SK COURT QBG 1902/15 H.D. Sept. 24-2015
QUOTE: '...These men would not survive the waves that were about to wash across their decks. Too much conflict, too many egos, too little cooperation....' The Jefferson Key Steve Berry
1) On September 10-2015, this plaintiff received a complete response from the Defendant dated September 09-2015 to my action filed on August 17-2015 in SK.
2) In agreement with School Board B.C. Counsel, Geoff Litherland esq. by telephone on Sept. 10-2015 and with permission of the court, we would prefer to conduct the enquiry on a court plaintiff-defendant level entirely by written correspondence.
3) In the event that the court does request an oral hearing, both parties are available by telephone conferencing.
4) In the event that teleconferencing is permitted, this plaintiff will not be giving an oral argument rather preferring to reserve the time for questions from the bench should they be forthcoming.
5) Any Court Order against the Defendant should include:
A) A lifting of any injunction (e.g. McKenzie Creed / Cullen Creed) so that as the plaintiff, I may pursue, unimpeded, future legal actions in the Province of B.C., the proper venue for this unresolved labour matter.
7) In the event of unanticipated concerns; reschedule a hearing time to Thursday, Oct. 1-2015 should the court still require an oral hearing.
8) In law, an assertion by one litigant remains as truth if it is not rebutted. For example, in the Arbitration, as I did not take the stand (as I had nothing to do with lay-off numbers), Employer's Counsel claimed that their assertions of teacher (in)competence under the undefined term (in the statute and elsewhere in law) of 'current demonstrated ability' must stand. That this application of the imposed BILL 35 was a 'false flag' was rebutted on two levels in the succeeding court case (of which secret memo notes of the judge this plaintiff is still seeking and are conspicuous by their absence in the Defendant's record) which quashed the arbitration:
A) BILL 35 was in addition to the Schools Act and did not displace any part of it such as the topic of teacher competence;
B) The stated purpose of BILL 35 was to justify 'lay-off' solely on the grounds for economic reasons. The arbitrator changed 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs adding this Plaintiff as the necessary 17th knowing full well that this plaintiff was the only lay-off on June 28 of 1985 in West Vancouver (before BILL 35 became law on July 01-1985) and the only lay-off under BILL 35 until it was withdrawn in the 1990's before this case had been resolved (banana republic law). Fraud and perjury were rampant in the arbitration, it is submitted here, and is reflected in the case currently extant before the Federal Court T-2360-14. Everything transpiring since has been a judicial cover-up in what has become a gigantic government conspiracy in which the B.C. government was hi-jacked and the judiciary was co-opted (gerrymandered arbitrator appointment) to sanction a sweetheart deal between an Employer and Union in a matter without equal in the annals of Canadian Jurisprudence. That, apparently, is the price for 'whistleblowing' on a matter of fraud in which this plaintiff provided information against a school administrator to the Education Ministry in Victoria in March of 1985. That topic has never been dealt with. Canada is now a Third World Country as one result of the implosion of the Justice System as detailed in other accounts.
9) Unfortunately, as noted above, the many courts have not taken an independent stand preferring, it is submitted here, to act as an agent for this Employer as evidenced by Decisions and actions independent from the court proceedings; most of which are under appeal or referred to the oversight bodies which appear to have gone into 'lockdown mode' by not acknowledging the many formal complaints made against them.
FOLLOWING IS A POINT BY POINT REBUTTAL OF THE HARRIS WRITTEN ARGUMENT
1) 1.a) This Honourable Court lacks any jurisdiction...
REBUTTAL (R): No reference is made to my case under the heading of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice.
2) 1.b) ...matters...precluded...under doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel and abuse of process....
R. res judicata - The Order of the Court by Justice Southin to return to litigation when the Employer failed to return employment as she recommended was never fulfilled leaving this litigant in what turns out to be a 30 year continuous state of limbo. The other two legal terms are to be subordinated to that basic fact.
3) 1.c) ...'vexatious' ...beyond all limitation periods.
R. The key 'vexatious' ruling quoted by the Employer in the last three hearings in Federal Court (T-2360-14) Ontario (14-61592 Scott j.) and Quebec (550 1902-157) have all focused on the McKinnon j. Decision
(13-59060) which has been appealed (although lost in that process). Justice McKinnon along with Justice Scott were referred to the oversight bodies for colluding in a revised Order with the co-operation of the Employer's Ontario legal counsel whom has since dropped representation of the Employer. Similar inequities exist in the Quebec hearing (decision pending) which would quote gross inaccuracies from that Order. I have not heard back from the Employer's Quebec representative as to whether or not they still represent the Employer as they have also been cited to the oversight committees along with two Quebec judges.
