APRIL - 2016


Normally, a 'letter to the editor' but this writer is boycotted by the Canadian media on all levels: A) Want Justice? Take sex assaults to civil court  S. Dwivedi   B) Ghomeshi trial discourages assault victims  Farzana.Hassan  (an anti-terrorist Muslim writer whom blames Islamism for the scourge)  C) Republican hypocrisy! Oh...wait.... (U.S. Thomas Sowell (served on Trade Commission in 1976 under President Gerald Ford)

A) RESPONSE As one who is currently pursuing civil fraud court maneuvres as a means of preparing the grounds for a criminal fraud charge (pretty well a police initiative), I am pilloried with the costs of the Respondent employer over 40 judges acting in a highly egregious manner as an 'agent of the Employer'. In 'sexual assault' terms, a litigant in such as the Ghomeshi case would be facing 2 years and a $50,000 dollar court bill for a civil action and, if unsuccessful, the entire cost of the proceedings. Best to skip 'justice' than to pursue that route would be my advice; particularly if the charge is not laid immediately. As to the Ghomeshi trial, the taxpayer picks up the tab for  the Crown in a criminal trial with Ghomeshi  as the accused- win or lose -being responsible for the cost of his defence. The idea of 'walking back the cat' for sexual claimants with PTSD has a darker side as such claimants may blackmail the accused. For example, Bill Cosby, was blackmailed into paying off to a so-called 'love-child' until he decided on demanding a DNA test vindicating him. The very wealthy have to be on guard against this type of fraud all the time.

This statement is the most significant in this article as it denotes the absence of 'oversight' bodies in Canada to which I can attest 'in spades': '...Unlike other comparable jurisdictions, Canada has no ongoing legal reform. There is no permanent independent body to examine whether our laws are being applied as intended and if our laws are effective...Accordingly, it is time for Parliament to act....'  ...Lots of luck with that one....

B) RESPONSE Hassan is one of the few (level-headed) columnists willing to respond to me in the past. Her bottom line? ...our society - and our courts which are a part of our society - continue to subscribe to outdated stereotypes about how sexual assault victims ought to behave. A similar stereotype also applies to individual employees as reflected in the Employee's Case (Canada).

C) RESPONSE 'When the two of us were alone, he said to me, quite frankly, "We've gone over your record with a fine tooth comb and can find nothing to object to. So we are simply not going to hold hearings at all'. For 30 Years, a constant request for disclosure by this litigant has been regularly ignored...that's how the Canadian Justice System collapsed considering that this litigant is left in a permanent state of limbo = anarchy. '...when judges act like prostitutes, they can hardly expect to be treated like nuns...Politicians, journalists and judges should spare us pious hypocrisy.' ...or vainglorious judicial decisions....





BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employescasecanada.ca (30 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. teacher lay-off in 1985) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. Currently there are two SCofC hearings slated (QC & SK) with a pending hearing in P.E.I. This edition is focused on QC being ubered (external threat from an unexpected source) through the interlocked legal proceedings from different courts across Canada. Pulitzer Prize seeking writer is sought in this one-of-a-kind story of the century.



A) "Every system has its weaknesses," Ava said, "And in fact, the senior Communist Party leaders don't operate much differently than wealthy people in the West." The Princeling of Nanjing  Ian Hamilton (In that regard, the judiciary should serve as a check to such excesses of the wealthy; not merely to 'ape' them. RC)



March 22-2016

TO:                                                     FROM:

Quebec Law Society                                  Roger Callow

Maison du Barreau du Québec              1285 Cahill Drive #2001

445, boulevard Saint-Laurent                Ottawa, Ontario  K1V 9A7

Montréal (Québec) H2Y 3T8                   tel/fax: 613-521-1739


1) It would seem that all the Canadian Legal Societies went to the same seminar...'How to evade your responsibilities no matter what'.

2) In this issue in SK, the B.C. Legal Society failed to answer the central question leaving the SK Legal Society on the hook for this transgression by a B.C. legal counsel in SK courts. The SK contingent are failing to respond in a second SCofC appeal. The Ontario Legal Society has never replied to excesses of Hicks, Morley, et al which has since dropped representation of the Employer. In QC, (see letter of Dec.27-2015) 10 d), the QC Legal Society ducked examining the perfidy of Lavery de Billy  in an obvious perversion of court functions reducing the ethically challenged Premier Couillard and the Montreal La Presse under its 34 year old editor recently re-located to Ottawa in control of the Ottawa Sun/Ottawa Citizen.

