JUMP TO HOME PAGE

THE ‘OUTLAWED CANADIAN’ (O.C.)

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA – DISNEYLAND

 

MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT – NOVEMBER 2013

1) The matter of depriving a litigant of his duly invested right as a citizen from court access without very careful examination of the situation is a matter of national importance.

 

2) Materials included here refer to earlier applications to the Supreme Court of Canada that were rejected for not fulfilling the designated rules of Registrar, Roger Bilodeau. I have no idea of the application of this earlier information but include it nonetheless to illustrate the great lengths the judicial processes of various Canadian courts will go to in order to frustrate an unresolved 28 year legal saga in which an employee has been deprived of his rightful compensation (includes pension) under the collective bargaining rules.

3) The Justice System depends on the intangible notion of credibility for without credibility, there is no Justice System in a modern democracy. When the Canadian Justice System goes bad, as I submit has been the case in this legal saga of systematic injustice, Canadian rule of law reverts to Third World status. The current Appeal is one in a series of court actions before over 28 judges which would conceal perfidy on the part of the Employer, Union and the various courts.

 

4) The above point was made in 2004 before the Supreme Court of Canada where to the accusation of an original B.C. government conspiracy was the alleged conspiracy of the process of this case in the courts. The failure of the Supreme Court of Canada to hear this most serious charge in 2004 is the author of far worse legal transgressions since that time including the current appeal before this court of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ of October 2010 in which a judge functions completely outside the law without censure. The equally egregious ‘Cullen Creed’  of July 2013 from the same B.C. Supreme Court also referenced here is a current source of action in Ottawa Superior Court (#13-58607) is pending.

 

5) Justice Minister, Hon. Peter MacKay has been asked to intervene in this matter as it affects  the conduct of the Judiciary in B.C. and the Federal Court.

 

6) It is clear at this juncture, that over 7 court systems have shown an inability to resolve a simple matter of a teacher lay-off in British Columbia in 1985.

 

ACTION CALLED FOR

7) For the Supreme Court of Canada to make an Order over-riding any previous injunction against  permitting this plaintiff to appear in any court unencumbered by any stricture as he would have full status to resolve this long outstanding labour issue where no compensation has been paid. I believe that I have always had that power in any event, but in my particular case I have been denied that right.There is no need to call for a full hearing before the Supreme Court for that Order.

 

8) That a Trustee be appointed by this Court to ensure that all courts abide by that Order.

 

EXPLANATION

9) The level of abuse that I have received from the courts, including this most recent appeal of DT-12-1872, has to be unequaled in the annals of Canadian Jurisprudence. If the judges cannot see their way to a judicial decision in this case; surely a jury should be given the opportunity to act ‘on behalf of the people’.

 

10)A denial of this request for this Order on any level will be considered by me as abandonment by the court to resolve an unresolved legal problem. In such an eventuality, it will be the turn of the legislative branch of government – specifically Justice Minister, Hon. Peter MacKay – to provide the necessary relief in the absence of the inability of the courts to do the job that they were hired to do.

 

Further explanation to the above account is found on the web www.employeescasecanada.com NOVEMBER 10-2013 & NOVEMBER 17-2013

 

The ‘MacKenzie Creed’ was the sole topic before the 3-person Appeal Court in Ottawa #DT-12-1872. The court is merely acting as an agent for the Employer as they evade entirely the central question placed before them. The Decision below could just as easily have been pre-written as the court made no reference to arguments presented.

 

ENDORSEMENT

BY THE COURT

1) This is an appeal from a decision of Maranger J. who granted the respondent’s motion and struck the appellant’s statement of claim.

 

2) That claim relates to what Mr. Callow says were the wrongful acts which deprived him of his salary as a teacher, to wehich he was entitled by the terms of the collective agreement. In his argument before us, the appellant indicates that his purpose in bringing the Ontario action is to obtain from an Ontario court, an order quashing the decision of MacKenzie J. of the British Columbia Supreme Court of October 1, 2010 barring him from bringing further proceedings in that province, and also to obtain an order for interim compensation for the loss of salary.

