(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.


JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case(Canada) employeescasecanada.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) Recently, Ontario CUPE won $56 million dollars for its education workers on the same challenge that I have relating to the rights of courts to oversee imposed legislation including and apart from the collective bargaining rules as well in my case. NOV.29 in N.S. #469918 focused entirely on the constitutional question of court oversight powers over imposed government legislation which is at the heart of all democratic functioning. This Newsletter marks the culmination of 32 years of litigation with N.S. Justice Rosinski reflecting                                                       everything which is wrong with the Canadian Justice System.  Following is my side:

We don't wanna

1) ...because we don't hafta... and nobody is going to make us.... ('What needst we fear it for who will call us to account.' Lady MacBeth) Theme song of the Nov. 29 N.S. hearing.

2) Courts of inherent jurisdiction Charter of Human Rights & Freedoms 1982 (the thrust of my case) 'The superior courts from the provinces and territories are courts of inherent jurisdiction, which means that the jurisdiction of the superior courts derive their authority from the Constitution, they can hear any matter unless there is a federal or provincial statute (there isn't in this case) that says otherwise or that gives exclusive jurisdiction to some other court or tribunal (N.S. could reference the matter to B.C. but they could not do nothing as was the case here). The doctrine of inherent jurisdiction gives superior courts greater freedom than statutory courts to be flexible and creative in the delivering of legal remedies and relief.
3) In rejecting the above argument, Justice Rosinski pleaded the usual argument of a 'frivolous and vexatious' action pleading the limited funding of the Nova Scotia courts to entertain this central constitutional question.

4) I have heard the frivolous & vexatious argument many times but I fail to see why the biggest challenge to the operation of a democracy; namely, the relation between the government and courts would in any way qualify for that label. The parsimonious aspect enunciated by the judge is the first time that I have ever heard that argument which is, in fact, not true. as a couple of hours should establish whether or not courts of law have review powers over government imposed legislation. The B.C. School Board Employer says 'no' to court oversight and refuses to recognize the findings of the court which quashed the arbitration ruling, in that process, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. I was left in a 32 year limbo with no compensation paid (includes pension rights) which flies in the basic tenets of civil law.

5) The N.S. court was NOT asked to ascertain the propriety of the initial lay-off nor matters relating to compensation which would be the topic of hearings elsewhere other than N.S. They were limited to a very narrow definition which was quite within their purview.



6) So why did the N.S. court duck this 'slam dunk' case giving them an opportunity to establish that indeed courts of law can oversee imposed legislation for if they do not, governments will impose all legislation in future making courts of law redundant. In summary, N.S. joins two other provinces, QC (Supreme Court of Canada 36883-2016) and SK (Supreme Court of Canada 36993-2016) as a failed province with citizens having nowhere to turn for justice.

7) The answer is a political one and Justice Rosinski read from a pre-written judgment which had all the earmarks of having been written in the offices of Premier McNeil. Should the court have expressed a willingness to hear the constitutional question raised, that action would bring into sharp relief the failure of over 50 judge in 15 separate courts plus Prime Minister Trudeau to act (left to deal with the detritus of court fraud charges) ...and that would never do....

8) Hence, considering the boycott by the politicians and the anti-employee media, I required such as NS teachers to 'make noise' in absence of union support. Their failure to act was a decisive factor in this 'political' trial. (CUPE in ON recently won $57 million for its educational workers with a constitutional claim much like my own although it was limited to the collective bargaining process while my motion is much broader in scope including matters beyond the collective bargaining process as well. The ON Elementary Teachers Assoc. & the ON Secondary School Teachers Federation and UNIFOR (forestry concerns) were given intervenor status.)  I had nothing as Union leaders do not like clients acting apart from Union control which far too often means that clients are subjected to the sweetheart deal as I was in the Employee's Case.



9) This series has been devoted to Governor General, the official head of Canada which is a titular role. That reference relates to the complicity of Prime Minister Trudeau in this case in which he does nothing. By rights, she should appoint the Auditor General - the only 'politician' that I would vote for - to rule in his place.

10) What GG Payette can do is beyond me, but until this matter is dealt with, no-one should accept the 'Order of Canada' nor, for that matter should it be offered.

11) Recently, the Trudeau government, to much fanfare, signed the Magnitsky Act similar to many western countries to pillory those responsible for human rights abuses in the world by foreign powers which , of course, does not include abuses within Canada such as the Employee's Case. In short, it is imperialism at its worst. Russia, for example cannot strike back at Canada over problems in the Ukraine and Venezuela cannot take action against Canada for condemning a Venezuelan chief justice as they are not signatories to the Act. In that latter regard, I have noticed that Trudeau's comments and rich rewards to individuals are for other people's transgressions but none of his own. Leaving Justice Rosinski in his employment is tantamount to leaving Harvey Weinstein in his. PLACARD: BEHIND EVERY ECONOMIC COLLAPSE IS A MORAL COLLAPSE. Canada has crossed its moral Rubicon. We are now on the slippery slope with war as our destination.

12) Hence it requires another signatory to this Act, presumably, to bring countries such as Canada to heal. I select President Trump as a Magnitsky Act country as my proxy as he has an obligation to U.S. commercial interests to publicly warn them of the dangers of dealing with Canadian courts of law under this Act. In that regard, N.S. Supreme Court Justice Rosinski must be named as the targeted person. Canadian democracy will never be viable until he is removed from the bench. In the spirit of 'choose your ideas carefully, for if you don't they will choose you and not very credible ones at that'; President Trump is reminded that if he does not expose the perfidy of the Canadian government on this issue, a less than credible force can thus embarrass the entire western world in his place.