3) You will recall how The QC Legal Society one day before the hearing (and therefore could not be filed) ducked examining de Billy's conduct with a 'the court will decide'. Unfortunately, the court did not do anything other than to dismiss the claim as per the Respondent's request.

4) Now that the SCofC has issued a docket number - 36883 - a report on the alleged perfidy of Lavery de Billy from the QC Legal Society is of even more importance. Please respond accordingly. Below is an annotated letter dated January 11-2016 outlining the judicial scam of the decade. 

Yours truly, 

(signed) Roger Callow


January 11-2016  (SEE employescasecanada.ca  QC-SK DISMISSALS 2016


Hon. Jacques Chamberland  Quebec Court of Appeal

FROM:  Roger Callow  Plaintiff 

Subject: Roger Callow v. Board of School Trustees

Motion to dismiss the appeal  No. 500-09-025753-153


1) Acknowledgment of your e-mail dated January 11, 2016 is made.

2) Due to the importance of this letter of yours which strains the credulity of the Justice System, not only in Quebec but in the entire judiciary of Canada, a copy of this letter is being sent to Premier P. Couillard and Prime Minister J. Trudeau.

3) In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada reinforced my position of being in limbo in an unresolved labour matter with its genesis in B.C. dating from 1985. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid due to the fact that there is no judicial finding relating to my 'illicit' teacher lay-off under the imposed BILL 35; the only teacher so laid off under this allegedly ultra vires piece of legislation. That's when Canada sank to Third World status as the very essence of any Justice System is its finality. That's why this matter is a 'standing case'.

4) Much litigation ensued in B.C. In July of 2013,Deputy Justice A. Cullen of the B.C. Appeal Court (Cullen Creed), on his own recognizance, without taking argument nor applying applicable laws, expelled me from the B.C. Justice System (no 'may proceed only with the permission of a judge' was included) forcing me into other Justice Systems as it was clear his action was designed to inhibit another trip to the Supreme Court of Canada, the only court competent to examine my claim of systematic judicial abuse.

5) At root of this accusation is the refusal of the courts over a 30 year period to act on my request for Disclosure; namely, those secret memo notes of meetings held by the Board in June of 1985 to discuss my senior teacher lay-off (no Board member took the stand in the arbitration which was quashed and the arbitrator ruled patently unreasonable). From that arbitration, I learned that there was no request from the Board to lay off senior teacher Roger Callow nor any other teacher in June of 1985. In brief, I was the target of a fraud, maintained subsequently by the Justice System over 10 separate courts and 40 judges as they all seemed intent in blocking another appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

6) Without those memo notes which the Employer through their various legal representatives refuse to divulge and, more importantly, the courts refuse to order them to produce, every court on this issue is compromised by cover-up. There must be disclosure before due diligence may be conducted; particularly when fraud is alleged as is the case here.

7) A careful reading of the legislation in each or the other forums illustrates the application of inherent jurisdiction, natural justice, transference which never happens under judges appointed to this case which does entail a responsibility of other courts to fill the void created in B.C. by the unusual and illicit actions of the Cullen Creed.

8) Failure of the courts above has lowered Canada, it is submitted here, to fourth world status.

9) If it is possible to stoop any lower to a fifth world debacle, that is about to happen in QC on January 18-2015 in which Chamberland j. from the Court of Appeal in Montreal insists on proceeding on that date before important investigations have been conducted as outlined below. The key here is that Premier Couillard and Prime Minister Trudeau have prior knowledge as to the scope of a scam unequaled in the annals of Canadian Jurisprudence which is about to be committed.

10) As Plaintiff, I would have no qualms with the January 18-2016 hearing date:

a) if the necessary disclosure of the 'memo notes' above is ordered by the court;

b) the detailed letter to Mtre Catherine Dufour dated January 08-2016 on the irregularities in this case would seem to pass your account by with this statement...On the very same date, Mtre Catherine Dufour wrote to you, confirming that the hearing would take place, as requested, by teleconference, at 11:30. Whom made this request? Was it Lavery, de Billy or the court claiming to act on my request?....

