DECEMBER 01-2018  employeescasecanada.ca


(TO. P.M. Trudeau from 'Outlaw' (Roger Callow)

'An unperson serving unpunishment for a uncrime.'

The Wolves  Alex Berenson



A) In any interrogation, denial is the tipping point. From that moment of denial things are never going to be the same. A Legacy of Spies  John LeCarré

B) ...Another half assed political accommodation stacked on top of a bunch of other half-assed political accommodations...In this business, you are only as good as the people you surround yourself with.' Kyle Mills

C) Canadians should be wary of fake news  O.S. Nov. 17 p.17 '...When people stop trusting the press, a democracy struggles to succeed.... Accuracy In Media (U.S.) '...media erosion starts small and then quickly escalates...I believe fake news is especially dangerous in Canada.'

D) Candice Malcolm columnist O.S. Nov.17 p.17 '...Like Trudeau said, a free and independent press is crucial to a democracy. Unfortunately for Canadians, our media institutions are being corrupted and journalists are failing to provide the full story'. ...or ANY story in the case of the anti-employee media boycott with the Employee's case. As to Malcolm's observations...amen, sister, amen. Roger Callow

E) If an issue (tree) falls in the middle of the Canadian legal forest and there is no-one to acknowledge (hear) it, does it make a sound? ANS. Absolutely not  according to the Old Boys Club


JULY 18-2018 to P.M. Trudeau from 'Outlaw'

25) The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, has compromised his principals in a significant way by ignoring the first phase of this case seeking settlement. Will he continue to undermine his position further as Prime Minister under the current charges of fraud in this second phase?


NOVEMBER 11-2018 to P.M. Trudeau from 'Outlaw'

REFERENCE: Vancouver Court S 188996 Sept. 20-2018 Hinckson  cj plus letter dated NOVEMBER 10-2018 to Vancouver Deputy Register, K. Mohammed. SEE web 2018 - Chief Justice Hinckson cj: fraud. (Sub-heading)


1) To apply some sort of trusteeship over the Vancouver Supreme Court regarding this Hinckson cj apolyptic blunder until this matter is sorted out. Surely Canadians at large should be able to expect much better than this piece of legal malfeasance dished up by Hinckson cj.

2) To order the RCMP to seize the pivotal disclosure which underlies this case and has been denied to me by over 50 judges in the past 33 years leaving me with an unresolved case where no compensation has been paid. Indeed, provide that obviously criminal information and I submit my civil cases would be at an end across Canada for everything that proceeds from a fraud is 'null and void'.




1) Any reading of the above is reflective of a country in complete collapse and, as such, a threat to the northern flank of the U.S. Defense. Are you listening, President Trump?

2) I have shifted from the 'anti-employee' media (2018 deadline symbolized by O.S. columnist Mark Bonokoski) to the 'anti-individual' media (shift from national to international scope) as symbolized by O.S. columnists, Farzana Hassan/Tarek Fatah

3) Is the Prime Minister of Canada still 'fiddling' while the country burns to the ground?


Yours truly, 'Outlaw'


ON August  26-2018, I wrote:

TO  1) B.C. Teachers Federation                                FROM: Roger Callow aka 'Outlaw'

e-mail: presidentsoffice@bctf.ca                                          

1 page                                                                                      employeescasecanada.ca

2)  Board of School Trustees (WVST)                         

(S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)                               

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9                 

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001    sent by fax

To whom it may concern:

1) Whom are your respective appointed legal counsels for Vancouver Supreme Court 

S 188996? You are going to put in an appearance, aren't you? = third fraud case

2) Are you going to provide me with disclosure in a timely manner (outlined in previous accounts) and avoid embarrassment  to the court? 


On September 04-2018, I wrote:

1) I still have not heard from either Party as to Representation. If you wish me to alter the court  forms to read WVST Chairperson, Carolyn Broady and BCTF President, Glen Hansman, as Defendants,  you will have to notify me accordingly ASAP.

2) To date, there appears no notice to contest either of the two civil fraud cases in B.C. or ON. Nor is any inclination shown to provide the necessary disclosure on which the $20 million claim is to be based in both venues.


September  07-2018

1) As I have not heard from either of the Defendants, I am submitting this case to be handled by the court in writing devoid of your arguments. Your final due date to communicate with me is September 14-2018 after which I will ask the court to render a written decision based solely on the information  provided by me to the court noting that should the court require further information, they may make a written request only to me or the RCMP for the purpose.

