(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)


This Newsletter is a X-country review of legal proceedings to date


1) B.C.  Now that the corrupt government of Christy Clark has been removed (I was expelled in 2013 from B.C. Courts in this unresolved matter under the 'Cullen Creed' leading to other courts outside of B.C. for a resolution due to her AG, Suzanne Anton, ducking all responsibility in that caper); a new action testing incoming NDP Premier, John Hogarth, has been filed as regards the constitutionality of the imposed BILL 35.

2) AB Matters hung up with Registry under Notley government who was kept fully informed. Disgraced Ezra Levant (The Rebel) is symbolic of the anti-employee media boycott on this national story. Awaiting new leader.

3) SK under departing premier, Brad Wall & QC under Couillard are legal disgraces both bailed out by the Supreme Court of Canada  leaving a compromised PMO under P.M. Trudeau

4) ON The source of all malfeasance since 2013 played out in affidavits used in QC,SK and NS. No oversight body will investigate obvious fraud on the part of the Employer and the courts. Premier Wynne unresponsive.

5) NS Took the next step in this fraud of the 'error of omission' to the 'error of commission' 458698 Suzanne Hood j. in which a sworn affidavit no longer has any meaning in Canada. New Ex Parte action being filed.

6) PEI What can you expect  from a Premier whom combines the Office of Premier with that of the A.G. under Premier Wade MacLauchlan? The premier & Senator Duffy (no stranger to court victimization) are AWOL.

7) MB A challenge for new Tory Premier Brian Pallister whom appears to have more than a typical cliché response to issues. Imposed legislation negatively impacts both provinces and individuals.





1) How does a picayune high school election/appointment story about selecting a Department Head have implications for NAFTA negotiations? Here's my story where there is no right nor wrong answer.


2) A new high school principal asked the various Departments to elect their coordinator. He actively gerrymandered in the French Department to keep the former long-time coordinator from being elected. The long-timer upset that applecart by stating that if the principal had any objection to a particular member running for the position; surely he had an obligation to notify that person in order to avoid personal embarrassment as well as Department unrest. The administrator declined by arm twisting the Department teachers into selecting a compromise candidate; namely, a former administrator holding only one French class which exposed not only the French Department to ridicule but threw all other Departments into confusion.


3) The following year, another new principal was appointed to the school and tried to resolve the problem by announcing that all Department elections were merely recommendations to the principal in the appointment process. The senior French teacher above was now in retirement. That process was accepted by all teachers other than myself. I refused to let my name be available for the process as well as refusing to vote although  my offer to count the ballots was accepted. Considering the problem from the previous year and for the sake of peace, the new administrator felt obliged to accept all recommendations although I suspected the preferred selection in my Department was not his first choice.


4) Now to NAFTA negotiations. Considering my own negative experience with the Canadian Judiciary in an unresolved 32 year labour case where no pension has been paid contrary to any number of extant laws, I identify with President Trump's insistence that the U.S. control the dispute mechanism (Section #19) rather than trusting to Canada. However, waiting until all negotiations are complete before he acts threatening to jettison the entire negotiations is unworkable with my style of ethics. (It should be noted that one Asian trade organization wished to have its own dispute mechanism apart from Canada; a proposition common to Third World countries but not Developed ones.) Trump is not unique with this approach as it defines the position of both the Canadian and Mexican leaders. What he has done, however, has been to introduce negotiations at the point of a gun. I was faced with a similar challenge when the West Vancouver Superintendent of Schools used a similar approach: If I did not accept the withdrawal of the fraudulent Principal's Report in June of 1985; I should expect the consequences (application of BILL 35) I didn't  -as I saw his performance 7 years earlier (SEE web ORIGINS) and did not trust to his word that he would, indeed, withdraw the document- and he did. As I learned later, The Board was attempting to get rid of two birds with the one stone in what turned out to be 'a bridge too far'. The Superintendant whom perjured himself in arbitration (but never proven) was dismissed the following year and never served again in the public B.C. School System. So the topic comes down to this...does President Trump have credibility in the eyes of Canada and Mexico?