c) The duplicity of your letter on this basis plus other considerations as noted below needs also to be investigated, not by the Chief Justice, but by the government figures included in this account. The fact of the matter is that I filed a Factum which was rejected as it did not conform to proper filing procedures. Traditionally, such rejected forms are returned to the plaintiff before a docket number is assigned (still not returned as of the above date). So how did Lavery, de Billy LLP obtain a docket number as the Respondent? How can he file for dismissal of something which does not exist on file? That accusation implies collusion on the highest level between the court and Lavery, de Billy. As such and as the plaintiff, I am expected to deny a negative which is an impossibility. Further Lavery, de Billy is playing the duality card by filing a second factum (a stunt pulled by this employer in other court systems) which ignores the all-important question as to why two judges were assigned to this case with one of them writing a judgment without making reference to the existence of the other. That's fraud on a grandiose scale and a fraud which goes uninvestigated since my letter to Elizabeth Corte-President of the Quebec Judicial Council on August 01-2015. There was no response. How can the court proceed without a definition as to the propriety of the duality of judges. Lavery, de Billy's account would appear to be a suppression of this issue which the tenor of your letter would support.

d) Lavery, de Billy's alleged perfidy as outlined above was the subject of a letter sent to the Quebec Bar Association on December 27,2015 and it would be unwise for the court to proceed until that finding is made along with the Quebec Judicial Council evaluation.

e) Also, on December 27, 2015, I mailed a letter to Justice Therrien asking for his Order as that of Goulet j.s.c. made no reference to his involvement. Without a proper investigation into these matters which Lavery, de Billy would avoid counting on an embarrassed court to do his bidding in covering up this massive travesty. In brief, the entire course of justice in Canada will be suborned should this Appeal Hearing choose to dismiss without the 'due process' outlined above. 'Duly processed' would be more like it.

11) The original purpose of my action laid in Quebec solely requesting the 'missing memo notes' was to reveal the existence of an 'eminence gris' whom has back door access to the Office of the Chief Justices of the land....

12) For my part, it is time to send in the RCMP to obtain the 'disclosure' demanded above by this plaintiff. Either Couillard or Trudeau has that power.

13) As you seem so determined to proceed on January 18-2016, I will see you in court by teleconferencing to see whether or not Canada deserves its 'fifth world rating'. I can only wonder as to the calibre of your two accompanying judges if they accepted your account.

14) You could save everyone considerable embarrassment if you just give this action 'a pass' on the grounds that only the Supreme Court of Canada is competent to examine all claims brought forth by this plaintiff. T-2360-14 filed in Federal Court and re-filed in QC but not commented on by Goulet j. alleges fraud by the original conspirators and the ensuing court processes.


cc Premier Couillard / P.M. Trudeau / SCofC ' 36883' / RCMP / WV School Trustees




BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employescasecanada.ca (30 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. teacher lay-off in 1985) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. Currently there are two SCofC hearings slated (QC & SK) with a pending hearing in P.E.I. as the Justice System gets ubered (external threat from an unexpected source) through the interlocked legal proceedings from different courts across Canada. Pulitzer Prize seeking writer is sought in this one-of-a-kind story of the century. This edition is focused on teacher lay-off.


A) The body parts were having a discussion as to who was boss. Obviously, I am claimed the bureaucratic finger for without opposable thumb- fingers, man could not be distinguished from the animals. The legal lung department then spoke up pointing how if it were not for their power to suck all the air out of the atmosphere, an ice age would be created. The political brain pointed out without an order from their department, nothing could transpire. And so it went, each part of the body arguing large and long, as to their claim for leadership. Then the asshole Justice System spoke up...or at least tried to among the howls of laughter among the other body parts. So the asshole closed down leaving the brain to fog over, the lungs to collapse and the fingers to go limp. All of which it goes to prove, you do not need to be a political brain to be a boss, just an asshole of a Justice System.

B)'The trial was a spectacle, a farce, a ridiculous way to search for the truth. But as I learned, the truth was not important. Perhaps in another era, a trial was an exercise in the presentation of facts, the search for truth, and the finding of justice. Now a trial is a contest in which one side will win and the other side will lose. Each side expects the other to bend the rules or to cheat, so neither plays fair. The truth is lost in the melee.  The Racketeer   John Grisham


1) In 1985, when B.C.'s imposed BILL 35 was passed, ostensibly to deal with the problem of 'declining enrolment'; as a senior teacher with advanced qualifications, I became the test person for this government legislation which sought to run an end-game around the Union.