4) 2. Mr. Callow has been litigating...and various times before the British Columbia Labour Relations Board.
R. It depends on what you call 'appearances' as no Section 12 hearing was ever held; the Board preferring to accept the Union's argument 'that they had done nothing wrong'. (Did they do anything right?) If a meeting was held, the Board was very well aware of the School Board letter arguing vociferously against the application of the collective bargaining rules introduced by Justice Spencer in 1995 as their stand was that the arbitration features of BILL 35 were paramount (SEE 1997 Employer letter TAB 2 p.33). Perhaps if that argument had been dealt with at that time, we would not be here today. While not having the exact date that BILL 35 was rescinded while this case remained unresolved; nonetheless, that action placed my interests in an untenable position.
5) 3. denigrating court processes and personnel.
R. It was the Employer who first introduced selected blog material to make their case. I merely followed up with including all materials. The role of internet evidence seems an ongoing legal challenge but my view is that 'sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander'. With that much said, many of the complaints to the oversight bodies are professionally detailed (as is this rebuttal).
6) Mr. Callow has been declared a vexatious litigant in both...B.C....and Ontario. As such, he is precluded from commencing any action in either of those Courts without first obtaining leave.
R. Litigants so saddled by the above limitation must also make prima facie cases; both conditions not a problem for me. What is a problem is that the 'Cullen Creed' (September 23-2015) is absolute (no 'permission of a judge' included) in its prohibition thus forcing me to make application outside of B.C. One of my key points in SK QBG 1902-15 is for the court to lift all limiting controls so that this plaintiff may proceed in B.C., the natural venue for this B.C. based labour issue.
7) 4. 'vexatious litigant'
a) Justice Williamson (BCSC) dated March 2003 - CA038538 in September 2010 was filed requesting permission to proceed before it was unceremoniously dumped by Justice MacKenzie on October 1,2010 whom, based on her own recognizance, without calling for legal argument nor quoting pertinent laws and 'for reasons best known to herself' canceled the hearing.
b) Justice Cullen (BCSC) dated July 23,2013 made a similar Order in which he referred to the docket number CA038538 but failed to substantiate his objections similar to Mackenzie j. (SEE my account complete with rebuttal TAB 4 pp.43-44). As noted above, his Order expelled me from B.C. in this unresolved B.C. Labour matter.
8) Justice McKinnon (Ont.S.C.J.) dated September 15,2014
R. This item is why the entire McKinnon Order should be thrown out with the Employer cited for a gross misleading of the court. The Hearing date of April 10, 2014 was followed by McKinnon's Order on April 23-2014 which is conspicuous by its absence from the Employer's Affidavit. What they chose to include was a bastardized second account on September 15 not seen by this Plaintiff until the Defendant bounced into court throwing it on the desk (to which the judge grabbed it with alacrity from Defense Counsel whom had never filed a 'Notice of Appearance') amid my most vociferous objections. Included here is a letter to the Chief Justice dated August 16-2015 (addendum) requesting action as to why this Order was never filed as it related to other actions which never materialized (no response to date). (The Appeal Court earlier rejected an Appeal by me because I had no such Decision.)
9) 5. On Feb. 11, 2015, the Federal Court...dismissed action based on want of jurisdiction.
R. This Order by Vancouver Prothonotary, Roger Lafreniere, 'jumped the gun ' as this matter was to be held in Ottawa before a judge using mediation processes available by the court. This was the second time that this happened with Lafreniere under the same Chief Justice, Paul Crampton. I have requested the 'incoming' Justice Minister after the election to appoint someone to place this case back on track. Lafreniere, considering he was named in the documents alleging fraud from his first appearance in this case earlier, should never have been permitted to hear this case. Further, I was awaiting the necessary details of the vexatious materials from the Defendant (Employer plus Union) for a detailed Rebuttal which he neutered with his untimely and improper action.
10) 6. 'Callow Motion in Quebec Superior Court'
R. The sole point of that Motion was to obtain the 'secret missing memo notes' which Justice Southin requested of all meetings held regarding my lay-off and which she later returned 'because she did not use them'. The court did not even raise the question and yet these notes, it is submitted here, hold the genesis of the entire allegations of fraud made in Federal Court. Considering that the Employer still has not provided these notes for the SK court, the SK court must demand this record if they are not to be accused of the cover-up of a fraud without equal in Canadian jurisprudence.
