CALLOW  v  REGINA (THE QUEEN) employescasecanada.ca

August 23-2014


TO: The Law Courts                                   FROM: Roger Callow - unrepresented plaintiff

ATTN: Dawn Champagne             1285 Cahill Drive E  #2001

Deputy Registrar                                        Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

100C-408 York Avenue                           

Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 0P9                web: employeescasecanada.ca


REFERENCE: Your letter dated August 16-2017



1) In the 32 year history of this unresolved labour case with its genesis in B.C. before over 50 judges across Canada including the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) on 4 inconsequential occasions, no compensation has been paid (includes pension rights for 10 years now).

2) At root here is a constitutional question relating to imposed legislation which no court is prepared to handle explaining why all matters are referenced to the PMO. P.M. Trudeau has failed to use his executive powers to break this impasse.

3) In brief, the Employer does not recognize court overture nor do they recognize the collective bargaining rules to deal with this matter hence leaving me in legal limbo considering the original arbitration was quashed with the arbitrator being ruled as patently unreasonable.

4) Such a position by the Employer should call into play government oversight of inherent jurisdiction which is conspicuous by its absence by either the provinces concerned or the federal government.

5) While not liking the above 'non-action'; nonetheless, I believe challenging imposed legislation - which is really little more than dictatorship - not only on behalf of individuals but on behalf of provincial governments suffering under such imposed actions as the 'carbon tax' and 'health measures'. Government resistance on this level has fallen flat leaving it to this individual to speak out on behalf of all those whose interests are buried by imposed legislation

6) As you can imagine, I have many letters like yours seeking to duck out of this national challenge:

a) I would strongly urge you to obtain some legal advice. Response: How about this one from my legal counsel in 2004 when, on the second trip to the SCofC (ultimate remedy)... 'You have exhausted all remedy under the law.'  As an addendum, such comments are used by Registries, I submit, to diminish an unrepresented litigant.

b) A letter such as the one you wrote always seeks senior approval most likely of this type;

For God's sake, I don't care how you do it, but get rid of this case!' Response: There is a price that is being paid by a number of provinces and the PMO for 'sticking their heads in the sand'. Is that what you and Premier Pallister want?

c) As to the question as to 'why Manitoba? I ask 'why not Manitoba' in this matter where I list the Federal government as Respondent and where I limit my action to requesting an apology plus $1 (to qualify as a claim).

d) The question of jurisdiction always comes up and is never directly dealt with by the courts. Simply put, under the laws of transference and in the  'cause of justice', a court is able to recommend a more suitable venue for a case (particularly when it is unresolved). In brief, a basic axiom in law  is that there is no process without judgment. In this case, an interpretation of the 'Cullen Creed' of July 2013 which expelled me from B.C. for 'reasons best known to a judge' in this unresolved case would have to be evaluated. No court -and there have been many- will touch that one with the proverbial '10-foot pole.

7) As to requesting a court date for a 'statement of claim'; I do so as a matter of form (even though I believe you are correct in stating that a court date is not obligatory but other provinces insist on one, apparently as a means of fobbing off my requests). I have had all sorts of Registry obfuscation regarding the filing of an Application where a court appearance is required (one hour by teleconferencing).

8) The unique aspect of this filing is that it is clear that I am restricting my case to a government apology (reminiscent of a recent case involving a war criminal) on behalf of improper judicial actions by Canadian bureaucrats as known to P.M. Justin Trudeau. They are either going to give it or they are not. I don't know which function a judge may serve under these unusual circumstances. It all depends on the government's reaction.

9) So, Ms. Champagne, I am returning these documents plus fee. Please assign me the docket number so that we can get on with the show. p.s. As the Justice System has been tested many times over and 'found wanting'; this Manitoba case is actually the measure of your Premier, Brian Pallister, whom does not suffer from the same level of political clap-trap as his colleagues in other provinces. I hope that I am not disappointed.