5) In brief, If President Trump is threatening to cancel NAFTA negotiations because if he disagrees with the outcome, surely he must involve himself in each major stage of negotiation. For example, Section 19 should be arbitrated first to see whether there is any purpose in proceeding with other provisions. This is an inversion of the usual negotiating tactics where the agreed on areas are disposed first. If the negotiators cannot agree to this approach initiated by Mr. Trump, then Canada and Mexico can be expected to re-direct their trade efforts immediately, much like Britain's Brexit, to other trade patterns excluding the U.S. Many U.S. citizens and Canadian citizens will pay a hefty price for that loss.


6) Will the U.S. suffer on this account? Most likely in the short run as attested to by Britain's Brexit which kills investor confidence wiping out any economic gain which Trump has achieved to date in the U.S. The future is unwritten of course. If, for example, there is world war or world depression - and I do not rule that out focusing on China's immediate contest for the leadership in November which will have world-wide ramifications - the U.S. could conceivably be better off in the long run than other countries with insular economic policies.


7) At a recent dinner party hosted by us including our Mexican guests, there was the usual anti-Trump diatribe when my older son, the contractor and a Trump supporter spoke up:

'You don't really get it; middle America is for Trump. For years, voters were used to the usual rhetoric of 'change' as mouthed by the politicians where wages remained stagnant and the very wealthy got wealthier. In 1985,U.S. citizens were the most prosperous in the world; today there are 10 countries ahead of them. Admittedly, as Americans willingly agree, their health care program is the worst of the industrial world and similar to that world, health care costs are the biggest outlay for any country. Then the economic recession of 2008 hit and people lost their jobs and with it, their health coverage. In some instances, people lived in their cars in their driveway providing security for their empty house which had been seized by the bank. They watched as their jobs went offshore. While they suffered, the top 1% became even richer

So when 'crooked Hillary' speciously proclaimed that 'Americans do not need to be great again (Trump's campaign line) as they are already great', there was the usual 'voting with their feet' to the polls by her opposition to defeat her and her media cohorts. When Trump was elected President, the stock market did not go down; rather it went up so whatever the 'fake' media reports, they have basically got it wrong. Whether or not Trump is able to capitalize on his promises remains to be seen.' 





A) REFERENCE: Scientist won't get job back / Empty handed after 13-year battle  O.S. p.4

1) A few differences between the above case and the employeescasecanada.ca: (E.C.)

a) The Canadian scientist concerned (Shiv Chopra) was fired 'for cause' in 2004 from the Federal government  while I was laid off in 1985 (complete with recall rights) under the B.C.'s imposed BILL 35.This latter matter has never been resolved by the courts leading to the implosion of the Justice System with the failure of the second Supreme Court of Appeal to hear this topic under 'ultimate remedy' in 2004. In 2016, the SCofC compounded their perfidy by covering for the judicial malfeasance of QC and SK leaving the Prime Minister to shoulder the burden. P.M. Trudeau has done nothing.

b) Under the collective bargaining rules, one is to receive salary while appealing a decision. BILL 35 made no such provisions with the Employer refusing to recognize court oversight. (The key to all current actions in the E.C.) I don't know why salary would be withheld from the scientist, a federal employee with association connections in this story.

c) As a Federal employee, all work related disputes are referred to the Federal Court while all other Canadian employee disputes are referred to the Provincial Courts. When I was expelled from B.C. Courts in 2013, I turned first to the Federal Court under Chief Justice Paul Crampton, appointed by the Harper government in 2009. As they are paid less than the provincial courts, some judges use them as a stepping stone to the more lucrative provincial courts which still has ramifications as to their original appointment. For example, I accused Ontario justices, Colin McKinnon and Robert Scott, both former Federal Court appointments of gross malfeasance in 2014 which fell under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Council of Judges under the aegis of SCofC Chief Justice B. McLachlin. There was no response. (A spokeswoman for the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada said it was too soon to say whether the institute would pursue that option.) In short, if my experience is any indication, the scientist is screwed, possibly by his Union. I had that experience as well. PLACARD: IMPEACH SCofC CHIEF JUSTICE  B. MCLACHLIN (before she retires in December).