11) 7. 'McKinnon j' statement
R. The transcript shows that both McKinnon and myself as Defendant agreed that only the Supreme Court of Canada is capable of hearing all issues. "But how do I get there?", I asked. "Not through Ontario Courts", he replied. That court failed to deal with all issues as requested by the Employer Plaintiff.
12) ...none of the facts emanate from this province.'
R. There are no direct arguments by the Employer as to the application of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice although their statute quotes would entertain such terms as I shall point out as they arise in the rest of this account.
Most of this section under the heading of 'territorial competence' is of secondary significance to the issues outlined above on which the Employer would base its case
Real and substantial connection
12) 9. ...a real and substantial connection between SK and those facts is presumed to exist if the proceeding:
j) is for a determination of the personal status or capacity of a person...
k) is for the enforcement of a judgment of a court made in or outside of SK or an arbitral award made in or outside SK;
13) ...another forum would be more appropriate.
R. Without question, this is a B.C. matter which should be held in B.C. but is not being held there for reasons outlined above. If the B.C. court had not truncated CA038538, presumably this plaintiff would have been on the route to the Supreme Court of Canada (for a third time) to get a resolution of this unresolved labour case where no compensation has been paid.
Direction as to the exercise of territorial competence
14) (2) A court, in deciding the question of whether it or a court outside of SK is the more appropriate forum in which to try a proceeding, shall consider the circumstances relevant to the proceeding, including:
(b) the law to be applied...
(c) the desirability of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings;
(d) the desirability of avoiding conflicting decisions in different courts;
(e) the enforcement of an eventual judgment; and
(f) the fair and efficient working of the Canadian legal system as a whole.
R. As the SK court is not in a position to adjudge the propriety of the lay-off, they should focus on those recommendations the plaintiff has made in his factum e.g. If the Employer has indeed abandoned its case under the imperative of a court Order (the argument before Spencer j. in 1995), then the proper action for the court is to change the should return employment of the earlier Madame Justice Decision to must return employment with all the terms of the contract to apply. In law a recommendation must be followed up with suitable action.
Case Law In SK
As this is a precedent-setting case, the only case law applicable should relate to a litigant from another jurisdiction seeking justice in an unresolved legal issue which even the courts ordered back to litigation so that no client is left in limbo (without compensation as per labour laws) as has been the case here.
C. Application of Legal Principles
15) 14. ...Mr. Callow is simply forum shopping and attempting to litigate his claims in this Court because he has been barred from doing so in the Court of B.C. and Ontario.
R. Sounds reasonable to me for B.C. but not Ontario. The Employer is absolutely correct on the use of 'barred' although he could have added 'for reasons best known to a judge'.
16) 15. R. The sole reason for going to Quebec is due to other courts constantly thwarting any attempt that I make in obtaining the 'secret memo notes'; the basis of the fraud outlined earlier. The Montreal RCMP have been called in to assist in that purpose.
17) Maranger j.'s Decision was faxed two hours after the hearing and had all the ear-marks of a pre-written Report in a hearing held under suspicious conditions. He quotes no law for his findings.
18) The Divisional Court was equally remiss (as even one judge fell asleep in the one hour hearing as I so aptly noted). Neither this plaintiff nor the Defendant were arguing that this was a collective bargaining issue in B.C. No questions were asked by this court. The Decision is under appeal although the Appeal Court has 'locked down' on this case with no response from the oversight bodies.
19) 16. & 17. The Superior Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to overturn an order of a judge of the B.C. Supreme Court (Defendant emphasis), and no jurisdiction to provide a remedy for a violation in B.C. of a collective agreement. Divisional Court in support of Maranger j. Decision (16)
R. a) No laws or case studies were cited in the above decisions by the courts.
b) The obvious question here is 'Who does have that authority?' The obvious answer is the SCofC.
c) The dichotomy here is that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) rejected any hearing on the two occasions in 1999 (Universality of unions) and 2004 (Ultimate Remedy) leaving this litigant in limbo which flies against basic precepts in law.
d) So the current question here becomes; 'How does this matter get before the SCofC for a third time considering the obfuscation of this issue by the lower courts and oversight bodies including Parliament?
e) The answer is the Governor General whom may under the principle of 'peace, order and good government' act on behalf of 'we, the people' for the entire Canadian nation. That explains why the most recent series of newletters is addressed to him.