2) Considering the importance of this fraud case, special attention by A.G. D. Edy to the appointment of a highly proficient judge with an established reputation is required. (I have had enough of bozo decisions from the bench regarding the `personal matter` to which they would relegate this case.) The matter is now one of fraud. Should the court now demand disclosure, they will be limited to the services of the RCMP. The unchangeable default payment is for $20 million to be paid within 30 days. Without a challenge, by law my case must stand as fact in asserting that fraud is indeed the case.

3) Unless I hear from both Defendants by September 14, there will be no further communication with either defendant by me nor, for that matter by the court unless they obtain the necessary legal authority from A.G. Edy for the purpose. (The NDP future provincially and federally is at stake with this hearing.)

4) Of course it is understood that any 'unfinished' court result would include placing this plaintiff back on salary from 1985 with all conditions of the contract to apply.


Yours truly, (Roger Callow) Plaintiff  S 188996


cc  B.C. Attorney General D. Edy



1) Oh me, oh my, I thought with  $20 million dollar actions against the defendant B.C. Employer & Union; that they would leap at the bargain basement price of a $12 million buy-out; particularly as I include the Union to be covered as well as the Employer.

2) The Judges in both fraud cases in B.C. and ON are badly exposed without a defense from the two defendants. Will they mess up? Bet on it otherwise there would have been a buy-out offer

3) How, then will the judges get away with legal 'murder'? Consider the Notwithstanding clause used by Premier Ford in Ontario. He bluffed his way into having 3 Appeal Court judges introduce a preposterous 'Stay of Proceedings' (similar to tabling a motion in order to dispense with it.)

4) One of the two judges named in the ON fraud charge, Scott j. pulled that stunt in 2014 so that the Appeal Court refused to hear the matter because I did not have a lower court Decision. Was one ever filed later? I don't know. Nor do I know exactly what was filed for what a litigant receives as a Decision is not what is necessarily filed as I submit was the case in the Nova Scotia Appeal of this case in 2017.

5) Hence this letter is written as a direct warning to the B.C. and ON Judges not to pull a fast one; i.e. accepting a last minute factum from the Defendants in B.C. without providing me with at least 5 days on receipt of such factums for a rebuttal opportunity. (In the case of ON, time has expired for the Defendant Employer to mount a defense hence the only recourse the ON court has should they demand disclosure (which is important in pursuing the charges against two judges (originally appointed as Federal Court judges = jurisdiction of Canadian Council of Judges) is to contact the RCMP which has a complete file on this case (Montreal Fraud Division) with Commissioner Brenda Lucki being kept in the loop. In this latter matter, A.G. Carolyn Mulroney has been shown to be 'less than competent' hence all correspondence goes to Premier Ford whom was kept in the loop as soon as he won the election in June-2018.


Yours truly, 


Roger Callow

cc  ON Premier Ford / B.C. A.G. Edy / WVST / BCTF / RCMP Commissioner B. Lucki / President D. Trump (to warn international investors of the danger of dealing with 'sly' Canadian courts) c/o U.S. Embassy in Canada) B.C. Supreme Court File No. S188996 / ON (Ottawa Supreme Court File No. CV18000 76950 0000)


DECEMBER 03-2018

1) SEE web 2018 Sub-heading HINCKSON cj FRAUD as to how the B.C. Courts and NDP government backed themselves into a corner from which there is no exit. It's an apocalyptic charge without equal in any democracy and still that dum dum of an editor from the far right wing tabloid, the North Shore News will not tell the electorate how they can save $20 million.

2) The earlier buy-out offer ceases at the end of 2018. Beginning in 2019, an additional $500,000 is added to that 'without prejudice' offer made earlier.

3) In Ontario, Premier Doug Ford claims the GM Oshawa closure to be '...that ship has left the dock' while I am here to tell our colorful Premier him that

CV 18000 769 0000 (Ottawa Supreme Court) is still hung up in dry dock due to his inaction which must be most disturbing to President Trump forced to use 'sly' Canadian courts for trade and other commercial needs.


Yours truly,


Outlaw (Roger Callow)

Description: C:\Users\Roger\Desktop\FTP\crop4.jpg    Description: C:\Users\Roger\Desktop\FTP\crop3.jpg

2004 - beginning of public protest


DECEMBER 04-2018


TO: Board of School Trustees                                         FROM: Roger Callow 

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

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

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




1) Last year I sent a letter to the Board (copy to North Shore News )requesting information as to whom is paying legal counsel for the Board on matters the courts would assign legal costs to this plaintiff considering that I have never received an invoice from legal Counsel from Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia. These legal johnnies do not work for nothing.