d) My experiences on two occasions with the Federal Court revealed a judicial body crooked to the core. In the case of the scientist, consider the following revelations:

(i) The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the adjudicator's decision was not unreasonable. This statement of legal speak raises the question as to whether the decision was 'reasonable'. (Appeal Courts are limited to oversight which lower court judges are only too aware and regularly skate around them.) In the E.C., the arbitration was quashed with the arbitrator ruled as patently unreasonable. I was left in limbo which is my current state. That's why the Justice System collapsed in 2004 as a judge may not 'pick up the legal football and go home before a Decision is made. In brief, there can be no process without judgment. That is what is meant by the 'rule of law' explaining why Canada's judiciary imploded over this precedent-setting case.

(ii) "Nobody asked the question, 'What did I say?' I was speaking out (on health food issues), but it was my duty to speak out. They didn't get to the bottom of the issue.," he said.

Issue avoidance is common in court  and government proceedings. For example, my 'lay-off' was prompted also by doing my duty in providing evidence to the B.C. government of alleged fraud vis a vis my Professional Report on Teacher by a principal in 1985. The response was the imposed BILL 35 which was only ever used against this teacher. The problem is universal. For example, in the 1940's, black Viola Desmond whose visage will grace the Canadian $10 bill in January of 2018 sat in the front white section rather than the upper balcony of a Halifax area theatre not knowing about the segregation there and refusing to move when it was pointed out to her the nature of her trespassing. She was arrested, placed in jail overnight and fined in the morning 'for failing to pay the one cent owing on the entertainment tax'.

(iii) and he has been collecting his pension since his retirement (currently 83). When I turned 65 about a decade ago, the School District did not acknowledge my retirement. Without that acknowledgement, I have been unable to collect a work pension. No judge - and there have been over 50 in this case - will recognize this topic or any other issues (other than jurisdictional excuses) in this case. The anti-employee media boycotts this story leading to the demise of their credibility in this national story negatively affecting all Canadians.

(iv) A few months after the firings, then prime minister Paul Martin said the firings had nothing to do with the scientist's whistleblowing'. Fair point...then what is the Employer's explanation which is conspicuous by its absence in this newspaper article?  As to Martin, he was hated with a passion by workers in his Canadian Steamship Company. (I am surprised that he was able to become P.M. I figured that he 'fingered' Arar for CIA deportation to Syria for torture; an event later covered up by P.M. Harper with his $10 million buy-out to Arar.) Yes, I 'whistleblew' on a corrupt administrator; but I was 'laid-off'; not dismissed. As a senior teacher, the whole topic of seniority is raised which I address in the second part of this tome. The court's explanation for quashing the arbitration was that no causal connection was shown i.e. this crime...this perp. Regrettably, the Employer has been seeking to get through the 'back door' what they cannot get through the 'front door' with the complicity of the courts and over 50 judges. Other scientists dismissed at this time on the same scientific question have been exonerated and returned to service but not Chopra. From this article, we do not know the Employer's argument...poor reporting?




a) 'They (the courts) can get anyone if they really want to' former Vancouver alderman & failed mayoral candidate, Harry Rankin (deceased) one of my lawyers whom I later dismissed for reneging on a promise; namely, to place West Vancouver School Trustees on the stand to attest to lay-off numbers in any re-arbitration which the courts had ordered. My Response? With Harry on the job or should I say 'running a job'; I can see the truth of that statement.

b) 'Is it possible we have entered a state of anarchy and are too ignorant to know it?

 Letter to Editor (on a different topic)


1) I'll begin with the ending first for any Union employee so afflicted by being discharged: Hire your own lawyer paid out of your own pocket ($10,000?) to double track the Union lawyer. The following advice is for Union clients as non-Union clients have very little recourse under the laws.