20) 18. '...same principles apply to SK'
R. The constitutional topic of the ultra vires nature of BILL 35 has never been raised before. Quashing the restrictive Williamson, MacKenzie and Cullen Orders would permit this plaintiff to continue with CA038538 in B.C. where this key issue could be defined. Otherwise, it is maintained, SK must deal with this matter which challenges the very essence of the misuse of legislative law.
21) 2. Application barred by Doctrines of res judicata...
A. Overview of Legal Principles (a-d)
R. No doubt the above was written with the dispute between litigants in mind and not a perversion by the judicial authorities as asserted here. For example, should the arbitrator had given an honest evaluation, he would - according to Justice Mary Southin - have seen fit to return employment to Callow (as opposed to having his arbitration quashed). When the School Trustees refused to accede to her recommendation that employment be returned, she remitted the matter back to arbitration without keeping this employee on salary. The arbitrator had been ruled patently unreasonable. Incidentally, Justice Southin made no mention of the collective bargaining rules; that was 'invented' later by Spencer j. To date, no determination of this issue exists.
22) Supreme Court of Canada Authority
20. 'case study' illustrating the matter of issue estoppel
R. At the core of this case is the failure of the SCofC to hear this matter on two occasions thus leaving this plaintiff in a permanent state of limbo. All the points made in this section do not envision that unique state of affairs which makes this case one of those rare legal entities called a 'standing case' by which this plaintiff accuses the judiciary in general of systematic judicial abuse alleging fraud (T-2360-14 Federal Court). No institution can withstand that attack and still be considered credible which explains why this case is the lead civil case in the history of Canadian jurisprudence. It also explains the trite excuses made by the various courts to duck their responsibilities.
C Application of Legal Principles
23) 21 & 22: Maranger j...'vexatious and abusive litigant'
R. For the above to have any weight, a detailed history must accompany such an indictment which was conspicuous by its absence.
24) 23. The B.C. Supreme Court...'Mr. Callow cannot access the courts without leave'.
R. The third Order in the list from Justice Cullen in 2013 includes no such provision forcing this plaintiff to seek remedy outside of the B.C. judiciary. (SEE TAB 4 pp.43-4)
25) 24. Mr. Callow...'cannot possibly succeed in this Court.'
R. I can if SK Chief Justice M. Popescu chooses a judge who performs 'due diligence'.
26) 27. '...abuse of process'
R. Whose abuse of process? Mine / yours and/or the courts?
27) 3. Application is Vexatious & Well Beyond Limitation Period
Overview of Legal Principals - Vexatious Claims.
R. Since when is 'fraud' well beyond the limitation period? The trite arguments made here but obviously adhered to by many lower courts, is a matter of 'singing all to the same tune' to much detriment to the course of justice in Canada.
28) Rule 7-9 is incompletely recorded and, in most instances - and this is one of them - the converse opinion is stated in such Rules. Unless the court specifically requests this point to be researched further, the proper course of the court is to ignore this section.
29) 29 & 30 'Case Studies'
d) in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at the whole history of the matter and not whether there was originally a good cause of action. (my emphasis)
R. So where are all these histories detailing why each hearing is explained. The Defendant has included a later 'enumeration' of superficial judgments on that level but is conspicuous by its absence of a definition of original events which I have sought to rectify.
30) Claim is Statute-Barred: Limitation Period Statutory Schemes
R. In one breath, the Defendant would have the SK Courts believe that they should not intervene in B.C. matters only to quote unapplicable rules to this unresolved case at one time ordered back to litigation by the B.C. Courts. The Employer did not comply with that order.
31) C. Application of Legal Principles
34. In addition, Mr. Callow has persistently posted commentary on his website regarding in a manner that denigrates the judiciary and legal system.
R. Until I am shown to be inaccurate in my detailed criticisms noted above, I stand by those assertions. The legal blather I have been receiving to date is not reflective of a justice system and the many courts therein of conducting 'due diligence' on key points in this matter. 'So if the shoe fits...'
32) Mr. Callow can have only one reason for filing this application in this Court: whereas he has been barred from doing so in other provinces, he has not yet been barred here....'
R. The pejorative interpretation of a 'vexatious' finding would, I am sure, be in agreement by both this Plaintiff and Defendant as mentioned on my blog: that anyone so tagged is like a Jew having a Yellow Star being pinned to his shirt and sent into a Nazi courtroom.
Of course that ignores the legal definition of vexatious proceedings which many judges assigned to this case are only too happy to do. That is why I justify my statement that the courts in this matter are acting as agents for a rogue employer; namely, what they couldn't get through the front door of a corrupted arbitration, they are seeking to obtain through the back door with pernicious judicial rulings. All of this, of course, is to the great detriment of justice in Canada as each case leveled by this Plaintiff furthers this decline into oblivion.