13) To prove my point about the boycott of politicians, I am sending a copy of this letter to Nathan Cullen (NDP MP) and Pierre Poilievre (former Tory cabinet minister now in Opposition) for their public comments.


cc Governor General  Julie Payette

cc SCofC Sheilah Martin


2017                                                                                                          Hfx No. 469918


Callow (Re)




WHEREAS Roger Callow filed an ex parte application November 1, 2017 requesting declaratory relief regarding legislation enacted in the province of British Columbia;


UPON having reviewed the materials filed by the applicant, and having conducted a telephone conferencing call with the applicant during Chambers on November 29, 2017; having considered Rule 88 and the court's inherent jurisdiction to control its own processes; and having concluded that the herein application should be permanently stayed as it is an abuse of process;



1. This proceeding is permanently stayed;

2. There will be no order as to costs.


Dated at Halifax, Province of Nova Scotia, this 29th day of November, 2017

Issued at Halifax, this 20th day of November, 2017

                                                                                                            ( signed) 'court personnel'


1) This was NOT the detailed pre-written conclusion which Justice Rosinski read into the record at the conclusion of the 1/2 hour hearing which, it is submitted here, would not withstand overview powers. I ask those powers to provide me with that statement for further analysis (don't merely brush the matter off by asking me to make a submission for that record.)

2) This judgment above tells us nothing other than to quote e.g. Rule 88 in a vague way without detailing (as he did in the hearing) how it was an abuse of process. It would appear that he wishes to limit the target he represents by this too brief account in order to avoid scrutiny.

Bottom line: Nova Scotia courts under Justice Suzanne Hood (April 2017) and now under Justice Rosinski (November 2017) have left their Nova Scotia clients with nowhere to turn for justice. N.B. Hood j. was earlier referred to the NS oversight body for alleged improprieties. There was never any acknowledgment of those charges.


Yours truly (signed) Roger Callow  litigant


Civil Procedure Rules of Nova Scotia





Part 17 - Administration

Rule 88 - Abuse of Process

Scope of Rule 88



These Rules do not diminish the inherent authority of a judge to control an abuse of the court’s processes.



This Rule does not limit the varieties of conduct that may amount to an abuse or the remedies that may be provided in response to an abuse.



This Rule provides procedure for controlling abuse.





Remedies for abuse



A judge who is satisfied that a process of the court is abused may provide a remedy that is likely to control the abuse, including any of the following:




an order for dismissal or judgment;




a permanent stay of a proceeding, or of the prosecution of a claim in a proceeding;




a conditional stay of a proceeding, or of the prosecution of a claim in a proceeding;




an order to indemnify each other party for losses resulting from the abuse;




an order striking or amending a pleading;




an order expunging an affidavit or other court document or requiring it to be sealed;




an injunction preventing a party from taking a step in a proceeding, such as making a motion for a stated kind of order, without permission of a judge;




any other injunction that tends to prevent further abuse.



A person who wishes to make a motion under section 45B of the Judicature Act may do so by motion in an allegedly vexatious proceeding or a proceeding allegedly conducted in a vexatious manner, or by application if there is no such outstanding proceeding.





Unsustainable pleading



It is not an abuse of process to make a claim, or raise a defence or ground of contest, that may on the pleadings alone be unsustainable, and such a claim, defence, or ground may be challenged under Rule 13 - Summary Judgment.



A party or the prothonotary may make a motion to strike a pleading on the basis that it amounts to an abuse of process.





Motion by prothonotary



A prothonotary’s motion to dismiss a proceeding on the basis of abuse may be made in appearance day chambers.





Separation of allegation that proceeding is abusive



A judge may order that a defence or ground of contest alleging that a claim is an abuse of process be separated from the other issues raised in a proceeding and be tried or heard before the rest of the proceeding is determined.



A judge who is required to decide whether to separate a defence or ground of contest alleging abuse of process must consider all relevant factors, including each of the following:




whether facts to be found by the judge who determines the allegation of an abuse of process will also be in issue when the rest of the proceeding is determined;




if some facts will remain in issue, whether the benefit of avoiding a risk of contradictory findings of fact outweighs the disadvantage of continuing a proceeding, and conducting a trial or hearing in a proceeding, under an allegation that the proceeding itself is an abuse of the court’s process.



A judge who orders separation of a defence or ground of contest based on abuse of process may give directions for the determination of the defence or ground and, in an action, the directions may include that the determination continue under Rule 5 - Application.

Rule 88 was sprung on me in court for which Judge Rosinski knew that I could hardly access this rule and respond to in a 1/2 hour teleconferencing. This type of stunt has been played many times in the past by the courts e.g. In the 1985 arbitration, a statement claiming to originate from the School Board  marked 'Passed' which authorized my lay-off in 1985. There was no record of the vote from the 5 School Board Trustees (I suspect the lay-off form was written by their legal counsel in July after I had challenged the lay-off). In 2004, I acquired the said lay-off notice which showed that only 2 of the Trustees - Chairperson Margo Furk and her Successor, Mike Smith - had signed the lay-off notice but by then, I had no forum to contest that action under the corrupt Christie Clarke government. I am currently revisiting the matter under a civil charge of fraud under the new NDP Hogarth government. There is no statute of limitations for fraud. The failed outcome of the constitutional question above is of peripheral assistance to my case on fraud although of some assistance regarding compensation which has never been paid. However with that much said, that selfsame failure of the courts in N.S. are a complete catastrophe of unimaginable proportions for democratic Canada.


1) 88.01 (3) focuses on the control of abuse presuming that abuse has indeed taken place which places a lot of power in the hands of a judge. In other sections of the law and one quoted by Rosinski  the term frivolous & vexatious is a term commonly bandied about permitting a judge to escape - if he so wishes - his judiciary responsibilities. I have already written that this badly abused term should be eliminated from the lexicon of the law as it has become a well known cliché with little meaning and has been used as an escape hatch by lazy - or other - judges at the expense of a serious consideration of the law.