2)The end-game, as the West Vancouver, B.C. School Board asserted, was that BILL 35 had its own conditions apart from the collective bargaining procedures, hence the Unions were not involved leaving this victim with very heavy legal costs should he have contested the lay-off. The Unions could ill-afford to be made redundant under these circumstances so they declared this BILL to be 'the battle of all teachers' knowing full well that they would involve themselves in a 'sweetheart deal' with the Employer (most dismissals are of this nature).

3) If one client is successful in challenging a lay-off, then a bumping process is invoked whereby a second teacher is to be laid off and so on and so on until the proper teacher is selected. That is a no-win situation for the Union which has to bear these heavy legal costs with no remuneration.

4) For the Union, it matters little which teacher is laid off (unless it is a Union leader) as one lay-off is expected anyway. Hence an individual client such as myself is at a tremendous disadvantage. That's why the government-appointed arbitrator felt free to convert 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs with myself as the 17th knowing full well that I was the only lay-off in West Vancouver (indeed, the entire province) in June of 1985.

5) I changed from the Union lawyer to one of my own and appealed in which Southin j. quashed the arbitration labeling, as she did, the arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable'

6) Hence began my 30 year sojourn in limbo looking for a judicial decision in which compensation (now includes pension rights) could be collected. No compensation has been paid to date which flies in the face of contract obligations (the essence of the judicial system) due to the chicanery of 10 separate court systems and 40 judges which is currently ongoing.

7) In 1995, as the Employer was not doing anything to re-arbitrate as so ordered by Southin j. after she recommended employment be returned, I returned before Spencer j. against the Employer requesting that the 'should 'return employment be altered to 'must' return employment with all terms of the contract to survive.

8) Spencer j.'s  choice was clear; either return employment due to the Employer's abandonment of this case or order a re-arbitration. He did neither. He created the bogy that this was a Union matter in which the Union controlled all aspects of a client's legal welfare. Succeeding B.C. justices bought into that argument (while the Employer sat quietly by claiming that only BILL 35 conditions applied).

9) The question of jurisdiction reached the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 (Chief Justice Lamers (d) / Beverley MacLachlin-incumbent Chief Justice / Cory) under the all-important question of the 'Jurisdiction of Unions' which is of importance to all Canadian employees. They refused to hear this challenge. No client will hold Union membership under these conditions which explains why the Union movement is moribund.

10) A second challenge in 2004 (MacLachlin the Chief Justice as is the case currently with two SCofC challenges from QC and SK and possibly a third on the way from P.E.I.) under the terms of 'ultimate remedy' which was also rejected for a hearing, dropped Canada to Third World status as the essence of the Justice System is its finality. In contract language, that means money must change hands.

11) Employers are trying to sneak in the 'ability to pay' (condition of BILL 35) which was the focus point in an ON teacher lay-off case (SEE web article of Sun Media's  Alan Shanof regarding how, in one instance, a number of teachers, in being laid off for reasons of declining enrolment, were assigned half their compensation due to the Employer's 'ability to pay'. On appeal in court, those teachers won full compensation.

12) BILL 35 included that 'ability to pay' clause of which the arbitrator accepted the Employer's claim of being short $500,000 for the year (later figures showed a surplus in the same amount) The court threw that claim out as figures (as shown above) could too easily be fudged which had been the judicial stance to date.

13) While years of experience and teacher accreditation are factors (and not in question in my case); the real sidewinder is the inclusion in BILL 35 of such as the term; 'current demonstrated ability' (cda) , a term undefined in BILL 35 nor in law in general. That constitutional  challenge is part of the SK Appeal in the SCofC. The point here, is that the Union - now seeing that BILL 35 was withdrawn in the 1990's (before this sole laid case was resolved) felt it unnecessary to make a constitutional challenge as B.C. courts would only recognize the Union on my behalf. A similar stunt was pulled in Ontario in 2013 with the imposed BILL 115 which was later withdrawn after its purpose was fulfilled. This type of judicial action is known derogatively as 'banana republic justice'. These terms such as cda are indicators by the governments to the courts that these Acts are being used for a political purpose and therefore 'anything goes'.

14) And then a funny - or not so funny - thing happened on the way to the forum; Deputy Justice of B.C. Supreme Appeal Court, A. Cullen drummed me out of the B.C. Justice System telling the Respondent Union  and Employer that they were no longer required to respond to my legal actions against them in this  unresolved legal case. He acted for reasons 'best known to himself' not expecting me to seek out other forums in the Federal Court, Supreme Court of Canada, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, P.E.I. courts in an ubering process which has destroyed the very essence of what a Justice System in a democracy is all about. The individual, as one consequence has been expunged from Canadian society for without an efficacious justice system, there is no democracy. That is now Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's legacy, no matter which course he chooses to take or not take.

