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 a requested letter for a preliminary request to the SCofC on disclosure.




A) 'A culture is unsalvageable if stabilizing forces themselves become ruined and irrelevant.

...these 5 jeopardized pillars are... (5) self policing by the learned professions  Dark Age Ahead  Jane Jacobs  N.B. NO oversight body will acknowledge my many complaints against judges and lawyers, let alone rule one way or the other on the issues=anarchy


May 14-2015   (annotated & revised for June 01-2016 )

TO: The Supreme Court of Canada   ATTN: Suzanne Sarrazin Registry Officer

FROM: Roger Callow   employescasecanada.ca

REFERENCE: SCofC #36993 (SK) with a copy to #36883 (QC)


1) Thank goodness for those Registry officers such as Registry Officer Sarrazin whom provide the necessary 'oil' to keep the gears of the Judiciary moving as navigating the rules of various court systems in this virtual minefield which I have done for the past 30 years, is a challenge.

2) Regrettably, that accolade does not extend to the 40 plus judges assigned to this case plus legal counsel for the Respondent Employer and Union.

3) While the Respondents have relative freedom to launch their defense, that does not include collusion with the courts of law as reflected by judicial decisions. I have accused judges of acting as an agent for the Employer numerous times in that regard. The lengthy filibustering by the many courts, particularly as it refers to disclosure has led me to conclude that the Justice System of Canada is guilty of systematic judicial abuse.

4) The three Respondent Employer legal firms in B.C. (also SK); ON (dropped representation) and QC have all been referred to their respective Legal Societies by me for their alleged egregious behaviour. There has been no response. The SCofC is called on to determine those actions in SK and QC in the current cases where I have called for a ban on their presence until their actions are adjudicated by the oversight bodies referred to. Almost all judges have been also referred to the oversight bodies; particularly the Canadian Council of Judges under the aegis of president, the Hon. B. MacLachlan. The CLC has never acknowledged any complaint from me explaining why the PMO has been called on by me for executive action. More on this point down below.


Specific Changes now being made in #36993 in discussion with S. Sarrazin:

5) Revised FORM 25B to make the language more explicit (essentially to make this issue 'open for public knowledge')

6) To inculcate all correspondence to the Registry, some without reference specifically to the Supreme Court of Canada, which I will do in a REPLY to the Respondent (Employer) which is now under a 30 day time limit for them to file a response for SK. A copy of that REPLY will also be filed separately in #36883 (QC) including this letter.

7) To write an account as to the necessity of disclosure prior to any court hearing.



8) Without disclosure, there is no justice system as it forms the basis of habeas corpus (produce the body or 'body of evidence'). That has been the sticking point in every court of law since 1995 in this case (B.C. Supreme Court's Spencer j. Decision)

9) Disclosure has been consistently obviated by both the Respondent Employer and Union with the compliance of the court. Those meeting notes of the West Vancouver School Board in June of 1985 where they discussed the neophyte BILL 35 with government representation and the lay-off of senior teacher, Roger Callow, were called for and returned by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Southin in 1986 'because she did not use them'. Revelation of those notes has always been refused by the Employer and Union which are at the heart of my allegations of fraud in this matter.

10) It is with some trepidation that I approach the Supreme Court of Canada considering their  earlier reaction to this unresolved labour case where no compensation has been paid. On two occasions they refused to hear this matter: the first time in 1997 ( 25891 'universality of unions') before Chief Justice A. Lamers (d) / B. MacLachlan (incumbent Chief Justice / Cory and the second time in 2004 (30196'ultimate remedy') before Bastarache / Deschamps / Lebel where MacLachlan was Chief Justice. As 25C (conflict of interest) has been rescinded, I have requested that she voluntarily recuse herself from any role in these current hearings. In brief, we are here today because of SCofC inaction on a matter of national importance dating from over a decade ago.

11) In 1995, I initiated an action against the Employer (Spencer j.) with no union present, requesting that due to the abandonment of this case by the Employer (to return to arbitration as ordered by Justice Southin in 1986 when they refused to return employment as recommended by the court), that the should return employment should be altered to read must return employment (in law, a court recommendation carries weight).

12) No doubt sensing a 'sweetheart deal' between Employer and Union, Spencer ruled that only the Union could represent my interests; an argument reinforced by all future B.C. courts until I was expelled by the A. Cullen Creed for reasons best known to himself in 2013. No-one was arguing the Union position before Spencer. In short, he ducked out creating the firestorm that led to the first SCofC hearing vis a vis to sanctioning the' sweetheart deal'. It is to be noted here that the Employer has always argued that this case does not fall under the collective bargaining rules as the conditions of the imposed BILL 35 negated that role. That is the colossal failure of the Lamers court to deal with such as the matter of 'imposed legislation vs statute law' which is at the heart of the smooth functioning of our Parliamentary government.