2) There has never been any response from the Board on this or any matter in this 33 year unresolved labour case where no compensation has been paid. It is clear that the Board has the Justice System of Canada in 'their back pocket' but a press challenge - which does not seem forthcoming in 2018 - is required to dislodge this boycott of all issues. All governments are complicit in this piece of judicial malfeasance.

October 02-2018  

TO: Premier Francois Legault                         FROM: Roger Callow self represented litigant

CAQ Party-QC  2 pages                                                           employeescasecanada.ca

encl.   a) 3-page letter to Supreme Court of Canada Registry Officer, Suzanne Sarrazin Apr.04 2016  b) 4-page letter to QC Appeal Court 'The Letter Which Hangs the QC Judiciary' Dec.16-2016  c) 3-page letter to the QC Law Society (web) Canada's Corruptocracy  April 01-2016



1) You will forgive me from withholding my applause in your election success until I see how you handle some unfinished 'dirty business' left over from the previous government. My French Canadian wife and family has kept me cognizant of QC affairs.



2) In brief, the dismissal of B.C. senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985 under the auspices of the imposed  BILL 35 (only ever applied to this litigant before it was withdrawn = banana republic justice) has never been resolved. No compensation for 33 years (includes pension rights) has been paid contrary to any number of laws.

3) In 2013, the 'Cullen Creed' (Associate Deputy Justice, Austen Cullen r.2017) expelled me from B.C. in this unresolved case 'for reasons best known to a judge' as the Order was held on his own recognizance, without taking argument nor quoting specific laws. Hence I was forced to turn to other courts across Canada to acquire justice in this unresolved legal matter.

4) The issue in Quebec courts focused solely on disclosure; a problem which has plagued this case for 33 years. The assigned judges refused to call for this disclosure nor, alternatively, request that the RCMP seize this material. (The Montreal Fraud Squad has a dossier on these attempts by me.)

5) As in other provinces, regrettably, court procedures were marred by judicial malfeasance with the oversight bodies failing to acknowledge very serious shortcomings: In Quebec;

a) The Gatineau courts ran 'a court within a court'; a situation anathema to any justice system.

Goulet cj wrote the Decision on behalf of the hearing judge, Therrien j. without any reference to the existence of the sitting judge. He may yet find himself part of the civil fraud charges which I have extant against two ON judges if the RCMP do not investigate him.

b) The level of judicial cupidity detailed in the letters sent to you dealing with the 'behind the scenes' Appeal Court in league with Lavery de Billy for the B.C. Employer defies description which I provide in any event in the enclosures.

c) Regrettably the Supreme Court of Canada (36883-2016) 'whitewashed' the above perfidy by refusing to hear this matter. Two of the judges sitting on that rejection were QC appointees - Suzanne Coté j. and Richard Wagner j. the incumbent Chief Justice.

6) See the web site as to how B.C. Justice Hinckson cj in September took a step from which there is no return. For a first time, he allied the courts directly with judicial decision rather than using jurisdictional excuses - e.g. frivolous and vexatious; matters already resolved, - to evade responsibilities.

7) If the B.C. Government does not deal directly with Hinckson cj at the risk of imperiling the entire NDP structure in Canada; I will be adding his name to my civil fraud list similar to the two ON judges. The cases are all interlocked. You are under a similar 'gun' should you choose to do nothing as is the case with the oversight bodies.

8) A word on Nova Scotia is pertinent here where I unsuccessfully sought to raise a constitutional question relating to the matter of asking whether the courts of law have authority over imposed legislation? As there was no change of government in the last election, it was pointless to address another letter similar to this one to the premier. I did, however, call on President Trump to invoke the Magnitsky Act (legal and moral turpitude) against N.S. Supreme Court's Rosinski j. (This act may not be applied internally in Canada.)

9) Until concrete action is seen from you personally on the above issue, all court credibility in QC is suspended.

Yours truly, Roger Callow (litigant)   cc RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki


SECOND REQUEST by f:418-643-3924  NOV.11-2018 encl. 2 page letter to P.M. Trudeau



October 01-2018    employeescasecanada.ca


BY: Roger Callow Plaintiff  File S-188996 September 20-2018


QUOTE: A) 'What need we fear it, when none can call us to account' Lady MacBeth

B) 'In the Halls of Justice, all justice is in the halls' aphorism


34) Does the conspiracy alleged against the Respondents in the conduct of the grievance process permit the Supreme Court of British Columbia to exercise its inherent jurisdiction?

