JUMP TO HOME PAGE

 

SHAMEFUL JUDGES

 

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS SOURCES – JAN.02-2013 p.1-5

(FORMERLY OPEN LETTERS TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN)

BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case)    CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’

 

WHY ALL ETHICAL CANADIAN JUDGES SHOULD HANG THEIR HEADS IN SHAME

QUOTES:

A) The lawyers and the judges, absorbed in the excruciating legal minutiae that see substance subsumed by procedure…’ Crimes of War  Peter Hogg

B) ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law’ Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic)

C)  'The law's a farce, sonnyboy. You can plant evidence and suborn witnesses and make sweetheart deals with the prosecution. The only laws we're really interested in making stick are the laws of contract - because if commerce doesn't work we're eating tree bark instead of bread.' Cassidy Morris West

D) 'What needs we fear it, for who can call us to account?'  Lady MacBeth

E) ‘…Sorry to sound as if I don’t trust the soothing platitudes of those in authority.It’s just that I’ve learned from bitter experience not to do so.  Ottawa Sun columnist Christina Blizzard

F)... Even in hoary old Ireland, a condemned man had to give his own name before being executed. Presumably, under similar circumstances, I would - as the targeted individual - be forced to say 'West Vancouver Teachers' Association'. Even Shakespeare let 'Shylock' have a trial! `The Outlawed Canadian`

 

January 02-2013                  

RESUBMISSION (Part VI) TO SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

REASONS FOR RESUBMISSION OF MATERIALS REJECTED BY THE SCofC ADMINISTRATION ON LAST THREE OCCASIONS:

 

PART 1 (Universality of Unions) & PART II (Ultimate Remedy)- COMPLETE  AND REJECTED FOR A HEARING BY THE SCofC 3-PANEL JUDGES (B. McLachlin on first panel and Chief Justice for all other challenges)

PART III – V ; REJECTED BY SCofC FOR REASONS OF RULE APPLICATION (All focus on ‘MacKenzie Creed’):

A) Part III – ‘Mackenzie Creed’ which prohibits court access to this plaintiff for ‘reasons best known to the judge’.

B) Part IV – SCofC ‘Strike 4 – baseball anyone?’

C) Part V  -  SCofC ‘Stage 5 cancer’

D) Part VI-   SCofC ‘Beyond all reasonable doubt’

E) Part VII (pending)- Currently being appealed (Ontario Superior Court’s Maranger(non)Decision Nov. 01-12

#12-54944)- SCofC ‘Beyond all reason’

 

SUPPORTING ARGUMENT:

 

1) Enclosed are hearing results from Vancouver in the payment of surety money to the Employer and Union held in Vancouver Appeals Court on November 26-2012 and entered here in order to comply with the punctilious rules of the SCofC. .  B.C. Appeal Court Justice, Peter Lowry, rubber-stamped, in less than 5 minutes, requests from the Union and Employer to collect surety monies from an account paid into by this plaintiff admidst a written protest to those two parties (due to MacKenzie Creed, I have no standing in a B.C. Court of law).  In brief, Canada has been reduced to a ‘failed state’ as a consequence of this ‘running a court within a court’.

 

 

2) As CA038538 challenging the ‘MacKenzie Creed’was blocked by an oral administrative reason by an un-named clerk without judicial standing, an appeal was made to Vancouver Chief Justice (Appeal Court) Lance Finch to adjudicate. He was also asked to be my proxy in the November 26 hearing. He has never responded.

 

3) As CA038538 was never held; how may the legal counsel make claim for their expenses? They assume that because the court canceled the hearing for reasons best known to itself, that the outcome would not only be favourable to them, but also that the judge would assign the amounts claimed accordingly.

 

4) In short, the above is nothing more than ‘judicial theft’ with the collusion of the court.

 

ACTION REQUESTED

 

5) As the Employer never returned to arbitration as so ordered by the court after the initial arbitration was quashed in 1986, and as this plaintiff was left in a perpetual state of limbo as a consequence where no compensation has been paid due to the failure of over 30 judges to order the Employer to either arbitrate or return this plaintiff to employment (as earlier recommended by Justice Southin in 1986 when she quashed the arbitration naming, in the process, the arbitrator to be ‘patently unreasonable’); then the only reasonable and legal answer (there can be no process without judgement) in this long drawn out judicial debacle is to return this plaintiff to employment with all terms of the contract to apply. This would constitute 28 years of back salary plus interest appropriately compounded as this amount belongs to this writer apart from judicial outcomes (he should never have been cut from salary before this matter was completed).