13) But what if fraud is shown as a consequence of the revelation of those meeting notes? Then everything that follows is null and void. In that regard, Justice Southin states: 'Nowhere did the Board show an intention to lay-off a teacher' (the Board were never called to the stand to testify to lay-off numbers which showed an increase of 16 teacher positions which the arbitrator had converted to 16 lay-offs adding my own as the necessary 17th knowing full well that I was the only teacher laid off in June of 1985.) A lay-off Board notice without showing the vote count appeared at arbitration. Under the access to information bid by me in 2004, the vote went 2 out of 5 favouring the dismissal which was marked 'carried'. No mention of the lay-off was made in the general meeting of the Board on June 26-1985. Nor was there any 'meeting notes' included in that 2004 submission. Superintendent Ed Carlin quoted School Board authority and Bill 35 in his lay-off letter of June 28-1985. BILL 35 became law on July 01-1985 and was only ever used against this B.C. teacher before it was rescinded (banana republic justice). Conspicuous by its absence in the arbitrator's Report favouring the School District was the testimony of Asst. Superintendent, Bill May, responsible for staffing, claiming that he did not recommend the lay-off of any teacher in June of 1985. The request, he stated, came from the Superintendent. The arbitrator was later ruled patently unreasonable by Southin j. when she quashed the arbitration leaving this target in what has turned out to be a 30 year state of limbo. No compensation has ever been paid (includes pension rights).

14) So what has been the argument of the Employer over the years which has been bought into willy nilly by every justice on this case? That I am being frivolous and vexatious attempting to re-litigate matters already decided (res judicata) . The question of jurisdiction comes up in courts outside of B.C. which also refuse to ask the Employer which matters have been decided and by whom? Nor do they deal with the 'Cullen Creed' expelling this litigant from B.C. for 'reasons best known to a judge'.

15) This rather dreary account above is included explaining why no court hearing has any credibility - including the two current SCofC challenges - without including this necessary disclosure as a preliminary to any hearing. If this requires the SCofC to declare this matter as a 'special case' in order to do so, they can look to the example of SK Appeal Court Justice Ottenbreit over-turning 'surety rules' (which I was forced to pay) by declaring the matter a 'special case'. Surely 'what's good for the goose should be good for the gander'.

16) While disclosure underlies the case in both venues of SK and QC; the matter in QC is solely based on disclosure. Currently, attempts are being made to acquire the Union copy of that disclosure in P.E.I. courts. (The SK appeal also includes the constitutional question of the ultra vires nature of BILL 35 which the Respondents are expected to include in their Response, otherwise my assertion must stand and all action flowing from BILL 35 becomes null and void.)

17) Many of the points above have been made in my SCofC factums; the intent here is to focus on this matter as a 'special case' to effect the ends of justice. What I need, and have not had in 40 judicial appointments, is a Judge Vallaincourt (Duffy Trial) or Judge Horkins (Ghomeshi trial) to be an honest broker in these matters.

18) A copy of this account is also included to the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister where executive powers of Parliamentary oversight are long overdue (quote:the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in times of crisis. Dante) Plus how much longer can one expect the national media to maintain a boycott on this colossal cover-up?

Yours truly


Roger Callow  Appellant

cc Respondent Employer, the WVST 

J.M. Wilson-Raybould / RCMP (Montreal Fraud Division)

M.P.'s : Ambrose / May / Nathan Cullen (for T. Mulcair)

P.E.I. Premier W. MacLauchlan




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 clusterfuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. Currently there is an extant SCofC hearing (36993 SK) with a hearing against the Union pending 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. Through a process labeled 'reverse osmosis' I have broached the 'glass ceiling' of the Old Boy's Club, no doubt a first. This edition is focused on the final collapse of Canada and her institutions (courts and government) as it relates to the Decision of SCofC 36883 QC delivered on June 9-2016 by judges Wagner/Coté/ Cromwell (retiring).


 QUOTE: "Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?'  Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?'  Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?'  But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' "  Martin Luther King Jr.



(1997-demise of unions/ 2004-demise of contracts=Canada becomes a Third World Country/ 2016-demise of habeas corpus = nothing left= July 1 (Canada's Birthday renamed Anti-Judge Day as Canadians no longer deserve a birthday for failing to 'stand on guard for thee')


1) Whichever way you look at it, Canada and its institutions are FUBAR as a consequence of the 30 year unresolved  Employee's Case (Canada) in a matter labeled as systematic  judicial malfeasance. No democracy has met that unenviable end and still remained a democracy.

2) By refusing disclosure (for 30 years) the SCofC court (36883 QC) has denied not only habeas corpus as the essence of all law; but has also sought to cover-up judicial malfeasance in QC on a level never before encountered. In brief, the judges look out for their own and the rest of the country be damned in that process. While this litigant has other alternatives, those options are now barred to 35 million Canadians. 

3) In terms of this issue, the second Appeal (36993 SK) yet to be heard- which also calls for disclosure- is focused on the ultra vires nature of B.C.'s imposed BILL 35 thus making anything that emanates from this appalling BILL null and void if the action is successful. (In true 'banana republic fashion'; the B.C. government withdrew BILL 35 in the 1990's before this sole laid case was resolved).