 

3) The motion’s judge found that:

a) The plaintiff’s statement of claim did not disclose any cause of action;

b) The plaintiff’s claim was vexatious and/or an abuse of process; (N.B. this term comes from the B.C. Courts therefore Ontario is linking up with B.C. It’s called ‘sucking & blowing at the same time’ - R.Callow)

c) This court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.

 

4) The appellant has not persuaded the this court that the motion’s judge made any errors of law in his decision or his reasons.

 

5) We agree that the claim does not disclose a cause of action. As described in the reasons of the motion’s judge, thje claim is essentially a critique of prior decisions of various levels of the British Columbia courts, most specifically, a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant. The Superior Court of Justice of Ontario has no jurisdiction to overturn an order of a judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court, and no jurisdiction to provide a remedy for a violation in British Columbia of a British Columbia collective agreement.

 

6) There is no real and substantial connection between the dispute and Ontario.

(N.B.Not so as other courts may act in other provinces under the rule of ‘inherent jurisdiction’, particularly as the B.C. actions mitigate against a hearing in the Supreme Court of Canada. This matter is now under appeal to the SCofC. Some court, somewhere has to hear this unresolved legal matter. Ontario was selected due to the fact that a partial pension – amalgamation of past B.C. and Ontario contributions – is being paid in Ontario where I have resided for the past 26 years – R.Callow )

 

7) There is no reason why costs should not follow the result. The full indemnity costs of the School Board amount to $16,000. We award partial indemnity costs to the respondent in the sum of $10,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by appellant Roger Callow in 30 days.

 

(signed) Madame Justice G. Pardu/Mr. Justice J. McCartney/Madame Justice P.C. Hennessy

November 6, 2013

-        o   -

 

November 08-2013

 

TO:  Hicks, Morley et al  -  Ottawa  Defendant

FROM: Roger Callow          Ottawa  Plaintiff

         

REFERENCE: Bill of Costs from #DT-12-1872 Hearing Date November 4-2013 being appealed under Rule 61A

 

MESSAGE:

1) I intend to challenge the $10,000 cost assignment in the above case as being exhorbitant under the circumstances of, arguably, the Defendant merely re-entering material filed at the lower Superior court (#12-54944) hence about half the effort. Your presence was gratuitous in that the pecuniary position of the Defendant was not affected plus no major argument on the MacKenzie Creed was presented.Your suggestion that substantial fees be applied to discourage ‘litigious clients’ bordered on ‘bringing the course of justice into disrepute’. I submit that no compensation should be given to you under these circumstances.

 

2) Please consider this letter as official sanction for the Defendant to apply to a surety held in the B.C. Appeal Court with approximately $7,000 still in that account. I give my full legal support to the extent that I am recognized as an entity before the B.C. Courts to this request. Any additional sums to be added or subtracted is recognized.

 

3) You will recall with the earlier  Superior Court costs #12-054944 Bill of Costs that we settled for $5,000 cash as you turned down the offer of $7,500 from this Surety fund.

 

4) The Vancouver Branch of the Employer, in league with the Union, have already accessed this fund to the tune of approximately $3000 in an action where I had no court standing and objected as such. The appeal on that action is on its way to the Supreme Court of Canada for while the MacKenzie Creed bound me from entering court; no such stricture applied to anyone filing against my interests which raises a constitutional question of national importance regarding court access. Of course, that is not the case in this current application as I give full support to your application.

 

5) I mention the above point here because those 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 as opposed to seeing these monies end up in the Judge’s Xmas fund.

 

Yours truly,

 

Roger Callow

 

cc  Justice Minister MacKay / SCofC Hon. R. Wagner / Ontario Premier K. Wynne

encl. to above 3 parties: 2 pages Court Endorsement #DT-12-1872 plus letter to Wynne