Yours truly,


The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance


cc Premier B. Pallister / Prime Minister J. Trudeau



(Until a successive 21st Century P.M. to 'Ambassador' Justin Trudeau steps up for Canada)  Tories A. Scheer and NDP are MIA in that regard. CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - AUGUST 07 - 2017

  JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case (Canada) employescasecanada.ca

 BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' due to systematic judicial malfeasance (32 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. senior teacher lay-off in 1985 under the imposed BILL 35) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 15 different court systems and over 50 judges. No compensation has been paid (includes pension rights which are held up as further blackmail  for 10 years now). The current challenge is to this Employer precedent setting theme from the Employee's Case: 'If you do not accept what we offer in compensation for lay-off; you will get nothing at all' (The WV School Trustee's 'Final Solution'); a position supported by over 50 judges (including the Supreme Court of Canada on 4 occasions and sanctioned by an indolent P. M. Trudeau)



A) '...Don't be silly. Of course there's morality. That's what keeps it all from falling apart. Ninety-five percent of the planet is basically moral, which is a blessing ...But I'm not talking about those people. I am talking about the other five percent....' The Kremlin Betrayal Leon Berger

B) ...'He (Federal Court Judge) concluded that the true purpose of the search "was to destroy the livelihood of the defendant, deny him the financial resources to finance a defence to the claim made against him, and to provide an opportunity for discovery of the defendant in circumstances where none of the procedural safeguards of our civil justice system could be engaged....'  This 2017 judgment of how three large telecom companies abused the law to pillory a small web site could just as easily have been the Employee's Case in which in 1985, the B.C. government (imposed BILL 35), the West Vancouver School Board, and the Teachers Union (sweetheart deal) conspired to dismiss a senior teacher 'whistleblower' in a case which has never been resolved due to systematic judicial abuse hence no compensation has been paid to date. The  point is that this judicial bullying has always gone on as the courts have a penchant to back up the 'big guy'. In that regard, the 32 year Employee's Case has exposed a level of perfidy unknown in Canadian jurisprudence.



1) In this unique Statement of Claim in CALLOW v REGINA, it makes more sense to invert the process in order to make sense of why the claim is for $1 and an apology on behalf of the Canadian Justice System is requested by this plaintiff.

2) The token $1 qualifies this case as a civil claim as all such claims must have a dollar figure. It needs be noted here that the case euphemistically called the Employees Case (Canada), while tangentially referred to in this charge in this Statement of Claim, is not connected to this litigant's claim against the Employer, the West Vancouver School Board, for their 'illicit' lay-off of former West Vancouver senior teacher Roger Callow in June of 1985 and in which no compensation has been paid. This claim outlined herein is solely against the government for their malfeasance as it relates to oversight in this case.

3) The apology requires further definition as it is based on the concept of the recent government apology to Canadian war-criminal Omar Khadr. As the apology to him was part of an out-of-court settlement, it has no standing in law and cannot technically be considered as a precedent. That point is important as while it may have tremendous impact on the Justice System as to how this current claim is handled by the court and government, it makes no difference to this plaintiff as to whether this apology is made in or outside of a court of law.

4) The employescasecanada.ca, the web site address, transcends the legal abuse (apart from physical abuse) by the courts of such as in the Khadr case. To the best of this litigant's knowledge, the Khadr case did not make an appeal to oversight bodies apart from the court such as is the case with the Employee's Case regarding malfeasance of  legal parties concerned on behalf of both the employer and the courts of law. Without exception (unless one includes a specious B.C. Judicial Society expiation made under pressure from the Saskatchewan Judicial Society), there has been no acknowledgment of  the many complaints made by this litigant to respective oversight bodies. That feature is a key-note in this appeal.

5) The failure of the oversight bodies includes Prime Minister Trudeau whom, in his executive powers as the Prime Minister e.g. Notwithstanding Clause; Peace, Order and Good Government provisions; chose to remain mute on the biggest challenge ever made to Judicial credibility in the history of Canadian jurisprudence. In brief, Canadian law and order currently survives on the basis of momentum alone which some would call anarchy.

6) This Statement of Claim does not include events in B.C. which culminated in two thwarted hearings before the Federal Court of Canada in which the same Vancouver prothonotary conducted both hearings in which he was named for fraudulent activity as well as others in the second application. Those hearings were to have been heard in Ottawa before a judge. Chief Justice Paul S. Crampton (appointed in 2009) oversaw both cases. There are strong parallels in these earlier events and the current application suggestive of the existence of a grey eminence with access to the back door of the Chief Justices of the land explaining now why all court applications include a copy to the Premier concerned, or in this case, the Prime Minister.


7)  The complaint details are outlined in Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) 36883 QC (EXHIBIT A) and 36993 SK (EXHIBIT B) plaintiff factums both rejected for a hearing by the same three judges in 2016 amid my strong objections as to the same panel hearing both cases. As those actions are included as Exhibits, only an outline of the alleged perfidy of both the courts and Employer legal representatives needs appear here.