4) Reread the web site under  SCofC-36993 SK and the two newspaper clippings from September 1986 (complete with photographs). The key to the Employer's Appeal of Justice Southin's decision was that there was to be no judicial oversight under BILL 35 conditions in which she ruled the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable when she quashed the arbitration but fell short of claiming fraud of which there most obviously was which would have led to unquestionable court jurisdiction (Southin was playing her own convoluted game). The Employer lost that Appeal but carried on as if their contention was still valid leading to civil disobedience of a court-ordered renewed arbitration which subsequent courts have ignored. For example, if B.C. Justice Spencer in 1995 was not about to order me back to employment due to the apparent abandonment by the Employer, then he had no choice but to order the matter back to arbitration which Justice Southin ordered when the School Board did not return employment as she recommended.(In law, a recommendation carries weight and was not 'merely her personal opinion' according to School Board chairman, Margo Furk.) Spencer ducked the question by absurdly claiming that I had 'no status'. Only the Union-not represented in court- could act  and it was clear by 1995, that the Union had also abandoned this issue. The B.C. Labour Board would not hold any Section 12 meeting, the only legal option available to this writer in B.C. until the 'Cullen Creed' even took that option away when they expelled me from B.C. 'for reasons best known to a judge' in July of 2013 explaining my appearance in courts outside of B.C. (SEE CALLOW ARGUMENT under SCofC-36993.) In short, the judicial system has let the Employer gain through 'the back door' what they could not achieve through 'the front door'. The Justice System has been inextricably caught with their hands in the proverbial 'cookie jar' in that enterprise and there is no way out.

5) That notion of BILL 35 with its own conditions existing apart from the court oversight and the B.C. Labour Board has never been tested in law as a constitutional question and is at the heart of the Employer's claim that they do not owe any compensation to this writer. To them, the arbitrator's decision, in that regard, is final. In Ontario, Hicks, Morley et al for the Employer (since dropped representation due to my accusations of fraudulent activity) even launched a case before Ottawa Superior Justice, Colin McKinnon, (13-59060) making this claim where I was the Respondent. In one of the more bizarre judgments, McKinnon j. ignored the Employer's claim altogether but turned on me for being frivolous & vexatious. The anti-employee Ottawa Citizen (April 29-2014) in a page 1 story printed McKinnon's bald assertions while  refusing me the right of reply in that process.

6) The constitutional challenge is one of arguing imposed government legislation vs statute law (e.g. collective bargaining process) in which - as in BILL 35 - there is no explicit rejection of any part of the statute law (Union arbitration argument). That has yet to be another challenge to the SCofC unless the SK (36993) SCofC challenge extends their limits to deal with this question.


7) The only thing left for Canada and Canadians is for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to exert executive privilege. Dismissing Chief Justice B. McLachlin and immediately suspending SCofC judges Wagner/ Coté / Cromwell (dock his pension) and sending in the RCMP (Montreal Fraud Division) is the first step. Avoiding that, he must step down and leave it for another 21st century Prime Minister to act as Canada will be nothing more than a social and legal embarrassment in the international arena until action is taken in this case. President Obama's visit to Canada on June 29 would be an ideal time for him to warn U.S. commercial interests about dealing with the Canadian Justice System.

8) So, would the real CEO of Canada please stand up? Beverley McLachlin or Justin Trudeau ...and it certainly isn't Justin....


                                    (signed Roger Callow)The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System



Reference is being made to a)Senator Mike Duffy case b)CBC employee Jian Ghomeshi case

c) The Employees Case Canada.


1) The key feature of a standing case is that it broaches a rule of law 'in virgin territory'.

2) The first two cases - Duffy and Ghomeshi - were truncated and therefore never saw the full effect of what made them standing cases in the first place. The Employee's Case was brought to fruition on disclosure which is the basis of habeas corpus and therefore all law with the SCofC's refusal (Strike 3) on June 9-2016 to hear this case. That's anarchy and as no oversight body (including Parliament) has seen fit to intervene, only the executive powers of a 21st century P.M. stand between Canada and oblivion as a democracy.

3) The Duffy Trial: Senator Duffy did not do anything that Senators have not been doing (and worse) since 1867 when the institution was created under the BNA Act, Canada's birthday.

It is like cars speeding on the highway with only Duffy being arrested for speeding illustrating that the law does not punish speeders per se; rather, only those speeders that they apprehend and convict. Duffy was apprehended and found innocent (in law) without a proper examination of the 'loosey-goosey' Senate rules which were what was really on trial. The courts kept the spotlight on the criminal activity of Duffy whom was charged and away from any serious examination of the Senate whose activity bordered on criminal, if not in actual case criminal in its collusion.