 

6) Other monies as this court sees fit to assign the plaintiff.

 

TO: Roger Bilodeau Q.C. Registrar SCofC         FROM: Roger Callow

       301 Wellington, Ottawa ON K1A 0J1                   www.employeescasecanada.com

       FAX: 613-996-9138                                

 

REFERENCE: CA038538 (B.C. Appeal Court) & #12-54944 (Ottawa Superior Court Nov. 01-2012)

 

MESSAGE:

1) Acknowledgment of your punctilious letter of November 28-2012 is made which - while promising much- falls far short on delivery, as you no doubt realize. A bit of background is required here.

 

2) I submit that the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ is the most pernicious action taken by a judge in the history of Canadian judicial practice. In short, she has run a ‘court within a court’ and if her decision is to stand, it is the end of all law in Canada.

 

3) It is a national disgrace that the media boycott on this story negatively affecting Canada brings into question the efficacy not only of that bureacracy, but the very underpinnings of democracy as well.

 

4) In October of 2010 in this 28 year unresolved labour case from which no compensation has been paid, Associate Deputy Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie (MacKenzie Creed) of the B.C. Supreme Court on her own recognizance, without a hearing nor taking argument nor quoting applicable laws, dropped S106159 laid by this plaintiff to further the cause of resolving the initial 1985 lay-off matter, and in that process denied this writer from any access to the courts for reasons best known to herself: That Order without a docket number reads in part:

3) Any document or process filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry is a nullity.

4) The defendants in this matter will not be obliged to respond to any process that is filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any document or process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry.

 

5) That Order was challenged by me under CA038538 only to have documents returned to the courier by an un-named court official who merely stated that the material was unnacceptable. As he did not have any legal standing to make this ‘a priori’ decision, an appeal – and there have been many such unanswered appeals – was made to Chief Justice (Appeal Court/B.C. Supreme Court) Lance Finch. There was no response leaving me in limbo with an unresolved legal case.

 

6) As the targeted individual, I must prove that, as the senior West Vancouver teacher concerned, I was not laid off by the Board of School Trustees in June of 1985 (for reasons of declining enrolment). To do that, I must have access to a court which has been denied to me by over 30 judges including 5 trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. In short, I must prove a negative without any Canadian forum in which to discount that charge. Hence no compensation has flowed to date in a basic denial of collective bargaining rules making a mockery of the whole legal system.

 

7) We know details of this government conspiracy such as Justice Southin’s court decision which quashed the arbitration favouring the School District and labeling, as she did, the arbitrator as being ‘patently unreasonable’. When the School District did not return employment as recommended by the court, she ordered a new arbitration before the same arbitrator. The Employer and Union (sweetheart deal) never returned to arbitration leaving this personage in a permanent state of limbo.

 

8) Justice Spencer, in his decision in 1995, states the obvious but failed to take action, a position repeated by over 30 judges up to and including Justice Maranger more recently in November of 2012.

No. A950147 Vancouver Registry  June 2-1995 Hon. Justice Spencer  Motion Record TAB 2 (Respondent) p.8  Note 16   

     If, as I think, this law does not permit me to grant any of the relief which this petition seeks (be returned to employment due to the failure of the employer to return to arbitration as ordered by the court. RWC), the petitioner appears to be left in legal limbo with his case half heard but incapable of completion… Without in any way addressing the merits of any complaint against the petitioner’s performance (as a whistleblower), I observe that even if he was unsatisfactory from the Board’s point of view, he was entitled to be dealt with according to law under the School Act and not to be made the victim of abuse of authority. Whether he was remains to be decided….(my underlining)

 

9) The Union position – the only one recognized by the court to act on my behalf – was that as I had refused the School Board offer to settle, then I get nothing (including pension). That egregious position is not unlike China where a developer seizes the land of a farmer for ‘peanuts’ knowing that the judge is in his back pocket should the matter go to court hence my PLACARD: STAY OUT OF A CANADIAN COURTROOM UNLESS YOU FIRST BUY THE JUDGE.

 

10) The conspirators panicked with the laying of S106159. The Supreme Court of Canada had already declined to hear this matter on two occasions; the first on ‘the universality of Unions’ (for example, may a Union’s failure to act deprive a client from pension?...apparently so) The second appeal was on ‘ultimate remedy’; the mainstay of the collective bargaining agreement. By failing to see that compensation is paid in whatever amount, the SCofC undermined not only the collective bargaining rules, but the whole notion of contract law. (That’s why the court is so insistent in claiming that I still have access to the justice system although that point is belied by the facts of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’.) A Third challenge would juxtapose the first two challenges in such fashion that the perfidy of the SCofC would be exposed…and that would never do….