What to do with a tyrannical king is an age-old question which is adapted here to apply to a tyrannical Justice System?
Some of that tyranny is built in which is accepted in our society such as when the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) rejects a matter for hearing without explanation which happens in close to 85% of civil cases; the key point being that the concern must be of national importance.
To be sure one litigant is deeply disturbed to be so rejected where the final judgment of a lower court applies. In short, judgment is rendered at some judicial level or other, else why have courts of law?
The unique feature of the employeescasecanada.com 30 year unresolved labour case where no compensation has been paid, is that there is no lower extant judgment. This targeted litigant was to be left in a permanent state of limbo making 'no legal answer to be a legal answer'. That's how Canada's Justice System imploded in 2004 with the second SCofC under the 'ultimate remedy' provision of contractual law which states that money must change hands in employee dismissal actions.
The Employee's Case, therefore, possesses a rather rare commodity in law; namely, that of a standing case under which this plaintiff has made assertions of fraud (T-2360-14 Federal Court) against both the original conspirators in which the B.C. Legislature was hi-jacked (imposed BILL 35 in 1985 used only against this targeted litigant before it was withdrawn in the 1990's before this case was resolved= banana republic law); the Judiciary was co-opted (gerrymandered government arbitrator later ruled patently unreasonable when the arbitration was quashed by the court) to sanction a 'sweetheart deal' between the Employer and Union (in recent years, the Union has joined forces to oppose this plaintiff.)
That charge of fraud also applies to the court processes in which many courts have acted as an agent for the Employer in a bid to deny this writer a proper judicial finding without which compensation may not flow. In B.C. it was the court that created the bogey of the collective agreement as neither this employee nor the Employer referred to those actions by the Union although the various tribunals were fully aware of the split between the Union and this employee. The Employer, for their part, were adamant that the collective agreement did not apply as BILL 35 had its own set of rules for dealing with disputes.
This litigant is continuously thwarted in getting justice under the double whammy of the Court and the Employer (as the Union is dropped off from most claims except the matter of fraud.)
Both the Courts and the Employer lean heavily on the frivolous provisions of the law as a means of diminishing the claims of this writer. In brief, they dispose of these very important points in law by claiming they are irrelevant. Nothing could be further from the truth for not only is the collective bargaining process in jeopardy due to this precedent-setting case, but the entire existence of the Union movement as enshrining what is in effect the 'sweetheart deal' into law places an end to the entire Union Movement in Canada.
As the targeted party, I am not merely re-litigating matters 'already settled' as each court case has a different orientation. The matter in Federal Court addresses the allegation of fraud. The matter in Quebec Court (decision pending) addresses the revelation of the 'secret memo notes' from B.C. Justice Mary Southin (r. 2004) dealing with meetings held in June of 1985 regarding the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow. Those meeting notes are central to the charge of fraud against both the original conspirators and the various tribunals dealing with this issue. I was laid off on June 28-1985; BILL 35 became law on July 01-1985. The arbitration later quashed showed that some School Board personnel obviously committed perjury.
The matter in SK court focuses on the ultra vires nature of BILL 35; a question never raised before as - if proven - all action flowing from it is null and void in law. The key term, current demonstrated ability is undefined in the Act nor in law in general but as BILL 35 was in addition to the Schools Act; it did not displace any part of it including any reference to teacher competence. (In fact, I was dismissed for 'whistleblowing'.)
In reading any of the Employer's factums or court judgments, the above points are never referred to except in an oblique manner where no cohesive argument exists. In the above REPLY SK QBG 1902/15, once again, the Employer has resorted to judicial technicalities to obviate my claim.
Even here, there is no merit to the Employer's arguments. For example, a factual history must apply to the frivolous applications with a definition in each case of how an earlier judicial decision has been reached at which, in this Employers case, amounts to quoting the judges who do not give 'due process' to the issues raised by this litigant unless the pejorative term 'duly processed' applies.
At this point, the submission here is that the Employer is quite prepared to pay monies which are owed this litigant which exist apart from judicial findings (30 years back salary as I should never have been dropped before a resolution was found). To do that, they need a court finding which is similar to my own need for a court finding to obtain compensation.