4) The Ghomeshi trial was also a standing case as the CBC dismissed him without reason, no doubt as a means to circumvent Ghomeshi's access to the collective bargaining rules and Union financing of his court case. Publicity forced a reluctant Union to provide support in an expensive trial in which Ghomeshi was acquitted. No recompense is received by the Union under these circumstances. To be sure, the Union pressed very hard to make sure that there would be no further trials in exchange for a Ghomeshi (non) apology. The Crown also probably put much pressure on the next Ghomeshi victim to avoid a trial. The key, as far as a standing case is concerned, is whether the Union represented Ghomeshi under the collective bargaining rules or under some other gratuitous reason (similar to the Employee's Case)? We will never know.

5) The Employees Case has not been truncated as the Supreme Court of Canada concluded 30 years of a search for disclosure, which underlies habeas corpus and hence the entire justice system, by dismissing this Appellant's request for a hearing which, in the context of this case where there is no lower court decision, would consign him to a permanent state of limbo. No legal answer is now, officially in Canada, a legal answer which is patently unreasonable.  All Canada is held to this highly obnoxious precedent. That's anarchy within our justice system now in free fall.

6) And it does not stop there. The constitutional question as to the ultra vires question in BILL 35 currently extant before the SCofC (36993) raises the standing question of whether aberrant government legislation (where terms such as 'current demonstrated ability' are undefined in the Act or in the Law in general) may escape court scrutiny due to judicial machinations. If so, why bother having courts of law in the first place as there may be no exceptions-unless clearly stated-to the law? The Employee's Case brings into focus a second aspect of that charge; namely, the relation between imposed government legislation and statute law as to which system will prevail? In the Employee's Case, The Employer claims that the conditions of BILL 35 only apply hence the court has no oversight application while the court system would quash the arbitration ruling the arbitrator as being patently unreasonable. Which system is to prevail? After 10 separate court systems and over 40 judges, we still do not know. Hence the SK Justice System - where disclosure is also called for - will call into question as to why anyone can trust to a court of law or government should the SCofC also refuse to hear this case as well. No doubt a 'quick deed' signing on this second challenge will be made immediately before the long July weekend in a bid to bury it from media exposure. (No worry there, as the anti-employee media is firmly in the back pockets of the conspirators on this one.) That will be Strike 4 in this kafkaesque challenge as we eclipse even baseball rules...and that would never do....

7) 'If at first you do not succeed...try, try again....' The PEI case against the Union (plus other future challenges) will seek to challenge the Union for their copy of the disclosure material as well as the constitutional challenge between government vs courts outlined above for SK. All I need is an honest judge such as Duffy and Ghomeshi received and not the 40 plus bozos assigned this case to date.


Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive




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 clusterfuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. Currently there is an extant SCofC hearing (36993 SK) with a hearing against the Union pending 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. Through a process labeled 'reverse osmosis' I have broached the 'glass ceiling' of the Old Boy's Club, no doubt a first. This edition 'walks back the cat' viewing this matter from the point of view of 'blackmail'




1) As an overview, like most Canadians in 1985 when I was laid off under the neophyte imposed BILL 35, I had an instinctive trust for the judiciary. The past 30 years of litigation in this unresolved B.C. labour case extending to many forums outside of B.C. as well, has shown just how mistaken that notion was to be. Today, the Canadian Justice System lies in tatters due to the machinations in this case culminating in SCofC 36883 QC (June 09-2016) which are paralleled in many other cases in Canada as well. The Employees Case Canada marks the first exposure of the courts corruption in a manner never told before in a matter of systematic judicial malfeasance. Now it is the turn of the government (36993 SK awaiting scheduling).

2) Let's begin with the quashed arbitration with the arbitrator being ruled as being patently unreasonable by B.C. Superior Court, Justice Southin, in 1986.

3) The key to the 16 new hires in June of 1985 in arbitration must be tested in court; specifically by the testimony of the School Board Trustees. No trustee took the stand as neither the Employer nor Union Counsel nor the arbitrator called for them. (I came close to dismissing the Union hired lawyer, Alan Black and - as later events showed - would have been the correct move on that point). Government appointed Arbitrator, Louis Lindholm, under these conditions felt he could convert 16 new hires into 16 lay-offs with myself as the necessary 17th. In short, he believed that he was looking at a 'sweetheart deal' (most dismissals involving a Union have some degree of collusion with the Employer) and hence could do as he pleased.

4) I changed lawyers to Harry Rankin (d) and his junior acolyte, Bruce Laughton, whom shocked the Union when he filed an appeal in court without their knowledge (the Union was stalling past the appeal period deadline). The Union belatedly decided to finance the Court Appeal as they had the earlier 11 day expensive arbitration.

5) Justice Southin ordered the matter back to arbitration when the School Board refused to re-employ Mr. Callow claiming, as the Board did, that the terms of BILL 35 determined this case and NOT the collective bargaining process nor court oversight. Hence, they have always maintained that the Arbitration is the only valid decision. Their appeal of Southin's  Order was rejected. (At no time did Justice Southin label this matter a fraud which automatically would have meant court oversight. That's why the memo notes of those School Board meetings are all important as part of disclosure which no court for 30 years will order up.)