 

 

11) Be that as it may, the MacKenzie Creed was challenged to the SCofC and I still believe – contrary to your letter – that the SCofC had the power to decide whether or not to hear this case. Your denial would appear more to be in the nature of protecting the Judicial Record than to any other single cause. In short, if the SCofC has no record of an appeal being made, then this challenge does not exist in this kafkaesque style of reasoning.

 

12) Two more SCofC challenges were made with additional materials focusing on the ‘MacKenzie Creed’; SCofC-Strike 4 (baseball anyone?) and SCofC- Stage 5 cancer which included elements of the Maranger appeal (He refused to even recognize the existence of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’.)

 

13) Currently, with the collection of surety costs in B.C. on November 26-2012 where I had no standing in court, SCofC-Stage 6 ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ has been re-launched with this letter. Should the Maranger Decision reach the SCofC, it will be labeled SCofC-Stage 7 ‘beyond all reason’.

 

14) Your account of your clerk, Ms. McFayden’s letter of October 24-2012 is conspicuous by its absence of my rebuttal to her found in Stage 5 material. Your duplicitous reasoning is reflective of someone not believing that anyone will check out your story or, if they choose to, so what?  Of course when Ms. McFayden contacted the administration of the B.C. court, they were able to properly tell her that the case had been dismissed for delay and never heard which is the truth. What isn’t the truth is that because I have no access to the court (remember, the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ does not exist on the Judicial Register), I was unable to appear in court to protest that illicit motion. That’s what I mean by ‘running a court within a court’. Also keep in mind, that it was the court that chose to drop the action noting that I must take the matter to court should I protest; no doubt a source of judicial humour.  Apparently, the court does not want on the books what the Employer’s legal counsel stated before Maranger as…’He charged the judge’.

 

15) I don’t deny your observations regarding the status of an appeal of the Maranger Decision through the court system. That appeal information was provided to the court as an addendum should they wish to role up all the SCofC challenges from #3 on into one case as they all have the MacKenzie Creed as a focal point.

 

16) Under the above circumstances, I submit that the administration of the SCofC is running a block for the judges and, I might add, not doing a very credible job of it as it usurps the course of justice in Canada.

 

17) You bring up the role of the Federal court in the rules. The following should be considered as an example of the extreme contumely visited on this personage by that court:

a) As I was ostracized from the Vancouver Courts, I turned to the Federal Court of Canada to test the validity of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’

b) Two illicit hearings were held without the knowledge of respective legal counsel. The first was an Order by Vancouver prothonotary, Roger Lefreniére who, by placing the onus on me, held that I had failed to demonstrate that  MacKenzie had acted improperly. No mention is made of her stated actions. It’s the judgment of a buffoon and if I had been present, I would have stated as much.

The second hearing was made by a judge – again, without the knowledge of legal counsel - who decided, in absence of any rule application, that rule 51 should apply to his ‘rubber-stamping’ of the Prothonotary’s decision. The SCofC refused the case because the Appeal Court of the Federal Court had not been approached which I commenced to do quoting a plethora of laws; but none apparently which suited the judge deciding to not permit the claim to proceed and without revealing which particular rule was missing. The appeal of that action to the newly installed Tory Chief Justice received no response.

c) On top of this debacle was the defense for MacKenzie being conducted directly by the Attorney General of B.C. (as opposed to suspending her).

 

18) One has to question why the Justice System of Canada would sacrifice its credibility for the sake of a rinky dink labour issue. The answer may be paralleled to that of the impeachment of former U.S. President Nixon; not for a third rate burglary but for cover-up. And that is what the Justice System is currently doing to hide their culpable role in a matter known as the Employee’s Case Canada.

 

19) This paradoxical situation may be expressed in this fashion: in short, the MacKenzie Creed cannot stand because it must not stand and the Justice System of Canada cannot follow due process of defeating that proposition without imploding itself due to its own culpability. Evidence would show, I submit if a proper hearing were ever held on this matter, that the request to lay-off this senior teacher in June of 1985, originated with elements within the West Vancouver Teachers Association, the very organization charged with my legal defence. The court was effectively black-mailed into supporting a ‘sweetheart deal’ when Justice Mary Southin (who quashed the original arbitration favouring the School Board) returned secret Employer/Union memo notes- no doubt confirming the above observation - to the Employer and Union ‘because she did not use them’. Hence, due to systematical judicial cover-up before over 30 judges which exists to the present day, Canada was reduced to first, Third World status, and now to being that of a ‘failed state’.