The problem here is that the judiciary has committed themselves to a collusion which is best labeled 'if we don't hang together, we will be hanged separately' which explains the great reluctance to either the Employer or the Quebec Court to acknowledge the existence of the 'secret memo notes' at great cost to the Justice System of the Couillard government. Will the government of SK Brad Wall fall into a similar trap as has happened to the other provinces; the worst being Ontario and B.C. where the Justice Systems have imploded along with their respective government oversight bodies. It's a national disaster without equal happening under a boycott by the Canadian media. A copy of this REPLY Conclusion is being forwarded to Postmedia's legal columnist, Christie Blatchford, as symbolic of the anti-employee media debacle as it appears wedded to vested interests. (CBC's Peter Mansbridge could also be included in this indictment.)
The Employer never addresses the central legal topics of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice preferring lesser legal terminology. It's an 'apples and oranges' distinction giving the court the option of burying the more significant terminology.
In fact, the current West Vancouver School Trustees must be suffering immensely among their bretheran who most certainly despise them for creating a situation in which no ethical principal is going to write a negative teaching Report on a teacher - even where warranted - in a B.C. profession which can only view the Justice System as a 'Court of Star Chambers'. So-called inadvertent slips are being included in the Employer's factums which, it is submitted here, I am expected to pick up and do. Quebec has sniffed the problem and are not prepared to leap into the fray as the Federal Court has done along with courts in B.C. and Ontario. One interesting addition to the Employer's factum (Volume 1 kk) are the notes from Justice Scott (14-61592) September 23-2014 H.D. which I have never seen including this stamp: FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE AT OTTAWA SEP 18-2014. Unless the court crossed a judicial date-line in some sort of legerdemain of their own making, something is radically wrong with this court. It goes without saying that original Federal Court appointees such as McKinnon j. and Scott j. should be immediately suspended. A conscientious judge would throw out the entire Employer's factum on this point alone. No doubt other excesses abound which I will ferret out for future accounts.
Making reference to oversight bodies such as the Canadian Judicial Council is a waste of time in that these bodies are weaker than the institutions that they would oversea as attested to by the many judicial abuses which go without response in this case. The 'incoming' Justice Minister, for example, cannot depend on any back-up from the incumbent political leaders; Harper/Mulcair/Trudeau/May of which group would remain MIA on this major challenge to Canadian sovereignty. The proper course would be to dismiss CJC President, Hon. B. McLachlin for her failure to acknowledge any complaints from this writer for over a year now. Federal Court Chief Justice, Hon. Paul Crampton, should also be suspended for egregious irregularities. That selected Justice Minister would be wise to appoint a Ministry official to unravel this unmitigated Judicial disaster.
The B.C. Employer's legal Counsel has agreed with me to ask the presiding SK judge to handle this case on a written party by party basis greatly reducing the possibility of court 'hi-jinxes' should the court comply. That concession I attribute more to the fact that the Employer can no longer attract legal Counsel to their case. (The current legal Counsel is named in the fraud allegations in Federal Court.) Should the presiding justice decide to elevate this 'special case' to a three-person Appeal Court, this plaintiff would have no objections.
Further, it should be noted that progression through the various court systems in Canada is not being conducted on a mutually exclusive basis as would appear to be the submission of the Employers argument. Rather, there is a cumulative effect which deepens the charge of cover-up against the Canadian Judiciary.
Roger Callow dated at Ottawa, ON. on this 14th day of September, 2015
208-2220 Halifax Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7
tel:/fax: 613-521-1739 Plaintiff
G. Harris & Company
Litherland esq. for the Employer: Board of School Trustees-West Van.
1400-550 Burrard St. Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2B5
tel: 604-684-6633 fax: 604-684-6632 Defendant
(sent by registered mail)
enclosures: 3 NEWSLETTERS from my blog: employeescasecanada.com
A) Saskatchewan Letter B) AUGUST-2015 C) SEPTEMBER-2015
D) Addendum letter to ON(Ottawa)Chief Justice J. McNamara Aug. 16-15 regarding unfiled Scott Decision from May 15-2015 (no response)
This entire REPLY delivered to:
Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
2425 Victoria Avenue
Regina,SK S4P 4W6 SENT BY REGISTERED MAIL
(This letter filed under THE SASKATCHEWAN LETTER on my blog)
cc Governor General D. Johnston / 'Incoming' Justice Minister
SCofC Hon. R. Wagner
QUEBEC: D. Goulet j. / Premier Couillard / BLOC / Parti Quebecois / RCMP
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)
POSTMEDIA'S LEGAL COLUMNIST Christie Blatchford
For those receiving only the CONCLUSION, the entire matter appears on employeescasecanada.com SK REPLY QBG 1902/15