6) About this time, Harry asked for a written order from me to proceed, an unusual condition as verbal consent was always accepted to that point. But consider the wording: A) Mr.Callow gives his consent for Rankin & Co. to pursue this matter back to arbitration  B) In the event that this course is not available, then Mr. Callow consents to a financial agreement between the Board and himself with the Union obtaining the best agreement under the circumstances.

That was firing language (for both Rankin & Laughton). If the Union and Board signed an agreement without my consent, then I could have pursued the Union (for close to 90% of the settlement now offered by me at $10 million).

7) Labour lawyer Leo McGrady was selected by me to pursue this matter of re-arbitration before Justice Southin, particularly as it related to assigning a different arbitrator other than Lindholm. She declined.

8) The fix was in and I was highly unlikely to succeed unless the Union placed the Board Trustees on the stand to testify as to lay-off numbers. The Union refused.

9) In the interim, if Lindholm got anything right in his life; it was with his timely leave-taking leaving this matter in a state of frustration (legal term in which unusual circumstances force an alteration in which individual litigants are not to suffer as a consequence). 

10) As nothing transpired on any level, I went back to court in 1995 (Spencer j.) claiming that, as the Employer had apparently abandoned this matter, the correct course was to change Southin's should return employment to must return employment with all terms of the agreement to apply. Spencer's response? I had 'no status' as only the Union could act on my behalf (They had apparently abandoned this matter as well). That stand was designed to put the squeeze on me to accept a buy-out. It failed although there were appeals all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada on the 'universality of Unions' question in 1997 which was never heard = demise of union movement as the courts, in essence, sanctioned the 'sweetheart deal'

Now the blackmail

11) When Justice Southin returned the secret memo notes (June 1985 School Board meetings on this topic of disclosure) 'because she did not use them' and in falling short of declaring this lay-off a fraud (which it was) thereby apparently throwing away the court's jurisdiction (as the Employer refused to recognize anything but BILL 35 declaring the Courts and Union in that perspective to be superfluous, she opened herself to blackmail which has remained in force to the present time 30 years later with the recent SCofC 36883 QC. The court denied a hearing leading to the last coffin nail in the Justice System of Canada as the rejection is a direct blow to habeas corpus. (SEE STRIKE 3 in the June 12-2016 Newsletter).

12) In brief, the quid pro quo unspoken agreement between the School Trustees and the court is that as long as they do not order any compensation paid to Mr. Callow, The Board will withhold the aforesaid disclosure. Herein lay the rationale of the eminence gris with backdoor access to Chief Justices across the land.

13) In case this plaintiff accidentally got an honest judge to request disclosure, the Employer has made 'shots across the bow' of the Justice System. There are many examples but I will  mention here only the one in Ontario before Ottawa Superior Court Justice,Colin McKinnon.

14) #13-59060 was laid by the Employer 'asking that all issues be discussed' which as the Respondent, I was in complete agreement with the Employer. Their plea was ignored but a panicked judge flip flopped and blasted this Respondent for being frivolous & vexatious. He even outdid himself by issuing two separate Decisions (the second one on September 15-2014 made no reference to the earlier one on April 23-2014 -2014. That April 23 Decision  was the one that the anti-employee Ottawa Citizen published on April 29-14 refusing, in that publication, to take my right of reply. (For 30 years, the anti-employee Canadian media has run a boycott on this lead legal matter). The second September Decision was used in a case which I had filed before a Justice Scott in October-2014 under highly irregular conditions in which Hicks, Morley et al departed the scene. The ON Legal Society nor Attorney General has never acknowledged my complaint as to those proceeding irregularities.

15) The Employer has always seen fit to include my material which, as stated in the QC version of events, actually made my case for the Supreme Court of Canada. The SCofC Appeal 36993 SK yet to be heard, is replete with my story from their files and appears under SCofC 36993 on my web site.

16) So why is the Employer feeding the court with my arguments? If the denial of the court on June 9-16 36883 QC is any example, it is to make the court into 'their bitch'. Further, if the Board is ever held responsible for this $10 million settlement, then they have ample evidence to go after the B.C. government (and courts) to reclaim that amount. Hence the filed information including the withheld 'memo notes' are the Board's insurance policy.

17) The 36993 SK case differs significantly from the QC one although it is paralleled by egregious court action. My claim here is that BILL 35 is ultra vires in that current demonstrated ability (cda) is undefined in the Act or in law in general. That was deliberate, it is submitted here, by the government as it makes a 'hanging judge' decide what 'a hanging event will be'. Justin Southin 's duplicitous claim that the Board had used the Act for the wrong reason is not the case as she well knew. The purpose of the Act was to rid itself of a whistleblower (troublesome pendent in Southin's language).  The Employer for SK failed to give a definition of cda as I implored them to do for, in law, an unrebutted argument means that an assertion must stand. The point here is that disclosure which has shattered the entire Judiciary with its June 09-16 36883 QC non-action, is no longer at stake in SK as the constitutional question is paramount .