8) The current complaint for both SCofC actions noted above has its genesis in Ontario with this pejorative web site message: 'The Bobbsey Twins of Ottawa Superior Court Justices Colin McKinnon (#13-59060 H.D. Apr. 10-14) and Robert Scott (#14-61592 H.D. Sept. 23-14) could arguably be perceived as either two judges with razor sharp minds able to cut to the core of any legal issue or, alternatively, two hectoring bully boys whom between them, have managed to smash the Canadian Justice System in its entirety.'

9) For the purposes of this complaint, it needs be noticed that both McKinnon j. and Scott j. were originally Federal Court appointments calling into play the Canadian Judicial Council as the appropriate oversight body for this complaint. There was no acknowledgment from that body under the aegis of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin (whom also sat on one of the four SCofC appearances in this case before she was appointed Chief Justice. She is due for retirement in December 2017.)

10) It is submitted here that McKinnon j. acted fraudulently by producing two judgments on the same case; the first on April 23-2014 and the second on September 15-2014 which made no reference to the existence of the first Order. While the Defendant employer did not file an Appearance, its legal counsel strode into court on Sept. 23-2014 thumping the second Order on the desk which Scott j. grabbed with alacrity amid my most strenuous objection. Scott j. would only recognize that second Order hence making my prepared documents a nullity.

11) Hicks, Morley et al, which shortly after dropped representation of the Employer, was cited by me to the provincial oversight bodies concerned. There was no reply.

12) The above subterfuge  was perpetrated in the factum of the Employer through court cases in QC, SK, and Nova Scotia 458698 Suzanne Hood j. April 6-2017. Seeing the pattern of the Employer in SK to improperly use the surety provisions to unsuccessfully derail this litigants legal challenge being applied in Nova Scotia later, led to pre-emptive action on my part.

13) The legal stunt pulled here is for a legal party to request two hearings with the former limited to requesting surety as a means of, in this case, chasing the opposition out of court. That surety was paid, as noted above, in SK although the courts, as noted in the SCofC 36993 factum resorted to other stratagems to side-track the main issue which included a constitutional question along with dealing with the McKinnon j. 'inconsistencies'.

14) Consequently the Nova Scotia Barristers Society was called on by me to examine the fraudulent assertions in this Employer's factum. They declined leaving my appeal on this level to be analyzed by Justice Hood. She failed to examine the said document on this level and yet saw fit to make a ruling quite apart from the surety which was the only question before her. As a further precaution, I had reserved the right to question any action she might take to be heard before a second scheduled judge to hear the entire case a few days later. (The Employer had asked both courts to drop this case for unstated reasons.) By using a technical argument to assess fees apart from surety, Justice Hood committed herself to this fraud in such fashion that the significance of a sworn affidavit is in serious question anywhere in Canada. Unlike the two SCofC Appeals mentioned above which function on the principle of the 'error of omission'; her action, it is submitted here, functions on the level of an 'error or commission'.

15) The central legal point to be made here in the above case is that the above matter in Nova Scotia was reported to the provincial oversight bodies concerned. There was no acknowledgment.

16) Quebec suffers from subterfuge due to duality as well as outlined in SCofC 36883 where the lower Gatineau court held two hearings with different judges on the same issue in order, it is submitted here, to give the Employer's Lavery de Billy 'two kicks at the can' as their initial case was a mish mash. Again, no reference by the second judge was made to the existence of the case by the first judge. The Appeal of that action by me is best described with this pejorative phrase: Lavery de Billy 'tail' wags QC 'judicial dog'. Those major legal discrepancies were reported to the provincial authorities concerned. There was no acknowledgment.

17) Saskatchewan is also where the questionable Employer's factum turns up with my challenge accordingly. As Harris and Company, the principal legal outfit in this case is from B.C.; the Saskatchewan Legal Society declined to the B.C. Legal Society as noted earlier in this account and has not returned my request for a proper analysis of the McKinnon j. Decision(s). The SK Appeal Court ducked this legal aspect entirely with no reply leaving the entire question in the laps of the Office of the Prime Minister considering the SCofC rejection plus the woeful performance (or lack thereof) of his appointed Justice Minister; Jody Wilson-Raybould.

18) In summary, the many failures above bring into strong question as to whether or not democratic Canada has efficacious legal over-sight bodies. That is what the apology is for in a topic which could best be captioned on this theme from World War I:' 90,000 Frenchmen cannot be wrong ' (the specious Maginot Line mentality). In the Employee's Case; substitute Over 50 judges for 90,000 Frenchmen and one has the perspective of the Employee's Case in the biggest judicial fraud in Canada's history explaining my signed epithet:


'The Outlawed Canadian' in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance.

cc Prime Minister J. Trudeau

pending actions also filed in: BC, AB, MB, ON, PEI, NS