2) Section 88.02 is redundant similar to those job descriptions which end in 'and related duties'; to wit in this case, (f) any other injunction that prevents further abuse. In effect, this section merely confirms the judges right to do as he wishes.




A judge may order that a defence or ground of contest alleging that a claim is an abuse of process be separated from the other issues raised in a proceeding and be tried or heard before the rest of the proceeding is determined.

This is the only grounds of 'faint hope' on which a litigant such as myself may protect oneself from the draconian powers given the judge in 88.01 and 88.02. I submit that considering the importance of the constitutional challenge which Justice Rosinski ignored completely to mention, that this issue should have been separated rather than disposing of everything as being 'frivolous & vexatious'. The constitutional question regarding court oversight of imposed government legislation is the single most important question relating to the operation of our democracy. As matters now stand, every government will impose legislation in order to avoid court overview based on Rosinski's judgment making courts of law redundant. All these points were made by me to Rosinski j. in court but one would never know it by reading his account. One would have to access the transcript for that purpose.

     As a conclusion Rosinski j. has not done anything different than over 50 judges (including 4 inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada) have done in this unresolved 32 year labour issue where no compensation has been paid. No legal answer cannot be a legal answer without a country being declared to be in a state of anarchy. No oversight body has acknowledged the many charges of fraud (N.B. while labeling Hood j. in that regard there is no such charge against Rosinski j. and other means will be required to remove him from the bench.)





April 12-2017


TO: Nova Scotia Judicial Council                      FROM: Roger Callow #458698 Superior Court  APPELLANT

ATTN: Chief Justice (chair)                                         1285 Cahill Dr. E. #2001

The Law Courts                                                           Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

1815 Upper Water St.                                                 tel/fax: 613-521-1739

Halifax, NS  B3J 1S7                                                    e-mail: thecallows@gmail.com

sent by fax: 902-424-0524   cc Premier McNeil       employescasecanada.ca


TOPIC: Complaint against Hfx NS Superior Court Judge, Suzanne Hood (Apr. 07 H.D.)


1) The complaint made against the above judge for her egregious behaviour  is perhaps the most serious complaint ever made against a judge in Canadian civil jurisprudence.

2) While not in attendance, this appellant filed a complete rebuttal to a two-fold action filed by the Defendant B.C. Employer in the above case in which the second hearing was slated for April 21 before a second judge. Both cases called for the dropping of the Appellant's case limited to a constitutional question (c.q.) without case specifics (for that would take place outside of NS in another venue).

3) Indeed, the presence of both litigants is superfluous to the c.q. regarding the relationship between imposed legislation and court oversight; surely the most important judicial question in the history of Canadian jurisprudence. The matter would be dealt with solely by the courts through Referencing with the 32 year Employee's Case with its genesis in B.C. merely being the vehicle to accord with our adversarial legal system.


4) '...ignoratio elenchi, the common fallacy in logic, by the media (and  the NS courts in 458698) of supposing a point proved by an argument proving something not at issue. The c.q. is not in question; merely the right of this personage to raise the question. No law was quoted nor reference made by Hood j. in 'conditionally' denying this Appellant's position. She would seek to hide her perfidy behind an unexamined Employer factum rife with fraud.

5) As pointed out to Justice Hood in writing, any action taken by her must be preceded by disclosure from the Employer and a proper evaluation of the Employer factum which was surreptitiously covered up in QC & SK leading to their demise as failed states. (Supreme Court of Canada 2016: 36883 QC & 36993 SK). It is that selfsame Employer factum now being floated in N.S. with the NS Barrister's Society ducking the examination request leaving it for the court. Hood j. failed on both accounts as she makes no mention of my protest on that level and, therefore, should be removed from the bench for, want of another expression, incompetency.

6) This first hearing was ostensibly arranged by the Employer for the purpose of a specious 'surety' which is a copy of a couple of previous court stunts elsewhere. I paid but did not get 'due process'; rather 'duly processed' better explains treatment meted out to me in other venues. The main problem is that the claim relates to corrupt events in Ontario which still remain extant due to the failure of the oversight bodies to investigate. The second hearing (now held in abeyance by the court) on April 21 is the main event for which I would appear and asked previously that any action taken by Hood j. be available for consideration in that court held before a different judge. That request is now to be stillborn due to her precipitate action.

7) The proper course for Justice Hood would have been to either cite the Employer for 'bringing the course of justice into disrepute' or, as is commonly accepted in today's justice system, to invite the Employer to withdraw their objection permitting the court to proceed with the c.q. Her failure in the above regard considering the background in this case brings into focus the value of a sworn affidavit in any court in Canada. As such, the law and justice system in Canada is moribund until proper action is taken against Justice Hood for 'bringing the course of justice into disrepute' with her apparently innocuous action.

8) It matters little whether Justice Hood was acting under direction from a Chief Justice, an eminence gris (Old Boys Club) or Premier McNeil; as it is her name on the Order. As matters stand, no Federal or provincial election has any meaning until this matter is sorted out. Her action is 'the nail' which eventually, as it works its way up in the parable, leads to the loss of a kingdom.


December 01-2017

TO: Nova Scotia Judicial Council            FROM: Roger Callow self-represented litigant (Ottawa)


COMPLAINT: Justice S. Rosinski  #469918 (H.D. November 29-2017 Hfx Superior Court)

1) These two hearings included in this account mark the culmination of a 32 year unresolved labour issue relating to an illicit teacher lay-off with its genesis in B.C. where no compensation has been paid. That culmination was enunciated in terms of a constitutional question relating to the oversight powers of Canadian courts to imposed legislation; a matter of extreme importance not only in Nova Scotia where the MacNeil government  invoked such action against the teachers in 2016; but in all of Canada.