15) Regarding lay-offs by School Boards for financial reasons, it makes financial sense to lay-off senior teachers whom receive twice the salary as beginners. This incremental system was set up in the 1950's when teachers were poorly paid and hence there was difficulty retaining them. The deal worked out was that beginning teachers would receive a lower than normal salary which would be topped up should they gain seniority. This explains why part of the teacher bargaining process today by the Union is to shrink increment levels as a means of protecting senior teachers from lay-off.

16) Individual teachers faced with lay-off should study this case. While there may be interest from other teachers when you get your pink slip in June, that interest rapidly evaporates over the summer months and is all but ignored in September when teachers begin a new year.

17) Look at how the media is reeling under lay-offs. For example, in the Ottawa Sun and Ottawa Citizen now jointly managed by a 34 year old editor, there have been wholesale lay-offs of senior staffs as the print media continues to bleed red ink. For every $7 dollars of expenditures, there is $1 of revenue due mainly to technology changes. A whole profession is being wiped out although advertisements for replacement are seen in the media (non-salary internships). Considering government debt, particularly in Ontario, and one has little difficulty prognosticating the future for senior teachers.

18) So while declining enrolment was not an issue in 1985, it is an issue today. While I have every sympathy with laid-off teachers; please do not send me your legal factums or otherwise as they will be returned to you unopened. You may send me up to a one-page synopsis of your concern but do not expect an answer.

19) In conclusion, the significance of the Employee's Case is a negative harbinger as a laid-off individual cannot trust to the politicians, the anti-employee media, the union, and the most important of all - the Justice System. Hence my following moniker...


'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System




BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employescasecanada.ca (30 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. teacher lay-off in 1985) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. Currently there are two SCofC hearings slated (QC & SK) with a pending hearing in P.E.I. as the Justice System gets ubered (external threat from an unexpected source) through the interlocking legal proceedings from different courts across Canada. Pulitzer Prize seeking writer is sought in this one-of-a-kind story of the century. This edition is focused on disclosure in the SCofC appeal (26883) of QC courts.


A) '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

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

C) 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 his trial!

...let me explain it one more time....

1) I was targeted in a criminal fraud by the B.C. government/judiciary/employer/union in 1985 in a spurious teacher lay-off under the neophyte BILL 35 used only on this senior teacher and withdrawn before this case had been completed (Banana Republic Justice).

2) For 30 years, as the targeted individual,  I have wandered the legal desert in limbo due to the corrupt Canadian Judicial System. No legal answer is now a legal answer = anarchy.

3) Recently the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) assigned a docket number to me (26883) appealing the corrupt legal practices of Quebec in my sole bid to get disclosure (the meeting notes of the West Vancouver School Trustees in June of 1985 which would form the basis of an RCMP laid criminal fraud charge. Without that evidence, my legal case is stillborn. For 30 years that disclosure has been the central object of every court appearance ignored by those justices appointed by the Chief Justices = judicial cover-up.)

4) While there have been a number of approaches to the SCofC, #26883 marks the first time that a docket number for a hearing has been assigned in which the preliminary question relates to disclosure as noted above. Obtaining that disclosure from the SCofC ends my interest in QC, as I have no direct interest in examining the very serious malfeasance of the Quebec courts in undermining me (and the justice system) under that request.

5) The next step is similar to B.C.'s S106159 laid in B.C. in September of 2010 which was summarily disposed by a judge acting on her own recognizance and for reasons best known to herself, as opposed to the sitting judge whom would be forced to take legal argument and, if disagreed on by one of the litigants, could be appealed to the SCofC...and that would never do....

6) In S106159, my position was that, as the courts refused to recognize me  apart from the Union (a spurious notion created by Spencer j. in 1995 when I asked the court to return employment as earlier recommended by the court due to the failure of the Employer to follow through with a subsequent court ordered re-arbitration); the court, I requested, should get together with the Employer and Union to decide how this matter was to be resolved. Meanwhile, I requested that I be returned to salary as per contractual agreement while the case was being resolved.

7) In exasperation in July of 2013, Justice A. Cullen (Cullen Creed) expelled me from the B.C. Justice System for reasons best known to himself forcing me to apply to other courts: Federal Court / Ontario Court / Saskatchewan Court (where a second SCofC challenge has been made) / PEI court...all in this bid to get disclosure in this unresolved legal matter.

