province 'for reasons best known to a judge' has left me in a kafkaesque search for Justice in other venues.
6) That apprehension is no doubt due to the claim that this 30 year case has smashed the credibility of the Justice Systems in B.C., Ontario, with Quebec pending and has seriously undermined the credibility of the Federal Court
(T-2360-14 currently extant with my charges of fraud against both the original perpetrators and the subsequent judicial processes) and the Supreme Court of Canada. It cannot get any bigger than that.
7) As to Court and Registry machinations, I do not believe there is a judicial stunt that has not been tried in this long process which I attribute to some interest -which I label 'the old boys club' - having back door access to the Office of the Chief Justice whom, through 'careful' appointments, is able to get a desired result.
8) I have already detected a mistake only aware to myself suggesting such an incursion into the Saskatchewan courts.
9) For this current case and the above reasons, I am beseeching the SK Chief Justice and Premier Brad Wall to arrange to have their most experienced civil court judge to be assigned to this case.
10) Note that while a variation of this case is proposed in each court hearing - this one challenging the original BILL 35 (since repealed by the B.C. Government before this sole laid case was resolved = banana republic law) as being ultra vires. The term 'current demonstrated ability' had no definition in the statute nor in law in general and was the sole basis of the Employer's argument in arbitration before a gerrymandered government appointed arbitrator.
11) The arbitration favouring the Employer was quashed by the court with the arbitrator labeled as being patently unreasonable. I have been left in limbo since that 1986 ruling where no compensation (includes pension) has been paid contrary to the labour and contract laws.
12) Keep in mind that all these previous hearings are accumulative and greatly impinge on proceedings in Saskatchewan.
13) Under the above circumstances, will the Saskatchewan courts, the government of Brad Wall, and the Regina Leader-Post, lead Canada on the road to legal redemption as currently, I maintain, Canada functions on a Third World basis. Without credibility in the Justice System, what good is Parliament in passing ineffectual laws?
14) In that latter regard, the incoming Minister of Justice has a major challenge dealing with this case on his own as none of the Parliamentary leaders (gang of 4) have even acknowledged what IS THE Election Issue on October 19-2015.
15) In the hiatus of the election call, the Governor General is in an ideal position to direct this case directly to the Supreme Court of Canada (for a third time) if he wishes to forestall any more provinces winding up in the legal meat grinder. The SCofC is the only court capable of dealing with all issues of the Employee's Case.
Yours truly,__________________(Roger Callow)
cc Governor General D. Johnston/ Premier B.Wall/ West Vancouver School Trustees/ Canadian Judicial Council/
SCofC-Hon.R.Abella/ Regina Leader-Post /Incoming Justice Minister
TO: Board of School Trustees (S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)
1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9
tel: 604-981-1000 fax: 604-981-1001 SENT BY FAX
FROM: Roger Callow 208-2220 Halifax Drive, Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7
REFERENCE: SK Queen's Bench QBG 1902/15
1) As of the above date, and as the Plaintiff concerned, I still do not have a 'Notice of Appearance' for the Saskatchewan Court from the Defendant Employer.
2) The original Application was filed by the court on August 17-2015 which makes such a Notice long overdue.
3) Please do not insult the court processes again by having legal representation turning up at the court without filing a 'Notice of Appearance' and with unauthorized documents (bastardized version of the McKinnon Order #14-59060 not seen by this Plaintiff) which were slapped on the Judge's desk such as happened in Superior Court, Ontario on Sept. 23-2014 (#14-61592).
4) The Employer lost their Ontario representation in that caper as they appear about to lose their Quebec representative for similar discrepancies. (#550-17-008208-157 Gatineau June 08-2015 H.D.)
5) Under the current circumstances, I do not see the Employer being able to attract a reputable legal firm in Regina for QBG 1902/15.