18) A further corollary of the constitutional question of imposed government legislation vs statute law (e.g. collective bargaining process) places the government on trial as the sole authority considering the court's failure outlined above. The Employer's argument above was enunciated in Ontario's 13-59060 (Mckinnon j.) and is a case in point of the above question and it is hoped that the new Justice Minister for ON will get this matter back on track in the Appeal Court of George Strathy.

19) In brief, the Justice System in terms of 36993 SK will inveigle the government to compromise itself by hopefully keeping Prime Minister Justin Trudeau from taking action prior to the hearing of 36993 SK.


20) A few years ago, Cuidad Juarez on the U.S.-Mexico was the world's most dangerous city averaging about 10 murders per day. Today, it has been normalized primarily by the appointment of a strong-man who dismissed the authorities and instituted his own forces in such as the police and courts. The point that I wish to make here is that reform on the level of the Employee's Case Canada can only come from the executive powers of a Prime Minister in dismissing Chief Justices and Justices in this matter. In short, the SCofC hearing for SK is about the demise of government in Canada just as the SCofC hearing in QC was about the demise of the Judicial System. Stay tuned.


cc SCofC  R. Abella

     Postmedia  Christie Blatchford




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 clusterfuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. Currently there is an extant SCofC hearing (36993 SK) with a hearing against the Union pending 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. Through a process labeled 'reverse osmosis' I have broached the 'glass ceiling' of the Old Boy's Club, no doubt a first. This edition focuses on the financial fall-out which accompanies this case usually in terms of the courts assigning costs to the Employer plus renewed activity in Ontario.


1) 'They celebrated their intolerance as proof of their convictions. The Lost Symbol  D.Brown

2) 'Nothing, but nothing, got former prime minister Stephen Harper's goat more than "unelected, unaccountable judges" making law. It reached a peak when he started a fight with Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin over a planned appointment to the Supreme Court....Ottawa Sun  media's Andre Marin, the former ombudsman of ON 'shown the door' by the Wynne Gov't. commentary: Harper may have lost that battle but 'returned' the favour with the subsequent appointment of two non-entities.

JUNE 14-2016


A) The Employer (West Vancouver School Trustees) for Lavery De Billy LLP (QC) and for B.C.'s Harris & Co. (SK)

B) The incoming Attorney General for Ontario, Hon. Yasir Naqvi whom has until month end to act otherwise he will be consigned to the same MIA file as the previous two A.G.'s.

C) Prime Minister Justin Trudeau - about to go under with hearing of 36993 SK if he does not act prior to that hearing as now the government is on trial (36883 QC -court demise Jun.09-16)

D) The North Shore News which has been provided the REPLY (36993) SK. You may read their earlier analysis on the web under RED NECK MEDIA


1) Both law societies have been taxed with investigating alleged fraudulent action of the respective two legal entities listed above.

2) No monies will be paid to those entities until a proper examination of their role in QC and SK have been examined.

3)To that end, I insist that any collection must be preceded by an affidavit from the Employer listing all monies paid on account since 2010. (An earlier complaint by me to the Vancouver police on double billing by the Union representative was obviated.)

4) Repeat letters have been sent to the SK Legal Society. There has been no response.

5) The QC Legal Society wrote that the 'courts would decide the question'. As both the Appeal Court of QC and the SCofC (36883) QC June 09-2016 Decision failed to examine my proposition 'Lavery De Billy Tail wags Quebec Judicial Dog'; the task reverts to the Quebec Law Society.

6) In SK, Harris & Co. was accused of fraud with the presentation of a 'bastardized' version of the ON McKinnon Order dated September 15-2014 which gave no recognition of the original version of April 23-2014. More on this later as it relates to requested renewed investigation in ON with the new Attorney General appointment (the last two AG's were MIA).

7) In a 'specious' surety bid in SK before Appeal Court Justice Ottenbreit- specious because he over-turned the laws on surety with his declaration of a 'special case'- I paid $8,000 to guarantee an Appeal Court hearing which was later appealed to the SCofC. I felt blackmailed on that account. Should any attempt be made by the Employer to access these funds - as happened earlier in B.C. under a similar surity scam - I will pursue the Employer to the fullest extent of the law. I plan to make application to have these funds returned.

8) The sums for court payment to the Employer -for essentially the same work- range all the way from $29,000 (labeled excessive by Justice Maranger of Ottawa) by Hicks, Morley et al in Ontario (since dropped representation of the Employer amid accusations of fraud on which the Ontario Legal Society has not responded) to $2,000 assessed by Justice Megaw of the lower court in SK.