 

20) So SCofC Registrar Bilodeau, you are attached to a conspiracy without equal and this matter can only turn out badly for all concerned. I’m bemused by your opinion that my actions are ‘premature’ after 28 years of systematic judicial abuse.

 

Yours truly,

 

(signed) Roger Callow

 

cc  SCofC  Hon. C. Wagner as representative of 9 SCofC judges

Office of the Prime Minister whom now has the necessary evidence to impose a trusteeship over the Vancouver courts

 

-       O –

 

BACKGROUND

 

1) I must prove that, as the senior West Vancouver teacher concerned, I was not laid off by the Board of School Trustees in June of 1985 (for reasons of declining enrolment). To do that, I must have access to a court which has been denied to me by over 30 judges including 5 trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. In short, I must prove a negative without any Canadian forum in which to discount that charge. Hence no compensation has flowed to date in a basic denial of collective bargaining rules making a mockery of the whole legal system.

 

2) The Justice System should have known better but chose to turn a blind eye…and in the process has blinded itself to an extent and degree which has reduced Canada first to Third World status and currently, due to the ramifications of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ (denial of any court access in this unresolved legal matter), to Canada ‘as a failed state’.

 

3) We know details of this conspiracy – in much the same fashion as RC – such as Justice Southin’s court decision which quashed the arbitration favouring the School District and labeling, as she did, the arbitrator as being ‘patently unreasonable’. When the School District did not return employment as recommended by the court, she ordered a new arbitration before the same arbitrator. The Employer and Union (sweetheart deal) never returned to arbitration leaving this personage in a permanent state of limbo.

 

4) Justice Spencer, in his decision in 1995, states the obvious but failed to take action, a position repeated by over 30 judges leading to the current quagmire:

No. A950147 Vancouver Registry  June 2-1995 Hon. Justice Spencer  Motion Record TAB 2 (Respondent) p.8  Note 16   

…I observe that even if he was unsatisfactory from the Board’s point of view, he was entitled to be dealt with according to law under the School Act and not to be made the victim of abuse of authority. Whether he was remains to be decided….

p. 9 Note 19 IBid

     It follows, in my opinion, that the petitioner is bound by any settlement of his dispute reached by the Association.

ADDENDUM: Seventeen years later and still no resolution due to systematic judicial abuse

 

5) The Union position – the only one recognized by the court to act on my behalf – was that as I had refused the School Board offer to settle, then I get nothing (including pension). That egregious position is not unlike China where a developer seizes the land of a farmer for ‘peanuts’ knowing that the judge is in his back pocket should the matter go to court hence my PLACARD: STAY OUT OF A CANADIAN COURTROOM UNLESS YOU FIRST BUY THE JUDGE.

 

6) It is an insidious matter to be an employee faced with a ‘sweetheart deal’ on the above basis. The purported reason for the Union ‘throwing’ this case is that evidence would show that it was the local West Vancouver Teachers Union who approached the School District to invoke BILL 35 against this teacher. At that time administrators were part of the Union (separated in 1988) and the Union did not want an administrator dismissed for an alleged fraud. That’s why they shot the whistleblower. With the weight of the government (BILL 35 legislation used only against this personage in typical ‘banana republic fashion’ until its repeal in the 1990’s before this case had been resolved), the courts as noted above, the Employer and the Union (sweetheart deal); this legal case was never expected to see the light of day.

 

7) There is no change from Canada’s judiciary in the above approach, even though it has cost the Judiciary their credibility without which, they have no intrinsic value. We have yet to see the role of the judiciary in RC, but to be sure, they just want the whole issue to go away. At least the RC has publicity; the EC doesn’t. The point in EC, is that as no earlier legal decision exists; ‘no legal answer is now a legal answer’ in kafkaesque Canada. In short, lots of law in Canada, but no justice.

 

8) ‘….If educators don’t stand up for democratic values in Ontario, then who will? And who might be the next to lose their rights….’ Sam Hammond - Union President ETFO  O.C. December 12-12  A15
REBUTTAL
: Well, Sam, you at least get your views published; I don’t. As to ‘who might be next?’; what about the current ongoing EC battle in Ontario courts which you must know about (Maranger Decision #12-54944 Nov.01-12 now under appeal without Ontario teacher support). The point here is that management is well aware of Union cupidity on this point which can be exploited to the disadvantage of all collective bargaining employees; not merely Canada’s professional teachers. The demise of the Union Movement in Canada will be heralded by the failure of EC (along with the courts and government); the cause of the Ontario public teachers being a distant second.