2) Recently, CUPE won a $57 million settlement on a similar constitutional challenge in 2017 against the ON government which was limited to the 'collective bargaining process'. My challenge went beyond that level in that all imposed legislation was to be challenged which even the provinces in terms of such as the 'carbon tax' were directly concerned. As matters now stand, the West Vancouver School Trustees refuse to recognize court overview of the imposed  BILL 35 (1985) which saw fit to quash the arbitration ruling the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable for failing to show a 'causal factor'; the basis of all law.

3) The case in NS was stripped right down to the constitutional question as the court was specifically asked NOT to give any evaluation to the merits of the initial teacher lay-off in 1985 nor to the question of compensation. That would be handled in other courts outside of NS..

4) The above accounts were reflected in detail by Justice Rosinski in a pre-written summation of events at the end of the trial which would show up on the transcript.

5) The key to this complaint against Justice Rosinski is that this summation was conspicuous by its absence from his judgment. From his stated judgment, one would not know on which issue my case was rejected....a traffic ticket under which his judgment would appear reasonable?



6) Rule 88 which he cited and which appears in this enclosure plus my analysis would suggest a major fraud has been perpetrated by Justice Rosinski  under the heading of 'willful negligence' and as such, no Canadian can rest until he is removed from the bench as his action is regrettably symbolic of a Justice System which has lost its way.

7) The question lies to which body the above request should be made considering failure on the part of N.S. to act earlier vis a vis Justice Hood; the failure of the Supreme Court of Canada on two occasions in 2016 to take action vis a vis QC and SK leaving the PMO to take action on the fraudulent aspects which the Judiciary would seek to cover up. P.M. Trudeau did nothing.

8) For the above reason, I have conscripted the Governor General, a titular post, to refrain from bestowing the Order of Canada until this matter is sorted out.

9) Considering the universal collapse of oversight bodies in Canada in this case, I resort to a novel interpretation of the Magnitsky Act which can charge individuals and countries for legal and moral turpitude.

10) In Canada, the above act is limited to foreign entities permitting a level of hypocrisy in this style of uncontrolled imperialism never seen before. For example, under this Act, Canada condemned a Venezuelan Chief Justice but as Venezuela is not a signatory, they cannot retaliate by, for example, condemning NS Justice Rosinski.

11) Under the above conditions, it would seem that it would take another Magnitsky Act signatory, such as the U.S., to cite Canada in this regard. Indeed, it is incumbent on President Trump to act accordingly as a means of publicly warning U.S. commercial interests against the perfidy of Canadian courts as represented by this case. Threatening useless sanctions, such as in North Korea, is not working for the U.S. so why not try the Magnitsky Act against Canada in this case. Canadians at large can only thank a U.S. President for showing such initiative. PLACARD: PRESIDENT TRUMP / 'A PAPER TIGER'


Yours truly (signed) Roger Callow


December 03, 2017 (LETTER DATED Dec. 01)

December 01, 2017


TO: Board of School Trustees                                         FROM: Roger Callow 

(S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)                                                 1285 Cahill Drive West #2001

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9                 Ottawa ON K1V 9A7

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001                                fax: 613-521-1739               

SENT BY FAX  (1 page)             


REFERENCE: employeescasecanada.ca  'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System due to systematic judicial malfeasance'



1) It is almost a year now since my non-negotiable buy-out offer and it is time to increase that amount for an additional million dollars on January 01-2018 with the terms outlined earlier to apply.


2) 32 years without compensation for my illicit teacher lay-off in 1985 under BILL 35 comes with a hefty price-tag. Recently CUPE won a $54 million settlement for its educational workers in Ontario for much the same challenge as I have before the courts.


2) The purpose of making the increase noted now is to give the current Board of School Trustees the opportunity to possibly save the West Vancouver School District this added cost by settling in 2017.


3) A copy of this letter is going to the Editor of the North Shore News as this right wing news source is always prattling on about saving tax dollars.


Yours truly,


Roger Callow (former senior West Vancouver high school teacher awaiting compensation be it under BILL 35 which is the only thing the Employer recognizes; the collective bargaining rules which is the only thing the courts recognize; or some other scheme of employment law). The fault, without excusing the Employer, lies with over 50 Canadian judges including the Supreme Court of Canada on four 'inconsequential' appeals.) The media boycott is aggravating this situation into a FUBAR debacle without equal in Canadian jurisprudence.


DECEMBER 05-2017

The following comments were made on articles taken primarily from columnists and newslines in the Ottawa Sun of Dec.05:


aka Nova Scotia #469918 Justice S. Rosinski Nov. 29-2017

1) OUT OF TIME / Judge tosses drug case against ex-Hells Angel over delays '...The Crown set up a case management that was both unnecessary and ill-suited for the task at hand and stuck with it rather than bringing applications under the sections of the Code meant to accelerate the pace toward committal to stand trial in the Superior Court,' Judge Phillips ruled.' p.1-3 COMMENT: Half of organized crime profits go for 'buy-off'. Here is a typical example.

2) Black market for weed will be with us for a while Mark Bonokoski p.10 '...It (China) is a communist dictatorship, after all.... C. Nope just a plain dictatorship. If there is any communist in the pack, it is Justin Trudeau. Ambassadors make initial contact so that their leaders are not unduly embarrassed but that is one problem when a Prime Minister is his own ambassador. Premier Xi cancelling out of the meeting is tantamount to labeling Trudeau a 'Paper Tiger' and thus to 'lose face'; two powerful insults in Asia. Bottom line? Xi has made himself a life-long enemy in Trudeau whom - if the court description of myself in the Employee's Case, is any example and I believe it is - will become a 'thorn in the side of China' as I am in the West Vancouver School Board.