2) Remember, Unions get nothing financially out of arbitration or a court case - no matter which way it goes - other than a big bill hence is born the sweetheart deal.

3) The 'individual' (including Union clients) is 'dead' in Canada due to no politician willing to acknowledge the Employee's Case. The Charter of Rights (1982) should be modified to read: This charter applies to the rights of 'all individuals' to read  'all power groups'. In short, turn to crowd sourcing first on such as the internet as Postmedia (soon to go under*) as the media similar to the courts, is in the hands of the 'Old Boys Club'. For example, one group of Ottawa University interests has kept the 'Diab Case' alive by reporting on this professor's specious deportation and holding in a French jail for two years without a trial on very sketchy evidence from a 1980 terrorist bombing in Paris. (disclosure: I had the same judge; Robert Maranger, a very slippery fellow indeed, but he gave the Harper government what they wanted with Diab.)

* Quote: 'Her newspaper got bought out, Just like practically every other big-city paper, and the new owners loaded it up with debt to pay themselves for their investment. When the classifieds plummeted like a rock...the paper began to lay off reporters, especially investigative reporters, who might take weeks or months to research a story for publication. June was young, cheap labor, and she was good at her job, so she lasted longer than most. But the economics were brutal and getting more unforgiving by the minute. Then the ax finally fell and June was just another free-lancer with a degree in journalism. In this age of technology, it was as useful as a degree in Klingon, or God forbid, English. Burning Bright  Nick Petrie

In Canada, there is a political dimension to this story. P.M. Harper tried to drive the 'left' national broadcaster, the CBC, out of existence by severely cutting their budget. P.M. Trudeau has retaliated by bolstering CBC as part of his infrastructure funds leaving Postmedia now 'on the rocks'. I now keep my subscriptions reduced to a 6 month basis.


4)The problem for Trudeau is that his massive borrowing was based on revenues which are not there. I am a typical example in that regard. Before I pulled out of the stock market in 2015 much to the surprise of my financial advisor whom made a mittful of money for my in 'big cap' funds, I paid a mammoth tax bill 'because I made too much' according to my f.m. Letters from Revenue Canada had all sorts of 'pre-pay' programs available for me. In the past 2 years, my tax is now minimal as I find the markets too volatile. In short, the Liberals lack liquidity, the very thing that can put a Company under in spite of their assets. I attribute their legalization of marijuana and the carbon tax more to a desperate bid by the Liberals to raise cash than any other single cause. The recent increase in interest rates 'because the economy is strong' is so much bullwinkle. one in three employees live paycheck to paycheck and many more have an unmanageable personal debt. The business climate is terrible. For example, while one sees a number of new cars on the road (I have one with this difference, I paid outright thus surprising the dealer) there are a large number of auto dealerships trying to edge into a struggling market. That's true of everything...be it restaurants or dentists or lawyers. Trudeau is attempting to tax the Tory base such as small business amid much uproar but he plans to win the next election with the employee vote hence the push for an increase in the minimum wage. He has to be careful not to alienate immigrants (over 35% of his Papineau riding in QC is Haitian. Montreal has a significant Haitian population while Toronto has a Jamaican base. The current Haitian influx are economic in their bid. Not so the 350,000 El Savadoreans whom are refugees and are threatened with expulsion from the U.S. as well. This group in both the U.S. and Mexico have their eyes on 'Mexico North; namely B.C. where there are more illicit pot shops in the Vancouver area than Tim Hortons and Starbucks combined.