8) Currently, the SCofC (26883) is stonewalling my attempts to obtain disclosure which is vital to the further definition of my case wherein I seek a repetition of the spirit of S106159 in which Chief Justice Rt. Hon. B. McLachlin (for the courts) and P.M. Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau (for the government) sit down and decide how this case is to be resolved. In that endeavor, the measure of the courts and McLachlin j. have been taken leaving the focus on P.M. Trudeau and his executive powers as he is to be the first P.M. charged with 'saving Canadian democracy'.



8) Similar to 2010, I invite SCofC Chief Justice B. McLachlin to sit down with Prime Minister J. Trudeau in some enclave or other to resolve this case (26883) should I not be given disclosure as a preliminary measure which would permit me to define further the case against the conspirators. On resolution, perhaps they could send up a whiff of 'white smoke' for 36 million Canadians to see. They have 30 days to do this. (copies of this newsletter sent to them for the purpose.)



9) The first thing to note is that the Employee's Case did not create legal skulduggery as it has always been around but has never been exposed (similar to Senator Duffy's case). That is why both cases are 'standing cases'.

10) Have any of the Justices concerned seen the disclosure mentioned above? Nope, otherwise I would have to be given a copy. Hence the existence of a 'grey eminence' whom has backdoor access to the Offices of the Chief Justices (Frank McArdle, President of the Superior Court judges Association and the husband of SCofC's Beverley McLachlin?)

11) It is not so much what is in the disclosure notes as the fact that B.C. Justice Mary Southin (r. 2004) called for them, but later returned them to the Employer and Union 'because she did not use them'. Why return them?...too hot to leave in the court record? In brief, after she quashed the arbitration ruling the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable, she began the judicial process in which the courts acted as agent for the Employer. In that process over the past 30 years, the SCofC has sanctioned the 'sweetheart deal' (1997) placing individual employees at great risk and sacrificed the notion of union membership. In 2004, they again refused to hear this matter under 'ultimate remedy' without which no legal system can survive.

12) I declared JULY 1 (Canada's Birthday) to now be labeled 'Anti-Judge Day' with the 'Individual' in Canadian Society to be extinct as of the last Federal Election on October 19-2015 in which the politicians and media  would remain silent on the lead issue in Canada today; namely, the efficacy of our courts. Will I have to add 'Anti-Justin Day' to this list as well?

13) In fact, the SCofC was quite happy to refuse any hearing on this matter on two occasions   leaving me in a permanent state of limbo defying the basic legal concept that a Justice System rests on 'finality'. So why permit a hearing now?

14) Because I am rolling up the lower court Justice Systems from sea to sea with my ubering technique. That has to be stopped according to this logic, but how?

15) The narrow answer is for the SCofC to refuse my submission by claiming that QC courts outside of B.C. do not have the necessary jurisdiction - which is nonsense - to deal with this case = end of ubering but at what price? And even then, the restriction is narrowed to QC.

16) This SCofC hearing is before 9 individual Judges where their reputations are directly placed on the line  as symbols of extant judicial principals: Justices: Hon.'s  B. McLachlin / R. Abella/ T.Cromwell/ M. Moldaver /A. Karakatsanis/ R. Wagner/ C. Gascon/ S. Coté/ R. Brown

17) The above hearing draws into question the 'Cullen Creed' of 2013 and how I was expelled from B.C. The SCofC, should they believe that B.C. is the proper forum for this case - as do I - then that Creed plus any other inhibitory rulings must be lifted to enable this plaintiff to proceed from other provinces to B.C. under the 'transference' features.

18)Then I am back to S106159 (of 2010) requesting that I be placed back on salary (as per contractual arrangements) with the courts and the Employer and the Union to decide on a possible outcome which meets with my approval).

19) Or the SCofC could order me back to employment due to legal abandonment by the employer with all terms of the contract to apply; namely 30 years of back salary plus interest which exists apart from judicial findings (I should never have been released from salary until this matter was resolved). Further,  they cannot rule as to the legitimacy of the lay-off without a re-arbitration. The return to employment would place me in a position to negotiate with the Employer for a buy-out (current unprejudiced offer is $10 million).

20) Other action by the SCofC depends on the 'disclosure' documents.