 

FROM CANADA AS A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY TO CANADA AS A FAILED STATE

 

9) In September of 2010, I laid S106159 in Vancouver Supreme Court requesting interim compensation; namely 25 years of back salary which existed apart from legal outcomes. In short, I never should have been removed from salary before this matter was resolved and should have been returned to salary by Justice Southin when she ordered the matter back to arbitration. This was the ‘she will never get away with that stunt’ opinion of my legal counsel, Harry Rankin (d.) (If not, she has done a reasonable facsimile of that stunt!) Presumably, this amount could be expected to be added onto whatever other compensation was assigned by the court which I lay in the hands of the court and the only two the court would recognize in this case – the Employer and the Union.

 

10) The conspirators panicked. The Supreme Court of Canada had already declined to hear this matter on two occasions; the first on ‘the universality of Unions’ (for example, may a Union’s failure to act deprive a client from Pension?...apparently so) The second appeal on ‘ultimate remedy’; the mainstay of the collective bargaining agreement. By failing to see that compensation is paid in whatever amount, the SCofC undermined not only the collective bargaining rules, but the whole notion of contract law. (That’s why the court is so insistent in claiming that I have access to the justice system although that point is belied by the facts of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’.

 

11) In October-2010, Deputy Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie of the B.C. Supreme Court on her own recognizance, without a hearing and without taking legal argument nor quoting applicable laws and for her own reasons; dropped S106159 from the docket with an un-numbered Order so that it would not appear on the Judicial Register. Further, she barred this plaintiff from court in this matter. This document is the most egregious act of a judge in Canadian Judicial History and rates as ‘running a court within a court’ if it is permitted to stand. The judicial intention, of course, was to sink S106159 plus her Order down the same black hole so that all that would remain on the Judicial Record would be ‘a failure to proceed’; obviously a put-down of this litigant. To date, that is the case and is the sole focus of my appeal in the Maranger Decision #54944 Nov. 01-12 to be held in 2013. Included in this devastating indictment are the following statements:

3) Any document or process filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry is a nullity.

4) The defendants in this matter will not be obliged to respond to any process that is filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any document or process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry.

 

12) The third SCofC Appeal related to`usurped judicial authority` in which a judge, for reasons best known to herself, may bar a litigant from court (the ‘MacKenzie Creed’). That charge was so serious that the SCofC chose to hide behind a specious administrative as opposed to judicial decision. The fourth SCofC – Strike 4 baseball anyone? Appeal still currently before the court is based on a surety collection in a B.C. Court where I have no standing due to the failure of the SCofC to hear the Third Appeal (although the Judicial Register would merely note my failure to appear; again, the failure attributed to me). In short, the Employer and Union may rob this writer blind due to the fact that this personage is ‘The Outlawed Canadian’. That action smashes the Canadian Justice System in its entirety. Presumably, if the Ontario Appeal reaches the SCofC, it will be labeled ‘Stage Six- ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. Indeed, the material from the Maranger Decision was re-entered (SCofC – Stage 5 Cancer) which were returned and is the subject of yet another battle from me to get this matter in front of the judges as opposed to dismissing it under punctilious administrative excuses. In short, I want the same treatment forAppeals 3-5 which I received from Appeals 1 & 2 with judicial rejection as opposed to mere administrative rejections. In bottom line language, Canada is now ‘a failed state’.

 

HOW THE LAW WORKS

 

13) It is in the nature of our legal system to enact laws as opposed to retract them in such fashion that the newer laws supplant older ones. For example, swimwear restrictions in the early 1900’s decreed that men be covered from neck to knee. More recently legal cases suggest that ‘community  standards’ will apply in order to accommodate changing social mores. In this case, the law follows on practice with the judge making carte blanche decisions as to what  ‘community standards’ will mean.

 

14) Legal counsel for both sides introduce a plethora of laws applicable to their cases leaving the judge to set the priority of application. In short, all law is judge-made law. Problems abound – as has happened in the E.C.- when the reductionist argument of ‘frivolous and vexatious’ along with ‘no chance of success’ (you need a sense of humour to understand that one!) is used to obviate the applicable laws in their entirety. In the E.C., I have been deprived many times over in this 28 year unresolved legal matter for a judicial decision because my laments are ‘insignificant’.