5) As to the major topic of marijuana, it is a great tribute to President Trump that is family is substance abuse free as is my own family. I hope P.M. Trudeau belongs to that tradition although both a brother (deceased) and his mother were charged with pot possession. While I support the decriminalization of drugs (the war on drugs has been counter-productive); I balk at the legalization of pot beyond the medical application. It will create a nightmare vis a vis driving and particularly blue collar workers on some types of dangerous jobs. I see a contradiction in those younger groups who - in encouraging good work habits - believe that one's social life may be separated from the work place. In terms of substance abuse, I strongly disagree. Currently 20% of cigarettes in ON and QC are counterfeit. If pot is legalized, organized crime will undercut the market with a 'superior' product; namely, pot laced with heroin = massive drug addiction. No doubt, auto insurance Companies are bracing themselves to exempt any client with evidence of drugs in his or her own system and that proof must be provided by the client. Further, as one adult student told me who had spent a few years in prison for drug peddling: 'I started drugs at age 12. And if you are into drugs, you are into stealing.' Theft is an indictable offense. Of course even top drug operators and their families are drug free such as the two Mexican brothers who distributed drugs for the entire U.S. from their base in Chicago. They eventually turned state's evidence in 2008 in the Mexican drug wars where Cuidad Juarez was the capital of the murder world at one point. Today I understand the drug barons are corraled in Guadalajara as a means to curb the horrific murder rate in Mexico.


6) For professional teachers, protection of seniority is all important as senior teachers get twice the salary of beginning teachers. The Fraser Institute (Far right wing think tank) is correct in noting that in the last 5 years there has been a decrease of about 5% in the student body with an 80% increase in school expenditures - most of it going in salaries. By breaking the back of seniority, School Boards can employ 2 beginning teachers in the place of one senior teacher. Alberta is particularly hard hit financially and should the Tory's get in next year, expect the chop to come here first.


7) From the point of view of the Union; someone has to be laid off. They just don't want expensive court cases. Therefore, senior teachers are vulnerable. (The origin for the differential in salaries lies that in the 1950's teachers were poorly paid and there was difficulty retaining them. The deal cut was that if beginning teachers were to work for less money and  have their salary topped up in their senior years - it took 14 years at one time to reach this level which has been reduced to closer to 8 years. Today, there is no shortage of unemployed graduate teachers looking for work hence the same conditions as the 1960's do not exist.) The problem for 'expensive' senior teachers, as I can attest from personal experience, is that you are unemployable in your chosen profession because you are too expensive. Usually senior teachers have additional costs such as assisting their children financially in college or university. To be laid-off under these conditions is catastrophic. That's why all teachers, whether they realize it or not - and it appears, 'not' - have a vested interest in the Employee's Case for as matters now stand, the West Vancouver School Trustee's final solution is the guiding principle in our courts of law: If you do not accept what we offer in compensation for your dismissal, then you will get nothing at all...90,000 Frenchmen (WW1 Maginot mentality) or in this case, 50 plus Canadian judges cannot be wrong....


8) As the Employee's Case Canada has shown,  it is folly for 'individuals' to trust to the courts of law in Canada (for that matter, any international interest). For centuries, the Catholic Church (and other religious groups) covered up pedophilia in the Church until the public outcry in the 1990's led to reform. There requires similar reform in Canada's judiciary but who will do it? I made a futile attempt in that regard. Recently on another issue, a Lebanese physical trainer from a wealthy family with brothers high up in the government, told me that people must 'talk out the issues'. Canadians don't, she added. Amen, sister, amen. We are the 'little country who couldn't' despite our generosity to the needy.


9) While the above covers a number of different topics, the key lies in appointing capable leaders which unfortunately are always in very short supply. Too many bureaucratic leaders are failed electoral candidates. The number of capable people are easy to spot. For example, an article in the newspaper on the interim Carleton University President in Ottawa stands out. I checked with my younger son who is with his former University who gave this report: 'While he was before my time, I was told that he was well thought of in his 12 year tenure.'  A second outstanding individual is Prince Harry of Britain; an experienced combat solder respected by his colleagues and the main force behind the Invictus Games for wounded soldiers. He does not arrogantly declare that 'I am the commander here and the games will be played my way!' He is tops in my books. On another topic, I wrote one columnist on an article about how the RCMP will be re-booted...sure, with a new set of rules to replace the old set of rules which did not work in any event (a key definition of madness). I invited him to consider another option as seen in the sporting world: if a baseball pitcher or football quarterback is not performing, what does the coach do??? As to leadership: PLACARDS: A) JUSTIN HAS 'NO GUTS' or how about this 'think piece' B) JUSTIN DID NOT IN HERIT HIS FATHER'S BRAIN. C) PIERRE - 'JUST WATCH ME' / JUSTIN - 'JUST PHOTOGRAPH ME' plus President Obama's ...Justin, just give it a rest.... All of which is not to say that any incumbent politician is fit to fill his shoes for they are not. (There may be some future to the Tories Michael Chong.)