3) Black market for weed will be with us for a while p. 10 C.Trudeau's line is that legalized pot will drive organized crime out of the business. In brief, who will buy fentanyl laced drugs on the street when a safe supply is offered by the government controlled dispensaries? In fact, the pattern is set now as 'narco-wars' are growing in which these dipensaries are being robbed. Next step? Black-mail clerks e.g. show a picture of a single-mother's child on the way to school as a means of getting insider help. The Federal Liberal government likes legalized pot because they only forward half the tax to the provinces which must bear most of the burden of policing while, one and at the same time, pocketing money for a new bureaucracy staffed by Liberal factotums.

4) Trump rips FBI / Says its treatment of Flynn is 'very unfair' p.12 C. Under the circumstances of the penalty of lying to the FBI, no-one should be interviewed by the FBI except in the presence of his lawyer. In short, the effectiveness of the FBI will be greatly reduced. Pressuring Flynn through family connections is a science mastered in Russia and China. Whitewashing 'Crooked Hillary' is a justified criticism by President Trump of the FBI.

5) U.S. warned against embassy move. p.12 In the 1980's Prime Minister Joe Clark almost fell into the same trap of moving the Canadian Embassy to Jerusalem which threatens to unite the entire Muslim movement against the U.S.  Israel pulled this stunt again on an ignorant Trump.

6) Letter to editor Jill Young (a senior whom sometimes writes to the Editor) p.14 'Other than...Vanier, a recent letter doesn't think there's a better place in the city where a homeless shelter could serve a better purpose. I disagree. Homeless people go where the money is outside office buildings at lunch or before and after work...the last place the homeless will go is Vanier. C. This is an interesting turn on a NIMBY story where the one Vanier councillor votes against the shelter location while all the others vote against him not wishing for their locale to be selected...that's how democracy works when it is explained to you. The implication is that street beggars are supplying their $100 per day drug habits through cup contributions which I have witnessed on my 'parades' to be minimal. The real truth? A teenager in 'Adult School' who spent three years in a reformatory 'watching his back' against a 300# rapist, said that he was into drugs at age 12 in a community just outside of Ottawa. If you are into drugs, you are into stealing, he told me. First of all it is from family and then neighbors. Hence, it is pointless, as the media portrayed, of questioning the morality of one addict stealing Veteran boxes as all morality for the addict is limited to the need for the next fix.

7) There's nothing Islamophobic about arresting ISIS fighters Senator Linda Frum p.15 '...Justin Trudeau needs to focus on the serious work that is required of a G-7 nation. This includes makingit clear to all those who wish to take up arms for ISIS that they will not be welcomed back, that they will not be re-integrated into society and that there is no place in Canada for terrorist sympathizers.' C. Britain, France and the USA are not accepting returning fighters and their families to their countries. The prime duty of a Prime Minister is to protect its people. We have already had one close call of a bomber on his way to a Canadian jihad. Hence, I claim it is on the head of the Trudeau tribe (includes Security Minister, Ralph Goodale) should there be an atrocity on this level. Keep such returned individuals in re-training camps (Guantanamo without the torture) if Canada insists on re-acceptance. I visited a similar refugee camp in Lebanon in 1965 filled with Arab refugees from Israel (1948) which later was attacked by a militia with apparent Israeli support. Lebanon has much trouble today according to my Lebanese informants due to Iran backed guerrilla fighters against Syria. It is a mess to be sure and it would appear that Trudeau would commit Canada to a similar debacle.

8) Are lunatics in charge of our schools? Jerry Agar p.15 '...A friend of mine who is a kindergarten teacher...was telling me about four year olds who refuse to go back into the school after recess. So the principal has to stand outside in the yard with the child until the child decides to go in. I said, "They don't weigh much. Pick the kid up." 'No', I was told, 'We are not allowed to touch the kid.' So the child is in charge. C. You got it in one, Jerry. When I began teaching in 1964 in Northern B.C., picking children up and moving them physically to their 'safe place' was standard. By today's measure, former P.M. Pierre Trudeau was a bad parent (in actual fact, both he and Margaret were good supporters of the teacher) if you were to judge by one media photo of the day where he had small obstreperous Justin under his arm while smiling to the Reporter as he did his parental duty. Immigrants are thoroughly confused about our standards on this topic. On our Caribbean cruises, I was in the habit of asking U.S. teachers about the prime problem in U.S. schools to which they collectively responded: violence. In 2014, A Los Angeles teacher replied; the LA Administration...'they don't know what they are doing' which I claim is typical of all bureaucracies including the Judicial one in Canada being run into the ground by the Chief Justices. In the above class example, the question which needs to be addressed is 'what kind of right thinking person will become a principal when the 4 year olds gets around to telling him to 'fuck off' too leaving it to the 'other type' of person to take the job?...the Peter Principle gets a good boost here.


AND FOR EQUAL TIME, ONE STORY FROM THE OTTAWA CITIZEN  as there is much replication between the two paper. C. 'amalgamation' which explains why I limit my subscriptions to 6 months.

9) CHOOSE YOUR CHARITIES  WISELY Wanda Morris 'Grey Matters' p. C3 Insightful articles for seniors is found with this writer although my central point following is understandably missing from one whom has extensive experience with raising funds for small and large charities. e.g. A word of caution. Make sure your chosen charity aligns with your values. ...A hospital or hospice may refuse to allow patients to exercise their right to an assisted death.... C. Our charity of choice is one food bank which we regularly supply with my wife providing her annual toiletries contribution on our last trip. They know who we are but do not have our contact information. I prefer cash donations to such as the Salvation Army kettle or one mission seen in a grocery store as we do not wish to get on a list. On occasion, I have given a McDonald's 'coffee collection card' to street beggars. The wealthy are plagued on this charity level and one piece of advice is to leave your cheque book at home when attending charitable functions. One donator told me that she tried to give a little to everyone until she found that the charities were 'doubling up' with two requests per year along with having her name passed to other charities = donor fatigue.