52) Simply put, how can the justice system of Canada in all good conscience deny me access to the court to resolve an unresolved matter which even the court has declared should have been re-arbitrated. The fact that the original arbitrator passed away under a law which would not see the appointment of any other arbitrator (law of frustration) calls into play the courts role of inherent jurisdiction in order to finalize this case. Failure to do so up to and including one appeal already to the Supreme Court of Canada is a denial of the letter and spirit of the law in Canada.

ADDENDUM: If Hinkson cj did not wish to assign me the default $20 million thus resolving the entire case, he could have re-assigned salary as I should never have been released from salary under the collective bargaining rules until this matter was resolved. By rooting around in the files, he has brought up a matter which threatens the existence of the Canadian NDP  Party.




DECEMBER 06-2018


August 04-2018


TO: Premier Hon. Scott Moe                             FROM: Roger Callow

PERSONAL  & CONFIDENTIAL                                          1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

226 Legislative Bdlg. Rm 226                                          Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

Regina, SK S4S 0B3                                                              F. 613-521-1739

4 pages sent by fax: 306-787-0885                               employeescasecanada.ca


REFERENCE: Letter to Premier Moe  August 01-2018



1) This is additional information as to how to proceed on the 'constitutional question' which I seek to promote in SK on an ex parte basis. I await your response in shaping that court document.

2) The key to imposed legislation is to go around the legislative bodies plus, in my case, the judiciary as well. Specious excuses are the order of the day as seen South of the border with the incumbent President citing 'security concerns' to do as he wishes.

3) As to Canada's unpopular 'carbon tax'; while the Federal government has powers over taxation, the topic is in fact one of pollution across Canada. The Federal government cut is to be the 15% GST. To establish a Federal-Provincial agreement as 'one size does not fit all' according to Premier Moe, requires agreement by the two parties. The Feds must cost their program which depends on the Provinces supplying disclosure to that end = delay.

4) The enclosures (3 pages) taken from earlier filings show what a mishmash are our legal courts including those in SK. In brief, SK can expect to win the lower court challenge only to lose at the SCofC...both court levels are just that political. In brief, depending on the legal establishment which is really only interested in lining their pockets from such milch cows as government coffers is an expensive route to go.

5) That's why the law courts fear my 'Model T' constitutional challenge as there is no money to be made from it. Further, it costs the SK government nothing to be an Intervenor without which the legal fraternity has, in the past, given me a pass.

6) No lawyer is capable of doing what I do with the courts of law as I extrapolate findings from one area to apply to another. The Canadian legal system collapsed under that pressure.

7) As to how to proceed on the Carbon Tax: the challenge the Ford government made before the due date of instituting a Carbon Tax is the definitive move. Now do nothing. Doing nothing means proposing one method after another of a program ostensibly suited to the Federal government demands but, in that process, never satisfying them. Saves legal costs too.

8) The Employer claim in the Employee's Case - which the courts of law have failed to address in 33 years - is the next step in imposed legislation; namely, to deny court oversight in any action. Of course that is anarchy but that is the direction Canada is headed in as media exposure of such as the Employee's Case is MIA.

9) I have other uses for SK courts in the event an ex parte constitutional question is not filed.


Yours truly,  Roger Callow



(Nothing received from filed information with Saskatoon Court. SEE 2 page enclosure to P.M. Trudeau)



(Premier Moe should resign)


December 06-2018


TO: Premier Hon. Scott Moe                             FROM: Roger Callow

PERSONAL  & CONFIDENTIAL                                          1285 Cahill Drive E. #2001

226 Legislative Bdlg. Rm 226                                          Ottawa, Ontario K1V 9A7

Regina, SK S4S 0B3                                                              F. 613-521-1739

9 pages sent by fax: 306-787-0885                               employeescasecanada.ca


REFERENCE: Correspondence (t.306-933-5135 / f.306-975-4818) from Saskatoon Deputy Local Registrar, Kathy Brower dated November 28, 2018 and received in early December:


Dear Mr.Callow (complete letter follows)


Enclosed is your originating application and attachments along with the bank draft for $200.00 We are now required to return your bank draft and documents, as we have been holding funds past our allowable time period. You were notified on October 25 of some of the deficiencies. I enclose a copy of that correspondence, (e-mail was never received RC). The mail strike is no longer an issue or reason for holding the funds.