TO:                                                                             FROM:

Rt. Hon.  J. Trudeau P.M.                                     Roger Callow aka 'The Outlawed Canadian'



...in a process augmented by P.M. Trudeau = anarchy

REFERENCE: Nova Scotia under the re-elected (unfortunately) Premier Stephen McNeil whom has done nothing in terms of oversight in this unique and very important case with national ramifications.

1) In an ExParte Application in Chambers (Halifax Superior Court) dated April 2015 included here, item 4 with b)c)d)  annotated here as 'missing' states:  a) Ex Parte application (Form 5.02) b) supporting Affidavit (Form 39.08)  c) Brief (two copies required) d) three (3) draft orders (Form 78.05); I re-submitted a corrected entry in a letter dated August 28-2017 also included here to the P.M. only

2) The second letter with a change of Superior Court Prothonotaries from Caroline McInnes (is she no longer with the Department?) to Prothonotary Timothy Morse would suggest that the right hand does not know what the left hand doeth...a common bureaucratic problem although I raise the question as to whether that is the case here . In my letter of August 28-2017 5) I state: I swear that the material included in the above four FORMS is an accurate portrayal of the issues involved in this legal matter.

3) The letter returning the fee ($279.50) as agreed with the court of McInnes has now become:

     1) The tendered filing fee is incorrect; the correct fees are:

         a) Application - $218.50;  b) Law Stamp - $25 plus HST; and HST; and c) Motion - $66.00

        ( Registry APRIL 2015 letter included here only to P.M. .. 7. The filing fee is $218.05 and law stamp fee of  $25 plus HST required at time of filing) A Motion Fee appears to be an     .         addition)

      2) Your affidavit does not conform to the requirements of Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rule 39. In particular                   

          the exhibits attached to your affidavit have not been marked by the person who took your oath.

          (It would appear my letter affirming the truth of my submission is unacceptable.)

4) I am no stranger to picayune letters such as the above and due to the incompetence of the oversight bodies of Premier McNeil and Federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson Raybould in this Nova Scotia matter (both kept fully apprised of events), all reference in this case is made to the executive powers of the Prime Minister. In that bid, I requested the PMO to assign an officer to mediate the entry of forms in all 8 provinces. Regrettably, P.M. Trudeau remains MIA in that request.

5) To mollify the NS courts, I did acquire a notarization from my legal counsel where the debate was where to place that notarization . The whole question of notarization is 'a ball of wax' in any event and was never required in any other forum, including that in Nova Scotia under the badly flawed hearing in April under Justice Suzanne Hood 458698 where both parties (The B.C. Employer and myself) merely affirmed testimony as per 5) noted in 2) above.)

6) Hood j.'s  actions were particularly egregious as noted in other accounts (SEE web site) with her apparently innocuous action having the dire effect of making a sworn affidavit a meaningless action for Canada. Considering that the Employer Affidavit concerned was covered up by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) in two unheard appeals by me in 2016: 26993 (QC) and 26993 (SK) leaving the matter of corruption in the hands of the Prime Minister based on the alleged fraudulencies of the Employer's sworn Affidavit; the same affidavit which appeared in Nova Scotia and was turned down by the NS Barrister's Society for examination leaving it to the court to make the necessary examination. In declining that request for an examination by me but still giving an action, Hood j. unwittingly added the crime of commission to the SCofC's  crime of omission making the courts complicit in a manner not seen before in this unparalleled judicial fraud stretching over 32 years in this unresolved legal matter. Again, P.M. Trudeau remains uninterested.