9) In the SK surety hearing, Harris & Co. made reference to an unpaid $22,000 bill in Ontario without producing any evidence; nor did Ottenbreit j. ask for any supporting evidence amid my complaint to him on that level. A later letter to the Employer requesting information on this sum was ignored raising the question as to whether taxpayer money is being spent unnecessarily...now there's a lead for the North Shore News which has already shown a penchant for attacking defenceless employees but mollycoddling corrupt Employers.


10) The cases in the SCofC (36883 QC and 36993 SK) are largely due to machinations relating to the infamous McKinnon Order (or orders as there is to be only one official Order) both focusing, as they do, on the frivolous & vexatious behaviour of this litigant and used as a means of underscoring some very serious allegations by me against the Justice System.

11) Unlike QC and SK, there were lower court hearings in Ottawa; all foiled as to Appeal under Chief Justice George Strathy. The task here for the incoming ON Attorney General is to assign an officer to unravel my appeals which appear to have disappeared 'down a black hole' in the Appeal Court of ON. Money is owed although never billed to me and I refuse to pay those monies in any event until such as a proper examination of these events is made.


12) #13-59060 before Justice Colin McKinnon of Ottawa Superior Court was laid by the Employer with myself as Respondent to discuss all issues; an action with which I was in complete agreement. McKinnon, in one of the more bizarre judicial actions (reported on page 1 of the Ottawa Citizen  on April 29-2014 where they refused my right of reply) ignored the Employer's request to discuss all issues and instead turned on this Respondent for being frivolous and vexatious...'Why are you here?' he bawled, 'You might just as well be in Texas or New Mexico than here.' To which I replied; 'I'm here as the Respondent.' He agreed with me that only the Supreme Court of Canada could handle the constitutional question. 'But how do I get there?' I asked. 'Not through Ontario Courts you don't'. Prophetically, he was correct explaining my move to other forums in QC, SK, and PEI.

13) The question raised by the Employer is the correct one and if the ON  AG does not fix the blockage in Chief Justice George Strathy's Office, then I will lay the same question although, this time with myself as Plaintiff which does not really make any difference as to who is Plaintiff and who is Respondent. SEE web SCofC 36993 SK  'REPLY-June 03-2016 'Newspaper Clippings' for the background to this question which is detailed here as well.

14) According to the Employer's argument, B.C.'s imposed BILL 35 (since withdrawn in the 1990's before this sole-laid case was resolved=banana republic justice) has its own defined terms dealing with teacher lay-off for economic reasons hence court and Labour Board (collective bargaining terms) oversight is not applicable. (Unless fraud is shown which demonstrates my 30 year search for disclosure of the June 1985 memo notes of Board meetings.) Hence the arbitrator's Decision justifying my teacher lay-off in June of 1985 is the final one, according to them. Somehow, they claim that under these circumstances, they owe no compensation raising the question as to why they kept me on salary until November 1985 (I should never have been released from salary until a resolution was found so that now the Board owes me 30 years of 'deferred salary' which exists apart from court outcomes.) In turn, I am not prepared to claim that this is a collective bargaining matter as the courts would deprive me of any status in this 'sweetheart deal' and in which the B.C. Labour Board refused any Section 12 hearing. The SCofC in 1997, in refusing to hear this matter under the 'universality of unions' killed the union movement in Canada by sanctioning this 'sweetheart deal' leaving me, as it did, in legal limbo. That is a preposterous notion under the laws.

15) Justice Southin of B.C. Supreme Court quashed the arbitration and ruled the government-appointed arbitrator, patently unreasonable, thus leaving me in limbo and in that process, creating a 'standing case'. The School Board unsuccessfully appealed. They never returned to arbitration as so-ordered by Southin when the Board refused to re-instate me as recommended by her which accounted for my appearance in 1995 before Spencer j. to change the should return employment to must return employment due to abandonment of the court order. Of course none of that story appears in the far right wing North Shore News.

16) So, let's duke it out. Which side is correct? In that bid, I request that the new ON Justice Minister select an experienced judge with an established reputation whether it be at the Appeal level or the lower Court level should I have to refile in Ontario. Of course, if they wish to shift this case to B.C. through the laws of transference, they must first quash the 'Cullen Creed' which expelled me from B.C. in 2013 'for reasons best known to a judge' plus any other restriction to represent myself in a B.C. Court.


Yours truly, (Roger Callow)


The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System and soon, an outlawed government


cc SCofC  R. Abella   

Postmedia Christie Blatchford




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 clusterfuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. Currently there is an extant SCofC hearing (36993 SK) & AB with a hearing against the Union pending 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. Through a process labeled 'reverse osmosis' I have broached the 'glass ceiling' of the Old Boy's Club, no doubt a first. This edition focuses on the complete debacle of the Quebec Justice System and Supreme Court of Canada (36883 QC - June 9 refusal to proceed) to examine what is, in effect, the 'running of a court within a court' of which, in turn, demanded executive action from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau; if only to order the RCMP into investigating this 30 year-old 'disclosure' request (habeas corpus founded on this principal). That P.M. failure is now Trudeau's legacy...he should step down.