DECEMBER 07-2017

Ontario teacher absence problem

1) This topic is not related to the Employee's Case, but as a 16 year Supply Teacher in Ottawa/Carleton primarily at the High School level in most Secondary Schools, I speak from experience on this problem.

2) First of all, the yardstick of B.C. is relevant here. We were not permitted to bank our sick days in B.C. and take a l/2 year early retirement at full salary as was customary with some civil servants. In West Vancouver, we had a cap at accumulating 200 'sick days' which would evaporate if we did not use them. The Union cut a deal with the School Board in which willing teachers  could contribute their 'sick days' to chronically ill teachers whom had run out of sick days. As I probably had the best teacher attendance in the District, I donated all of mine.

3) As a personal opinion, I was in favour of having ill teachers collect 85% of their salary when ill so as to discourage malingering. Face it, there are people in all walks of life whom hate their jobs.

4) Elementary teachers in particular are exposed to all sorts of germs for you will not find such a high concentration of people in such a small area as a classroom. Expect teacher absence to be higher than the adult workplace.

5) Most teachers will avoid staying home as they still have to prepare the lesson for the day and mark the following day. Being security conscious, art teachers, for example, could expect to return finding their supplies intact with me. Some Supply Teachers are careless in that regard. Having to deal with discipline problems is also a potential hazard as one teacher stated that he would never leave his group to another teacher. To Grade 9 students whom do not know you 'from Adam'; supply teacher day is to be a source of fun. In my case, I never fooled around and had an established reputation which did not always suit some principals whom I had no qualms in calling in if the situation called for it. Once I was teamed as support with a Caribbean Supply Teacher trying to cajole the students into co-operating. I did not undermine him other than to stand alongside the desk of obstreperous students. Basically it was a disaster as that teacher made the same mistake as many Supply Teachers do of not calling for assistance when the situation called for it.

6) The public should be aware that 95% of classrooms function well in all Ottawa/Carleton schools. This is not the U.S. where you have a great disparity in schools due to the existence of charter schools; a favourite of the Fraser Institute.


DECEMBER 08-2017


            JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case(Canada)                                                                 employeescasecanada.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) Recently, Ontario CUPE won $56 million dollars for its education workers on the same challenge that I have relating to the rights of courts to oversee imposed legislation including and apart from the collective bargaining rules as well in my case. NOV.29 in N.S. #469918 focused entirely on the constitutional question of court oversight powers over imposed government legislation which is at the heart of all democratic functioning. This Newsletter marks the culmination of 32 years of litigation with N.S. Justice Rosinski reflecting everything which is wrong with the Canadian Justice System. He must go from the bench before any Judicial Reform is contemplated.



TO: 'ET' Civil/Chambers Registry (no full name used)  FROM: Roger Callow

        Vancouver Law Courts                                                                self-represented petitioner

        800 Smithe St.                                                                                           #2001-1485 Cahill Drive

        Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2E1                                                             Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7

        t. 604-660-2845   f. 604-660-2429     This 2 page letter faxed on December 08,2017




TOPIC: a) FORM 35: In the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Vancouver)

In the Matter of deciding a point in law in order to pursue settlement in a 32 year unresolved labour issue dating from 1985 where no compensation has been paid.

Roger Callow sole Petitioner in an ex parte Application BEFORE A JUDGE OF THE COURT


b) FORM: 31 The evidence in support of the application is a legal question raised at different times by the Union (1985 arbitration), the Employer (2014 in Ontario court), and now myself (2017) as the many courts (8 out of 10 provinces) have failed to address this central issue in this unresolved labour issue dating back to 1985. No compensation has been paid which includes pension rights. Disclosure, a second major request raised by this Applicant relates to key evidence held by both the Employer and Union which no court to date was willing to sub poena. That disclosure is vital to anticipated fraud charges. As such, this petitioner maintains that he is still an employee of the Employer, albeit an unpaid on in this case of 'deferred salary'. At the very least, the court could be expected to return salary plus accrued interest until such time as this long drawn out case is settled.


c) Evidence supporting application:

4) ...What is being questioned here relates solely to compensation which this Applicant submits is owed to him whether it is under the provisions of the imposed BILL 35, the collective bargaining agreement , or any other court mechanism related to compensation for lost employment.

5) The Employer refuses to recognize court oversight.The Union joined the Employer in obfuscating any settlement that I might reach. The British Columbia courts expelled this litigant in 2013 for 'reasons best known to a judge' forcing me into other venues across Canada marked, as noted above, with a high degree of irregularity from both the Employer and the courts.

10) The legal principle involved above is central to not only employees, but to employers as well. For example Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall are subject to similar imposed legislation such as the carbon tax to which they object. A three page article entitled  ADVICE TO LAID-OFF CANADIAN TEACHERS  MAY 31 ... illustrates the wide-spread importance of this issue to employees.


1) This case must be very well known across Canada in the various Registries as noted by the fact that the first Registry rejection by B.C. dated June 28 was unsigned. We appear to have moved up a step, however, with 'E.T.' now being the reference initials in Vancouver Civil Court.

2) The Registries are the oil in the Judicial machinery without which we cannot go forward. Hence a case may be made or broken at this level due to 'bureaucratic-or otherwise' Registry personnel. On a positive note, due to repeated appearances at the Ottawa Registry counter a few years back, the clerk penciled in remedies for me noting that I had mixed 'plaintiff' with 'appellant' rather than 'defendant'. Interestingly, court forms mix this terminology all the time. I make the point to illustrate how heavily litigants depend on Registry advice. On the negative side recently in Ottawa court, I was rejected outright by the clerk telling me to see an office set up upstairs to deal with such matters. I didn't bother as two years ago when this office was first set up, I was told to wait by a secretary and after a 1/2 hour (no doubt making the obligatory phone call to the Office of the Chief Justice) had my material returned to me with this response from her: 'We can't help you. See a lawyer'. (On one such similar occasion; I had retorted - 'He wants to know too.')