7) If the Prime Minister is not going to appoint a PMO officer to unravel this legal conundrum, he should place the NS Judiciary under some form of trusteeship. The citizens of NS and, indeed all of Canada considering the national implications of this case, deserve much, much better. How can Canada, it needs be asked, negotiate such as SECTION 19 (dispute mechanism of NAFTA) with this national bare-faced lie outlined above sitting at their negotiating table?

8) As matters now stand, the stand-alone constitutional question regarding imposed legislation, which has been raised by both the Union and the Employer (but ignored by the courts) in the past, is the single most important legal challenge in the history of Canadian jurisprudence. This case needs and deserves to be heard.

Yours truly,

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

cc 10 provincial  Premiers  /  U.S. President D. Trump  /  U.S. commentator Charlie Rose

QUOTE: 'We believe that unknown rights are not rights at all'  Manitoba Legal Association website




(modus operandi for a court of law)

1) It is a foolish litigant indeed, whom demands his 'day in court' where he delivers copious materials relating to how he was 'wronged' by such as an employer.  "I get the 'what' , the judge replies to the plaintiff, but when did you dispense these material to the defendant and what was his reply to each letter?...not done? ...decision to the employer."


2) There was considerable unrest in the 1970's under 'young' Superintendent, Ed Carlin, who hired controversial principal, Jim Carter. The latter ultimately became the deputy Minister of Education at the time of the 1985 imposed BILL 35 legislation in which this senior teacher was the sole lay-off in a matter which has never been resolved. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid in what is labeled as the West Vancouver School Trustee's final solution: If you do not accept what we offer in compensation, you will get nothing at all. Over 50 judges including 4 trips to the Supreme Court of Canada has substantiated that finding. That is why the executive powers of the Prime Minister have been called on. P.M. Trudeau has done nothing.


3) Hence the real reason for my dismissal in 1985 was because I documented all my conduct with school administrators between 1978 and 1885 when I was 'laid off' for economic reasons and mailed it to them in a timely manner. In short, if any executive were to do what I had done, he would be fired. Obviously union members were not to be exempted in this precedent setting case from that type of 'indiscretion'. In the U.S., President Nixon and his 1974 'White House Tapes' were a precursor to his resignation in a pre-digital age.


4) That was then and this is now where the advent of the internet and e-mails permits everyone to protect their backsides. The authorities are going nuts. For example, a trial is about to get under way for two staffers who destroyed all the e-mails of the Dalton McGuinty government in Ontario regarding a political matter relating to gas plant cancellations. Another trial in which Senator Duffy is suing the government for false arrest also has e-mails at its roots


5) Closely related to the above enterprise is disclosure and the rampant abuse throughout the Justice System as legal counsels seek to deny this all-important feature. For example, I have sought damning disclosure against the Employer for 32 years only to be ignored by the various courts of law. As matters now stand, an individual litigant  against a powerful opponent would be better off taking his chances on a lottery ticket than to ever trust to a Canadian court of law. PLACARD: STAY OUT OF A CANADIAN COURTROOM UNLESS YOU FIRST BUY THE JUDGE


6) Solution? Rebuild the Legal System and my future tomes will speak to that end. For now, do not trust to the bureaucratic legal groups of any type to effect that change.  Realize, due to the employeescasecanada.ca, that the first step to change is to realize that the oversight bodies  - both judicial and political - are moribund.


SEPTEMBER 23 -2017

Apparently the initial fee quoted by the NS Supreme Court Registry was incorrect. The revised fee according to prothonotary Timothy D. Morse reads:

1) The tendered filing fee is incorrect (notice no admission to their mistake; not mine); the filing fees are: a. Application - $218.50; b. Law Stamp - $25.00 plus HST: and c) Motion - $66.00  

which I computed to $312.75 and sent a revised cheque accordingly which, in turn, was returned with this cryptic hand-written response from the Registry:  filing fee remains incorrect (signature not clear).  On September 21-2017, I sent a SECOND REQUEST: TOTAL OWED _______ (please fill in) RC . There has been no response.