21) N.B. the SCofC Appeal from SK includes a challenge to BILL 35 as being ultra vires (which it is) with all matters flowing from it to be 'null and void'. That topic is not under discussion here. That  SCofC Registry docket registration is currently overdue.

22) The P.M. with his executive powers, is the one really being placed on trial here as he does have options including the simple expedient of sending in the RCMP (Montreal Fraud Division has a complete dossier from me for the purpose). Doing nothing is NOT an option otherwise it remains for the next Prime Minister of Canada to act on a legal matter without precedence for which Canada wanders in the proverbial desert looking for its 'burning bush'.


Yours truly (The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System)




BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employescasecanada.ca (30 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. teacher lay-off in 1985) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. Currently there are two SCofC hearings slated (QC & SK) with a pending hearing in P.E.I. as the Justice System gets ubered (external threat from an unexpected source) through the interlocking legal proceedings from different courts across Canada. Pulitzer Prize seeking writer is sought in this one-of-a-kind story of the century. This edition is focused on the perfidy of Saskatchewan Courts

April 20-2016


TO: Harris & Co. ATTN: G. Litherland

       14th Flr. 550 Burrard St. Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2B5

       tel: 604-684-6633

FROM: Roger Callow (APPELLANT  CACV 278-SK Appeal Court)

              1285 Cahill Drive #2001, Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7



1) Acknowledgment of your letter enclosing the Judgment of the Court, dated March 22,2016 and forwarded to me by your letter dated April 06-2019 (received April 19-2016 due to an incorrect address) is made. I did not receive a copy of this document from the court signed by the Deputy Registrar.

2)  I expect this letter to be included by Harris & Co. in any claim that they may make in court for payment of fees authorized by the court. Until their actions are properly examined by the Saskatchewan Law Society (third request of  letters dated October 30-2015 and February-2016 included here as an addendum), no funds should be paid to Harris & Co. Further, as in QC (SCofC 36883), without a proper evaluation of alleged Harris & Company duplicity, I will object to the Employer being represented in the Supreme Court of Canada by this outfit.

3) This is not the first time that a court has seen fit to route all correspondence through the Employer without a copy to this litigant. For example, receipt of one B.C. surety claim was received by me under similar circumstances after which my action would have been overdue if I had not found out in other timely ways about this type of judicial machinations.

4) In that B.C. claim, I was forced to post a $10,000 surety to ensure the progress of my case in B.C. courts. Due to judicial chicanery, that case never proceeded in B.C. Courts but due to the expulsion of this litigant in this unresolved labour case (Cullen Creed July 2013); I may not reclaim this amount which explains why I requested the surety judge in SK (Ottenbreit j.) to access those monies should he find against me. He did not, preferring to request a further $8,000 posted in SK of which I complied even though he turned the laws on surety upside down by declaring this matter as a 'special case'. (Earlier, my Ontario  legal Counsel had asserted in the B.C. surety matter, that I was - and always had been - current with my legal bills and that collection of such legal fees could be made anywhere in Canada in any event. That argument fell on deaf ears as did my similar argument before Ottenbreit j.)

5) The surety hearing in SK therefore, was a judicial travesty, particularly as Harris & Co. did not substantiate their claims - nor were they asked to by the court - of unpaid bills. For example, the claim that I owed $22,000 to Hicks, Morley,et al in Ontario was met by a later letter by me to the West Vancouver School Board (February 11-2016) requesting information as to whether or not they paid such a sum as I had never received any such billing. There was no response. (Hicks,Morley et al dropped representation of the Employer. Complaints to the oversight bodies in Ontario concerning their conduct go without a response as do complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council regarding the complicity of two originally Federal Court appointed ON judges in that debacle.)

6) The 'non-judgment' of the SK Appeal Court is a further travesty of justice and explains why an Appeal is being made to the Supreme Court of Canada:

a) As a comparison between the two provinces, a 500 word (billable time nonsense as only 5% of the Book of Authorities was used according to one QC justice) presentation by Lavery, de Billy for the Employer was properly indexed. Not so in SK by Harris & Co. So what did the SK Appeal Court do under the terms of 'perfection'? Directed this party as the Appellant to index this matter in an 8 hour task which, I guess, passes for judicial humour. One positive outcome was that, for a first time, I was able to give a point by point rebuttal to the arguments posted by Harris & Co.

b) The court hearing by ignoring the above evidence in the manner that they did, it is submitted here, was a sham. Merely 'rubber-stamping' the lower court decision of the Megaw j. decision merely made this lower court action as the de facto Appeal Court.