3) In the first (unsigned) rejection letter of June 28-2017, 3 reasons were given for the rejection. I believed that I had made the necessary revisions as noted to the Registry in my November 16-2017 letter with a copy to Premier J. Horgan 'for his assistance if required'.

4) The returned documents with fee in a letter dated November 24 and received on December 6 would suggest that none of the 3 conditions were fulfilled. The discrepancies appear picayune and a copy of this letter plus returned factum plus fee is being sent to Premier Hogarth to assign an officer to assist in this matter to obtain a file number.

a) p.13c includes Form 109. Did the Registry not re-read the revised factum?

    As to a sworn affidavit, I make the oath at the Registry courts in such as Ottawa and Gatineau, Quebec. Only one other court has insisted on a notarized account in Nova Scotia which I gave, as it was a 'deal breaker' to get a file number assigned. Even then, the court demanded a second notarization to include the appended evidence documents which I gave. Interestingly, the sworn affidavit of the Employer was rife with fraud and no legal society or court would review that information right up to the level of the  Supreme Court of Canada (SK 36993 & QC 36883 - both in 2016 before the same three SCofC judges much to my chagrin and vehement protest). Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as a consequence, was called on to invoke the executive orders of the PMO to investigate clearly fraudulent actions. He did nothing thus compromising democratic Canada in its entirety. My PLACARD: IMPEACH SCOFC CHIEF JUSTICE BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN is not based on her role as Chief Justice per se; rather, it is based on the fact that she is President of the Judicial Council of Canada which did not even acknowledge the very serious allegations against two Ottawa judges (originally Federal court appointees and therefore under the JCofC) which played out in SK, QC, and NS.

Due to Trudeau's complicity, all complaints are now forwarded to the Governor General, Julie Payette, who is requested to suspend any assignments of the 'Order to Canada' until this legal matter is settled. I have invited the U.S. to invoke the Magnitsky Act ( legal and moral turpitude) against Justice Rosinski of NS Supreme Court (469918  Nov. 29-2017). CONCLUSION: I believe my sworn affidavit (FORM 109) provided in the revised forms complies with Registry concerns.


b) FORM 35, which was added to the revised factum, I submit does contain an order which is denied by the Registry. Certainly a reading of other sections of this factum would clear up any misunderstandings.


c) FORM 31 You obviously don't like my interpretation in its entirety.



5) What I consider picayune complaints is not uncommon to every Registry which I first approach. In all cases, I invite the Registry to ask for specific remedies which I have done in this case to make my factum more amenable to the courts.

6) What I submit that I have here is an account 'written in the Office of the Chief Justice'. Whether or not it has the sanction of B.C. Premier Hogarth will be shown by his reaction to this letter.

Yours truly


(signed) Roger Callow


cc Premier Hogarth / Gov. Gen. Julie Payette




                                                JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case(Canada) employeescasecanada.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) Recently, Ontario CUPE won $56 million dollars for its education workers on the same challenge that I have relating to the rights of courts to oversee imposed legislation including and apart from the collective bargaining rules as well in my case. NOV.29 in N.S. #469918 focused entirely on the constitutional question of court oversight powers over imposed government legislation which is at the heart of all democratic functioning. This Newsletter marks the culmination of 32 years of litigation with N.S. Justice Rosinski reflecting everything which is wrong with the Canadian Justice System. He must go from the bench before any Judicial Reform is contemplated.


QUOTE: “All rational action is in the first place individual action. Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts,” the famous Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises once wrote early in the 20th century.



1) Let's start with the farcical Senator Mike Duffy criminal trial which was thrown out because of the 'loosey goosey' Senate rules. All legal rules are loosey goosey. They read like a job description ending with ...and related duties or in the context of the law...'any matter the judge feels will further the course of justice'. Who ever heard of a trial split in two before and after an election? It's an absurdity. Duffy won because there was a change in government with the new Liberal government not wishing to pursue the matter. Further, the trial was handled back to front with the salacious bribery issue drawing attention from the conspiracy of private secretary Ray Novaks  mediating between some Tory senators and P.M. Harper which was reserved for the second half if the matter went ahead.

2) Justice Rosinski's non-judgment e.g. we don't know why he quashed the issue of the constitutional question in Nova Scotia on Nov. 29 which defines Canada as a democratic nation as it relates to imposed legislation and court oversight; as he makes no mention of the issue other than to say that I was being frivolous and vexatious for un-named reasons. Was it merely for contesting a traffic ticket, one might ask?

3) Hence the Chief Justice, who is charged with keeping legal decisions in their pristine condition for the sake of case law which forms the basis of precedent law on which courts of law depend, not only succeeds in that regard but also stifles any appeal which can only be on specific points of law of which conditions are lacking in the judgment as noted above.

4) However, an examination of the transcript includes a pre-written detailed definition of the case and when compared to Rosinski's 'non-action', reveals  a perfidy of the highest order.

5) Under these circumstances, I have recommended the U.S. to use the recently signed Magnitsky Act by both countries to invoke the charge of legal and moral turpitude against Justice Rosinsky. Considering the culpability of P.M. Trudeau, I have resorted to the titular head of Canada, Governor General Julie Payette to withhold any assignment of the Order of Canada until Rosinski j. is removed from the bench.

6) In a recent CUPE win of $56 million for ON educational workers; a parallel constitutional question limited to the 'collective bargaining process' (cda) was asked. My challenge on this level includes cda plus all other legislation outside the cda. In the employeescasecanada.ca, the West Vancouver School Trustees refuse to recognize the courts in quashing the arbitration or the right of the B.C. Labour Board to oversee abuses of the cda. In so many words, all future government legislation will be imposed making courts of law redundant.