6) As plaintiff, I am willing to overlook a late 'Notice of Appearance' filing provided the Employer provides me with the secret 'missing memo notes' of Justice Mary Southin in B.C. Supreme Court in 1986 whom called for all meeting notes regarding the 'illicit' lay-off of senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985. She later returned those notes 'because she did not use them'.
7) I submit that those notes hold the genesis of the accusations of fraud against both the original conspirators as well as subsequent court actions dating from that time to the present, almost 30 years later.
8) While those fraud charges are of a civilian nature in Federal Court (T-2360-14) (suspension of Chief Justice Paul Crampton called for due to irregularities as noted in other accounts); the submission here is that from what I know of the quashed arbitration; they could very well be criminal in nature. That is why I have contacted the RCMP Fraud Dept. in Montreal. Indeed, the Qc application (still pending) was devoted solely to acquiring those memo notes.
THE SECRET MEMO NOTES
9) In her ruling, Justice Southin noted that 'no intention by the School Trustees was noted in laying off a teacher in June of 1985 under the conditions of BILL 35'.
10) Filed in Arbitration was an Order marked CARRIED based on a meeting held by the School Trustees on June 26,1985 justifying the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow under the conditions of BILL 35. No vote count was shown.
11) In 2004, under a freedom of access request, the document noted above showed the support of 2 out of the 5 trustees to the Order; Chairperson Margo Furk and (her successor) Mike Smith.
12) No School Trustee took the stand to substantiate lay-off numbers; the plateau test for lay-off. They were obviously not going to perjure themselves by claiming 16 new hires - as claimed by the arbitrator - were to be twisted into 16 lay-offs with Callow added as the necessary 17th.
13) Conspicuous by its absence from the arbitrator's Report was evidence from Asst. Supt. Bill May who was responsible for staffing. He stated in evidence that he did not see the need to lay off any teacher in June of 1985 nor did he make any such recommendation.
14) In answer to the question, he claimed that the request did not come from the School Trustees, rather it came from the Superintendent, Ed Carlin (who was in turn dismissed the following year and never again served in the public education field in B.C.)
15) Carlin had quoted School Trustee authority under Bill 35 conditions in his lay-off letter to this plaintiff on June 28-1985.
16)The imposed BILL 35 did not become operant until July 1-1985 and was only ever used against this teacher before it was withdrawn in the 1990's before this case had been resolved (banana-republic justice). Bottom line? Many of the above must have been lying.
17) Sufficient information has been provided in this case pointing to a massive (B.C.) government conspiracy where the government was hi-jacked (imposed BILL 35), the Justice System was co-opted (gerrymandered arbitrator appointment) to sanction a sweetheart deal between an employer (West Vancouver School Trustees) and a local Union (WVTA) later joined by the parent Union (BCTF).
18) Successive court hearings (or non-hearings as the case may be) show a level of cover-up without equal in the annals of judicial malfeasance due to systematic judicial abuse. Canada is now a Third World Country as a result and has been since 2004 as a direct result of judicial cupidity in this case leaving this target in a permanent state of limbo.
cc Governor General D. Johnston / 'Incoming' Federal Justice Minister
SCofC Hon. R. Wagner
QUEBEC: Hon. D. Goulet - Gatineau / Premier Couillard / BLOC / Parti-Quebecois RCMP - Montreal Fraud Division
SASKATCHEWAN: Chief Justice M. Popescul / Premier Wall / Regina Leader-Post
FEDERAL COURT Chief Justice P. Crampton
CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL (Hon. B. McLachlin President - never replies)
19) Should the SK Representatives chosen by the Employer base their case on a specious 'frivolous and vexatious' proposition in order to dispose of the very serious charges made here as they have done in the last three courts (Ontario / Federal Court / Quebec) based on the McKinnon Order (14-59060 April 23-2014), the SK Representative should expect to be pursued to the oversight body concerned to the fullest extent of the law.
CONCLUSION of Reply SK QBG 1902/15 to be seen under sub-heading listed here