c) The manner in which Madam Justice G.R. Jackson comported herself in this telephone conferencing in a half hour hearing leaves much to be desired. A complaint to the Saskatchewan Oversight Body (included here as an addendum in correspondence to Joanne Colledge-Miller in February 2016) was rejected for jurisdictional reasons without stating where the complaint should be lodged . Are all three Appeal Court judges federally appointed?

d) When Jackson j. opened this court session by telling me to proceed; I queried why that would be so considering that Harris & Co. had launched an Order to Dismiss which is to be considered first. I did not get a definitive answer, learning only later in this session, that the court had made a prior arrangement not to hear from Harris & Co. I had no such knowledge of these prior agreements. (Once before in B.C., a justice stated in court that only I would be heard (which is reflective of giving the non-heard side the decision) which is the only way such arrangements may be made.) She refused Harris & Co. permission to respond to my central question in this case; namely, does or does not the Employer owe me compensation in this case? (Previously in Ontario, the Employer launched a case claiming that no compensation was owed in this 30 year unresolved case.)

e) Further, Jackson j. refused permission to the other two justices when I asked their opinions regarding the contentious matter of 'jurisdiction'. The fact that they complied with her order was sufficient for me to call for the removal of all three judges from the bench.

f) As to her question as to jurisdiction, I must have had a good argument as she made no reference to my assertion on that level in her judgment. (The key is that while the rules of jurisdiction, for the most part, refer to matters peculiar to any one province, that does not exclude external applications. In short, this concept hangs on the fact that the word 'only' is not included hence an exclusionary interpretation cannot apply. Perhaps this is why a major Asiatic trade pact would ask for a tribunal apart from Canadian Courts recently which is usually associated with Third World countries without the necessary infrastructure.)

7) In conclusion, the credibility of the SK court structure is badly exposed leaving individual laid-off workers unable to trust to SK courts. Regrettably, Premier Wall, NDP's Cam Broten and the Regina Leader Post are eloquent in their silence waiting, one presumes, for Prime Minister Trudeau to exert his executive powers in this lead civil case in Canadian jurisprudence. As matters stand, SCofC Chief Justice, B. McLachlin is the de facto CEO of Canada as Prime Minister Trudeau is seen to fiddle while the Canadian Judiciary burns to the ground.

Yours truly,


Roger Callow 'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System' employescasecanada.ca


cc SCofC Registry Officer Suzanne Sarrazin

SK Law Society

Premier Wall / NDP Cam Broten / Regina Leader Post

West Vancouver School Trustees

P.M. Justin Trudeau

RCMP (Montreal Fraud Div.)



     The infamous O.J. Simpson trial holds the key to the Duffy Trial. Simpson was found not guilty criminally but guilty civilly where the bar for conviction is much lower due to the fact that no prison sentence results. So how did the PMO mess up on this level? The RCMP will only prosecute criminally leaving it to other bodies to pursue civil remedies which is the current course of the Senate on other Senator abusers. In short, the PMO arm-wrestled the RCMP into submission as the RCMP should never have laid a criminal charge in this case. Justice Vaillancourt saw how the Justice system was also being manipulated to fall into the same trap as the RCMP and reacted by throwing all 31 charges out. (Would the result have been the same if the Tories had won the election last year? Of course we will never know.)

     Similarly, I have been seeking disclosure in the Employee's Case (minutes of West Vancouver School Board meeting notes in June of 1985) in order that the RCMP can lay a criminal charge against the conspirators which include the B.C. Government (BILL 35), the Justice System, The Employer and the Union...it doesn't get any bigger than that.

     I now know what happened in June of 1985; but merely 'knowing' and being able to prove my point in a court of law are two very different things hence the need for disclosure. The Justice System has circled the wagons due to their complicity so that while Senator Duffy 'has his day in court'; I have been cheated out of a hearing of the main issue in 10 separate court systems before 40 judges in my attempts to get 'due process' as appointed judges from the Offices of the Chief Justices are given their marching orders (no Justice Vaillancourts here) to bury this case. While Vaillancourt may have the courage to condemn a defeated government, where is the judge(s) prepared to condemn the incumbent Justice System? Better to sacrifice the entire Canadian Justice System than ever to admit to a level of cover-up unequalled in the annals of any democracy, is the bottom line in this national disaster which the anti-employee media and P.M. Trudeau  would boycott.