Yours truly,

Kathy Brower Deputy Local Registrar


QUOTE: The late Christopher Hitchens called conspiracy theories the "exhaust fumes of democracy" - the unavoidable result of large amounts of information circulating among a large number of people. Response: That is primarily why the Justice System runs a provincial based unilateral system of lower court-Appeal Court-Supreme Court of Canada with strict admonishments of running 'a court within a court'. That routine was placed on its head by the unresolved  33 year Employees Case originating in B.C. but since metastasized to 8 out of 10 provinces since 2013 in which the corruption of the entire Canadian Justice System was exposed through a unique juxtaposition of one finding in one province with that of another province which led to the demise of the credibility of the entire Canadian Justice System. In this, the Employees Case did not create those pernicious actions; rather it exposed a long time standing corruption primarily due to the failure of oversight bodies in the courts and government to acknowledge judicial excesses.



1) The proper course for Premier Moe to ensure that the jurisdictional tail does not wag the Premier dog is to fire Local Saskatoon Registrar, Glen Metivier, for failing to review the unprofessional actions of Deputy Local Registrar, Kathy Brower.

2) As an experienced litigant - much to my chagrin - in a 33 year unresolved legal matter which even a judge believed should be re-arbitrated at one time so that I could collect compensation (which has never been paid) in a botched B.C. labour matter under the imposed BILL 35; I have experienced the worst that the Canadian judiciary has to serve up including the recent preposterous action by B.C. Chief Justice, C. Hinckson. That includes the courts of SK under Premiers Brad Wall and currently, Scott Moe. First, the Hinckson cj account which forms the basis of a new charge in Saskatoon court for fraud (SEE web) 2018  HINCKLEY (sub-heading)

a) First of all, the Defendant Employer and Union did not appear probably due to the threat that I would sue any legal Counsel for fraud for the full terms of the settlement. Hence the Court was bound to accept my assertion that a fraud had indeed taken place.

b) Hinckson cj was the first judge among the over 50 judges whom did not call for the obligatory hearing (one hour by teleconferencing). If he had, I would have asked him to recuse himself as he sat on this case as an Appeal Court judge in the 1980's.

c) He did not call for disclosure which over 50 judges have also failed to do. If he had, he would have proof positive evidence that a fraud had taken place so that now the RCMP could have laid a criminal charge of fraud (only the police and the Crown may lay criminal fraud charges.) (Reference: RCMP Commissioners and Montreal fraud squad where a dossier resides on this point.)

c) If he had provided information that he was going to expel me from the B.C. Courts 'for reasons best known to himself' (merely quoting a former judge on this same level is not germaine) I would have responded with the following account  (Note 3) below Res Ipso Loquitor ) which was later foiled by the B.C. Registry and the failure of the entire NDP government (B.C., nationally, and ON where another charge of fraud is extant) to take remedial action with the failure of the court to register the charge of civil fraud against Hinckson cj. That matter is now to be placed before the SK courts along with earlier judicial frauds in that province which were never reconciled by oversight bodies including the Saskatchewan Legal Society.  The common ground is the same case in all provinces.


NOVEMBER 10-2018

TO: Kazim Mohammed - Deputy Registrar Vancouver Supreme Court


FROM:  Roger Callow Plaintiff  employeescasecanada.ca  2018  Hinckson cj 'fraud'



1) Acknowledgment of your letter dated Nov.01-2018 and received Nov.09-2018 is made which states in part: We received the following document  in the mail and it cannot be filed for the following reason: 1. We cannot file the Notice of Civil Claim (fraud Action against Hinckson cj) as you have been deemed a vexatious litigant; therefore, you cannot initiate any proceedings in any registry of the Supreme Court without prior leave of the court....

RESPONSE: Whom do you think you are giving the above judicial finding...a judge? I think not. Hence I have directed a copy of this account to A.G. David Edy calling for your immediate dismissal for usurping the judicial process. cc D. Edy A.G.



2) Space limits a telling of the factum but the web site listed above: Concluding Remarks #49-#52 and the Letter to D. Edy also included dated Sept.27-2018 B.C. Justice System Crashes and Burns - NDP Future at Stake are pertinent here.


3) This account focuses on Res Ipso Loquitor for which neither MacKenzie (2010) nor Hinckson cj whom repeats her error of not calling for argument nor quoting pertinent laws, chose to expel me from the courts 'for reasons best known to themselves' in an unresolved B.C. labour case where no compensation has been paid. In brief, neither judge gave me the opportunity to address the court on this point of law explaining why I requested A.G. Edy to immediately suspend Hinckson cj. Edy's silence (plus Premier Horgan) speaks legions on this point.