7) So why did the courts grant a hearing to CUPE and not to me?

a)Money. The Justice System made a lot of money from that case. They would make no money from my 'Model T' approach. It reminds me of Canadian genius engineer Gerald Bull and his 'giant gun' which could launch space ships for a fraction of the cost of what the U.S. Defence Contractors could do. He got assassinated for his troubles.

b) The political pressure of intervenor status which is all the judge really considers. Seeing the ON Elementary Teachers / ON Secondary Teachers / Unifor (major forestry concern) for CUPE - were the turning point. In contrast, I could not even raise the professional teachers of Canada for support; no doubt at the behest of the Union leaders whom disliked my advice for any dismissed clientele to hire their own lawyer ($10,000) to double track the Union lawyer as protection against the sweetheart deal which characterizes all dismissals to some degree.

c) Time. The CUPE case took 5 years. What dismissed employee can wait that long? (I am still waiting for compensation (includes pension rights) after 32 years.

d) Judicial protection of judges at the expense of the Canadian Justice System. The mere act of permitting me to 'have my day in court' with this constitutional question would highlight the perfidy of over 50 judges whom had sabotaged this case to date...and that would never do....


8) Or 'Oilberta' as the economy would dictate which is in sharp decline exposing a high level of debt exacerbated by high union salaries which the province can no longer afford.

9) How can that debt be resolved with, for example the high paying teaching profession where senior teachers receive twice the salary of junior teachers if the Tories win the next election? One answer? With imposed legislation which operates outside of the cda such as B.C.'s BILL 35 (1985) since rescinded before the one case it was used against (banana republic justice) was resolved.

10) Here is one scenario which the Unions are helpless to combat. Create charter schools - something the Fraser Institute is forever advocating -  to duplicate every school in the province and to be funded with more money than the public system as an enticement to parents to switch from the public schools. There would be no teacher seniority or union protection (similar to some charter schools in the U.S. and not unlike the part time teachers at colleges). Senior teachers could get employment but at the lower scale. Of course it would kill off the teaching  profession for who in their right mind would take up teaching? Canadian schools, in short, would begin to look like U.S. schools with their widely differing standards which lead to the very best in schools alongside the very worst.

11) As noted in other correspondence, I have other alternatives in the Employee's Case such as suing for civil fraud against the Employer in B.C. (no statute of limitations on fraud) and suing the Federal Government for an apology aka (Arar and company) in Manitoba with this difference; I ask for only a token $1 in settlement.

12) PLACARD: VOTERS / FOOLS VOTING FOR OTHER FOOLS is the only future for 35 million Canadians due to their failure to MAKE NOISE in Nova Scotia on November 29 which will go down in history as Canada being 'the little democratic country which couldn't'  because they failed to 'stand on guard for thee'. That charge includes the anti-employee Canadian media which ran a boycott on this national story.



1) What does the bankruptcy of Northern Overseas Mills in Northern B.C. have to do with Ottawa snow plowing? After squeezing out all the small time gypo loggers from getting forestry licenses; 'Northern' then went bust in 1965.

2) In the 1990's, our older son started plowing residential lots (currently he only does commercial which requires considerable equipment investment. Even there, there are problems. He recently won an $80,000 debt against a deadbeat condominium entity.) I spotted him the money to buy his first used snow plow truck. No vehicle is suited to snow plowing as evidenced by gargantuan snow clearing machinery 'going down' when an iron rod hits their blades. Hence repair facilities are all-important. Older son has his own facilities and the necessary 'know-how' and connections to make repairs. But that is not how he started out. He used to beg repair depots for service being told by kind-hearted employees to 'come back at 11 P.M. and we will see what we can do for you'. One night, I got a plaintiff call to 'come and pull him out of a snowdrift which I did'. When his transmission blew (very common on older plow trucks); I spotted him the expensive repair cost. Today he makes that repair for a third of the cost in his own depot including labour.

3) Here is where the story gets interesting. A competitor which even had city contracts decided to close down and drive a tow truck for a living. He is not the only one bailing out leaving a vacuum filled by one major contractor with a second one 'on the side' and a drive down city streets will show how these two major contractors have blocks stitched up with their signs. It makes sense for neighbors to go with the one contractor on their street.

4) So where is the problem? It is two-fold. No drivers and no insurance.

5) All over Ottawa these days there are 'for hire' signs; snow contractors having a particularly tough time attracting drivers for intermittent and long hours of work. The City is OK in that the drivers are paid Union salaries. Drivers are known only to work 'under the table' as they do not wish to compromise their unemployment benefits. The large private contractors cannot accommodate that feature.

6) Insurance. Large commercial operations must have insurance. Large operations are known to hire small contractors as they may be more easily cheated.

A typical story: As no-one can game the system by hiring a 'you don't pay until we get paid' personal injury scumbag litigation firm for slipping on public Ottawa streets so they make up for lost time by suing such as private parking malls and apartment blocks. Bottom line? Some complexes are black-listed by the Insurance Companies. Older son told one such complex that he would plow but that they would have to get their own insurance after they had been blacklisted. That complex chose to go with another operator who was unaware of the prohibition and it was a very surprised insurance company for him when they got the usual 'slip and fall' claim. That operator dropped the client with a second replacement operator dropping the same account in the following year.

7) 90% of these phony claims never go to court as the insurance Company has to equate $80,000 in legal costs which - even if they do win - they will never collect, so they settle 'out of court'; $10,000 for the scumbag lawyer and $10,000 for the client. (Did you know that ON drivers pay $150 more each year on their policies to cover similar scams by those who extort the driving public?)

8) I knew one person who grumbled a decade ago about slow service with a big operator...this winter promises to be a watershed for Snow Daze... Netherlands Overseas Mills, move over, here we come.