 

15) Hiding a judicial answer behind an administrative answer is parallel to the boss who hides behind his secretary’s skirts. It is a low blow and characterizes the SC of C many times recently as it relates to a proper hearing of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ which denies this litigant access to the courts for reasons best known to a judge not even assigned to the E.C. The last 3 appeals (#4 coming up) to the SCofC have been obviated by the administration as it takes every step to make sure that no judicial recognition is given to the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ for mere recognition of its existence by the court is tantamount to having Canada officially declared ‘a failed state’…and that would never do…it’s a damnable charge….

 

16) Games are played with the Appeal process. First of all, no judge wants his decision appealed which explains why some judges will side with the stronger force. In employer-employee cases, that usually means the employer for the employer usually has the money to contest an action; an employee, not so. An example is illustrative of this point. A K-9 dog handler (9-11 event) won his case against the police and the Ottawa Citizen for libel before a jury trial. On appeal, the decision stood on appeal in Ontario leaving it to the SCofC to scotch the award by declaring that the whole trial had to be done over again knowing full well that the dog handler lacked the necessary funds for a new hearing. Indeed, he just ended up with a large legal bill. In this regard, it cannot be said that technically, the SCofC over-ruled a jury decision; it merely ‘obviated’ it in the name of justice …yeah, right….

 

WHY THE ONTARIO PUBLIC TEACHERS ARE RUNNING A LOSING STRIKE CAMPAIGN

 

17) The fundamental problem is that most teachers have a horror of being seen on a picket line. It’s so…so blue collar, my dear. In actual fact, there are more white collar than blue collar union members in Canada.

Many teachers in B.C. were saved this embarrassment when the Province out-lawed strikes. No doubt  many of those relieved teachers want professional reports from principals in order to excuse themselves for not standing up to administrative excesses…’Look at what happened to Callow’, is their mantra. Of course, kowtowing to bullies doesn’t work, and the government proceeded to abuse teachers to such an extent that an illegal strike was called in 2005 which was harshly put down by the courts with a $500,000 fine and other restrictions. In short, the courts are NOT friends of the employees including the Ontario courts as witnessed by the Maranger Decision (#54944 Nov.01-12) in Ottawa which should have been given widespread support by teachers but was not; no doubt at the behest of the Union leaders. These Union leaders  have registered a case in court which, based on the Maranger Decision, is not likely to turn out well for the teachers.

 

18) The government hold the cards in this battle and can win everything without going to court. For example, when the noxious BILL becomes law on January 01-2012; a School District can warn that any teacher being absent for political purposes will have to re-apply for his job. A replacement teacher (and there are now legions of unemployed teachers) will be temporarily appointed until an assessment is made…on June 30. At that time, 95% of the teachers will be re-hired for the next year with 5% of the oldest in poor health (and at the top of the salary scale) will not be re-appointed. Knowing the legal challenges they face, such teachers will take an early retirement. Voila, the end of the Union is guaranteed. Teachers will be vilified for losing and already are being vilified in such media as the tabloid Ottawa SUN. Fifteen years ago, such pressure was enough to have the elementary teachers cross the picket lines in the last strike and go back to work without even notifying their Secondary School compatriots of their decision. Hence Canada does not need ‘right to work’ legislation such as that recently enacted in Michigan (the 24th state to do so) as the tradition-bound Union leaders (and by extension the Liberal and NDP Parties) will have been effectively circumvented. The court scenario envisaged here is to approve the right of the Employer School Board to assign replacement workers and relegate concerns over collective bargaining rights to be adjudicated by the Ontario Labour Board (BILL 115 prohibits use of Labour Board or Human Rights Tribunal which appears ultra vires. It’s also a variation on the ‘MacKenzie Creed’) which will be poor balm for those teachers out on their ear for protesting.

 

19) While the professional teachers of Canada may not win their battle against a corrupt government-court collusion, at least they can be seen to go down fighting by defending the legal efforts of ‘The Outlawed Canadian’. I’ll do the fighting at my own expense but what I need is publicity in order to break the anti-employee media boycott on this story. Currently the teachers are being hammered as noted above by such as the anti-employee Ottawa Sun tabloid as a means of breaking their spirit aka the strike 15 years ago. Rather than grousing about middle class incomes, these right wing scum-bag interests should focus on increasing the lowest wages of people forced to live in poverty. That’s one topic you will never hear in this ‘race for the bottom’ (or in U.S. terms; race to Alabama)