Res Ipso Loquitor Latin for "the thing speaks for itself."

Overview In tort law, a principle that allows plaintiffs burden of proof with what is, in effect, circumstantial evidence. The plaintiff can create a rebuttable presumption of negligence by the defendant by proving that the harm would not ordinarily have occurred without negligence, that the object that caused the harm was under the defendant's control, and that there are no other plausible explanations. In the vernacular, this term is likened to the patient whom goes for a hospital arm operation only to come away without his foot instead.


Prima Facie Case To prove res ipsa loquitor negligence, the plaintiff must prove 3 things:

1. The incident was of a type that does not generally happen without negligence The court noted negligence when they quashed the arbitration in 1986 for failing to show a causal factor.

2. It was caused by an instrumentality solely in defendant's control. As the senior teacher laid off under the imposed conditions of BILL 35 (lay-off for economic reasons only); I had no say in that process

3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the cause. If I did, then disclosure is called for which over 50 judges including Hinckson cj. should have called for or ordered the RCMP to act. He ignored all issues limiting his response to a 'bastardized' interpretation of the 'MacKenzie Creed'.


4) A.G. Edy's inaction is the sole source of this judicial malfeasance. Premier Horgan should replace him and order this matter back to the court with a special investigator.  cc Premier Horgan / media


3) The perfidy of Regina SK courts relates to the B.C. Employer's use of tainted materials from two Ontario judges - McKinnon j. and Scott j. - along with the Employer's ON Counsel; Hicks, Morley et al which abruptly dropped representing the Employer 'for reasons best known to themselves'. A legal case is extant in ON naming those two judges and Hicks, Morley et al. SEE web site.

4) The Employer's use of that information which the SK courts failed to examine even with my direct request (telephone conferencing) to do so was compounded by nefarious actions with the SK Court of Appeal which again was unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada for a hearing hence the matter of SK judicial malfeasance remains an open question and is to be the subject of a revised factum which will include the recent most astounding action by a judge (SEE web 2018 - Hinckson cj) ever conceived which is the submission here including the failure of the B.C. Registry and behind them, the B.C. NDP government which was kept fully apprised of legal actions. In bottom line language, not only is the B.C. Justice System irreparably compromised, but an end to NDP fortunes - due to interlocking provincial connections - to the federal arm plus the NDP opposition in ON are forfeited.

5) The specific transgression beyond the failure of the Lower Court in Regina to question key evidence outline above vis a vis McKinnon j. and Scott j. was obviated on Appeal when the leading judge held a private voir dire with Employer counsel B.C.'s Harris & Co. and arranged for them not to be heard in the Appeal although they listened in on the telephone conferencing. She did not take argument on this level nor permit the two other judges to speak on points of law. That is what Richard Wagner, the 2017 incumbent Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC), would condone through his inaction as he also duplicated that position in an second SCofC appeal in QC in 2016. Hence the perfidy of the judges remains an open question in both provinces as no oversight body has ever acknowledged these very serious judicial complaints. SK, in so many words, is directly involved in these accusations of judicial malfeasance.

6) Also raised in every court and venue since 1985 is a request for disclosure which in terms of habeas corpus underlies all rule of law - or should in Canada's case. The pertinent documents are the meeting notes of June of 1985 by the School Board relating to my 'questionable lay-off' as a senior teacher which Madam Justice Southin called for and then returned 'because she did not use them'. Regrettably, the lawyer I hired purloined those documents and handed them over to the Union; otherwise we would not be here today as Southin j. quashed the arbitration favouring the School Board for failing to show a 'causal factor'; a decision supported on Appeal. I was left in limbo; a limbo which is now moving into its 34th year.


Specific objections to above SK Brower letter

7) What 'allowable time limits' is Brower referring to? Normally, a docket number is assigned and the fee deposited immediately unless, as in this case, a controversial case is being registered, and then an overview of approximately one week maximum is conducted. In this case, the prolonged delay could explain a routing of this case through the Office of the Chief Justice and on to the President of the Chief Justices Association, Ken McArdle (husband of former SCofC Chief Justice B. McLachlin.) The answer as posited here is that the SK courts was instructed to 'blow this case off' explaining why the matter devolves onto the lowest common denominator; namely, Kathy Brower. Nobody, under these circumstances, felt obliged to even bother reading what she wrote.