QUOTES:  A) Why did the U.K. vote 'Leave'? Because in politics, emotion now trumps facts A. MacDougall O.C. June 25-2016  D1 ...It will be a long road back to recover lost trust in our politics...and the news media...must call a spade a spade, especially if it's a cynical, lying spade (my underlining). B) Let me tell you about another 'Brexit'. P.M. Winston Churchill stood solely against a Parliament in 1939 willing to appease the Nazis thus bringing war and destruction to Britain...in the short term...and in the longer term as well if the Nazis had not muffed their British takeover.

QUOTES: From letters of the Barreau du Quebec (File #2016-00210064-CAZ) dated January 11-2016 and June 20-2016: (disclosure: my wife is French Canadian)

a) January 11-2016: The present letter is further to yours dated December 27,2015...The Court of Appeal is the only (my underlining) entity with the proper  (what undefined nonsense!) jurisdiction in order to determine the validity of your appeal and to dispose of the Motion to Dismiss. We cannot provide you with any assistance in regards to these two matters.(What about an un-named 'third matter'; namely, dealing with the perfidy of Lavery De Billy in the conduct of those two matters?)...In order to conduct an investigation, we must obtain an information (oh, but you did!) that a lawyer has committed an offence. Given that your file does not raise such information, we are unable to open an investigation file....M. Guy Bilodeau

b) June 20, 2016 (documents received in June 2016) ...We noted that the Court of Appeal failed to examine your (and that of the Bureau du Quebec-RC) proposition and that "the task reverts to the Quebec Law Society"...As mentioned in our previous correspondence, which you will find enclosed, in order to conduct an investigation, we must first obtain an information to the effect that a lawyer has committed an offense. The documents that you have sent to us does not raise such information.(Yes they do but 'saying a thing' apparently 'makes it so' in the oversight of so many Canadian institutions.) ....M. Guy Bilodeau


1) While the duplicity of two judges at the lower Gatineau court in which the first judge held the hearing while the second judge re-opened the case and wrote a decision without referring to the existence of the first judge has to be a first in egregious judicial conduct; nonetheless, investigation of those two judges where the role of Lavery De Billy appears to be secondary, has gone without a response from either the Quebec Court authorities and, now, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) (#36883 June 9-2016). In addition to re-naming July 01 (Canada's Birthday) to Anti-Judge Day due to continuous systematic judicial malfeasance in courts across Canada, I now add the same appellation to June 24 (St. Jean Baptiste Day) as Quebecers are now without a viable Justice System. They should not take heart in the SCofC nor PMO neglect of the Canadian Judiciary  of whose action appears more political than judicial.

2) That is NOT the case in the matter of the QC Appeal where court action appears secondary but actually isn't, as it is clear that Lavery De Billy requested that the Appeal court assign them a docket matter, which they did, even though my factum had been returned by the court as being incomplete. I labeled this kafkaesque intervention as "Lavery De Billy 'tail' wags Quebec judicial 'dog". In short, I still await the QC lower court decision which was never made and the registration of an appeal which, again, has yet to be made (my factum returned), in a matter disposed of by the Barreau of Quebec, the SCofC, and the PMO of Canada plus the boycott of an anti-employee media...it cannot get any worse than that as Canada is now without leadership on any level from those entities.

3) Hence my protest placard seen recently outside the U.S. Embassy regarding the upcoming visit of President Obama on June 29-2016: WELCOME POTUS / BRING TRUMP NOW THAT CANADA NEEDS HIM MOST. At the very least, President Obama should give a warning to U.S. commercial interests in Canada regarding the dissolute nature of our courts and government.

4) It is just this kind of bureaucratic 'horse blinkers' exhibited in Bilodeau's letter which has produced BREXIT as it is clear that the authorities no longer believe that they have to listen to individuals acting within the law while those self-same authorities make a mockery of those selfsame laws; the Barreau du Quebec being no exception.

5) Until a proper examination of the conduct of Lavery De Billy is conducted, all payments ordered by the court to be paid by me to this firm are to be held in abeyance. I don't reward fraud. (A similar battle on this level is looming in SK - SCofC 36993 yet to be heard which has an extension of a constitutional question; namely, the ultra vires nature of B.C.'s BILL 35 for, if proven, all matters flowing from it are 'null & void'. If that one goes down in the SCofC; it will illustrate the weakness of a P.M. who should have removed SCofC Chief Justice, B. McLachlin from her post some time ago. In brief, the P.M. has his legacy riding on this case.


Yours truly, (Roger Callow)


'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System and, now, due to P.M. Justin Trudeau's inaction (He could at least send in the RCMP to seize 'disclosure' in this case for, as seen with the Senator Duffy case, when the Prime Minister (Harper) says 'leap', the RCMPP (political police) ask , 'how high'.

cc P.M. Justin Trudeau / QC Premier J. Couillard / SK Premier B. Wall / U.S. Embassy

RCMP - QC Fraud Division