8) As Brower well knows, e-mail is not an acceptable form of communication by the court as she implies regular mail was used when it was not. That's a firing offense (if we had honest courts which we don't; it all comes back to you, Premier Moe.) Even on an e-mail level, her explanation fails as the web address is shown as g.mai.com as opposed to the proper designation being g.mail.com. Confirmation of such e-mails is made by the server. In short, this is not a clerical error; rather, it is the kind of training that many employees are now getting in the bureaucracies as directed by their bosses. The mail strike excuse lacks all veracity.

9) Much can be said about continuing misdirections of Brower in her e-mail  but considering that I did not receive it in a timely manner, there is no point giving a detailed rebuttal.

10) In many ways, the issue has not changed since 2004 when the Supreme Court of Canada rejected this unresolved  issue under the terms of inherent jurisdiction. My legal counsel departed this case with this astounding statement: You have exhausted all remedy under the law. Subsequent legal actions have revealed - not created as the courts would erroneously write this off as a 'personal matter' - an extant level of fraud and deceit in the Canadian Justice System possibly dating back to its creation in 1867. Similar to the tangible #metoo Movement in which women are currently revealing the tangible sexual predatory actions of some men mainly in positions of power, my #metoo Movement relates to the intangible rape of the Employee's Case - call it Kashoggieism if you will - by leading elements in Canada's Judiciary. The common ground? All Canadians are just as negatively impacted by both movements.






File number CA030699, made February 27, 2004

(Annotated) Questions:

21) a) How does a conspiracy between a union and an employer in the conduct of an employee’s grievance impact on the collective bargaining scheme? (Particularly when evidence would show that the request to use BILL 35 against me originated within the local West Vancouver Teachers’ Union = ‘sweetheart deal’ in which I submit the Union would sacrifice the teacher if the Employer would sacrifice the Superintendent. He was removed the following year and never held another post in B.C. RWC)


b) Does the Labour Relations Board have exclusive jurisdiction to hear an unfair representation complaint by a union member against a union where the occurrences giving rise to the grievance happened at a time where the relevant category of union members were excluded from the ambit of the Labour Relations Act? (The Justice System glossed over this fact although it is to be noted that the Board repeatedly refused a Section 12 hearing on this matter which would have revealed the conspiracy = the Labour Board joined the conspiracy.)


c) In what circumstances can a court of inherent jurisdiction process a union members grievance in the face of a collective bargaining agreement that provides for arbitration to resolve grievances? That is the key point in this question of national importance then and now which the SCofC has failed to address (refusing to hear this case in 2004 and currently filibustering) = Third World status as SCofC becomes part of the conspiracy. This question lies at the center of the current appeals (5 and possibly 2 more to come). The ‘MacKenzie Creed’ complicates the current legal scene to such an extent and degree that now, no matter what the outcome, Canada is reduced to that of ‘a failed state’. No legal system can withstand ‘running a court within a court’ and be considered viable.)





22) This is an application for leave to appeal the decision dated January 9,2004, of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissing the Applicant’s appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Williamson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Justice Williamson dismissed the Appellant’s action against the Respondents based on conspiracy and ordered that the appellant may not, without leave of the Court, institute any legal proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. (Note that this provision does not deny court access to me such as is the case of the MacKenzie Creed. S106159, which she removed from the docket, requested such leave making her Order redundant as well as anti ethical.)

23) The Appellant, a teacher who had been employed by the Respondent School Board for 17 years, has been endeavoring since his layoff in 1985 to obtain redress for what he believes to be the unlawful action of the Respondent school board.

24) The Respondent Association initially assessed the Appellant’s grievance to be with merit and took it to an unsuccessful arbitration, and then to a successful judicial review of the arbitrator’s decision (only after I changed lawyers and an appeal was filed without Union knowledge), where Madam Justice Southin determined the arbitrator’s decision to be flawed, and directed the arbitrator to hold a further hearing. Madam Justice Southin’s decision was upheld at the Court of Appeal. (NB Ontario Teachers would be interested in this point. The Employer argued that BILL 35 was a consentual agreement (between employer and union) as opposed to imposed (by government). While it was a ridiculous argument, the Employer was in a position to blackmail the courts; a blackmail dealt with elsewhere and which exists to the present day.)

25) Before the arbitration could be reconvened the arbitrator died.

26) Section 5 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act did not permit the matter to be referred to an arbitrator other than the arbitrator who heard the matter in the first instance. (‘frustrated’ situation where litigants are not to be held liable for court ‘glitches’.)

27) After the death of the arbitrator, Mr. Lindholm, in November 1989, the Respondent Association abandoned efforts to complete the arbitration and obtain reinstatement for the Appellant. It was willing, however, to pursue settlement negotiations with the School Board to obtain financial compensation. However, the Applicant objected to the compensation strategy, based on wrongful dismissal concepts, as being inadequate and continued to press for a judicial or arbitral determination of the validity of the layoff of an appropriate compensation strategy.

28) The Respondent Association was not certified as the teacher’s bargaining agent until 1988. (why any other B.C. teacher is screwed under the circumstances of a sweetheart deal although the courts continued as though I was under sole Union control...a good reason for never holding union membership…and staying out of a Canadian courtroom unless you first buy the judge.)

29) The history of the Appellant`s efforts through the courts and the Labour Relations Board are detailed in the affidavit of J.S. Clyne and Douglas Player , filed on the motion before Justice Williamson. (Clyne was the ‘go to’ lawyer for School Boards prosecuting teachers but lost that business after this case.)

30) In all of these efforts the Respondent Association and Respondent School Board have adopted virtually identical positions in opposition to the Appellant’s actions. Throughout all of the proceedings both Respondents reminded the court and the Labour Board that the settlement proposal of approximately two years salary was a reasonable one, which continued to be available. (If I had accepted that offer, to be sure it would set a precedent for anyone else ‘laid off’ in Canada as opposed to being dismissed under the wrongful dismissal laws which are a different set of laws. This case is all that keeps employers from following the ‘West Vancouver School Board’s “final solution” hence I am fighting for all Canadian employees. SEE 11 c)

31) That settlement proposal is no longer available and the Respondent Association has completely abandoned the Appellant’s grievance.(Smart employers always have ‘an offer of settlement’ on the table as a means of delay by obviating ‘pending’ court actions.


32) The basis of the within action is conspiracy. The Appellant alleges that the Respondent School Board and Respondent Association have conspired to thwart his grievance. The particulars alleged are as follows:

a. refusing to call as witnesses at the arbitration, or on the contemplated recommencement of the arbitration, any of the Board trustees who were at the meetings in 1985 where Mr. Callow’s lay off was discussed, and allegedly decided; (the trustees refused, in essence, to perjure themselves, leaving that to the Superintendent);

b. agreeing to make the Board’s consent to an adjournment conditional on there being no financial prejudice to the Plaintiff; (that’s a big one and possible grounds for the employer to pursue the union should I win my current action);

c. putting forth the “no financial prejudice” agreement as a roadblock to achieving a monetary compensation settlement based on breach of statutorily imposed contract that did not provide for a “right to terminate” (as opposed to settlement based on wrongful dismissal principles where the employer has a right to terminate providing it gives adequate notice or compensation in lieu);

d. refusing to support the Plaintiff’s request for reinstatement via a reconvened arbitration;

e. refusing to pursue the reasonable monetary compensation settlement proposal advocated by the Plaintiff;

f. taking an adversarial position against the Plaintiff during court proceedings commenced by him directed at reinstatement; (the union refused to hand authority over to me to conduct a re-arbitration at my own expense.)

g. abandoning all efforts to negotiate any compensation.


33) Of particular concern to the Appellant is the reticence of the Respondent School Board and Respondent Association to reveal what was discussed at, or to disclose the minutes of, the “lay-off” School Board meetings held prior to or at the time of the Appellant’s layoff in 1985. (Under the ‘access laws’, I received partial information which showed that a vote was taken by the Board regarding the lay-off which appeared in their arbitration record. What did not appear was the vote pattern in which Chairperson Margo Furk and her successor, Mike Smith, were the only two out of five who voted in favour of the lay-off. This is the material which Justice Southin concealed opening her to blackmail.) He alleges that such evidence would have demonstrated that the criteria for lay-off as set out in Bill 35 did not exist. (there was no declining enrolment) As Madam Justice Southin said in her Reasons for Judgment in 1986.

“No minute was adduced in evidence to show that the Board ever intended to layoff a certain number of teachers under the new statute”. (note the legal casuistry here as Southin skates around the specific action of laying off Callow) Further, Southin blamed the School District for using the imposed BILL 35 in this sole laid case for the wrong reason when in fact they had used it for exactly the purpose it was designed; namely, to fire a whistleblower. (No blame was to be attached to the government in this conspiracy by her.) As part of a later Appeal Court judge, she sought to bury everything as opposed to recusing herself.




34) Does the conspiracy alleged against the Respondents in the conduct of the grievance process permit the Supreme Court of British Columbia to exercise its inherent jurisdiction?

35) Are the issues raised in this action res judicata?

36) Can an unfair representation complaint arising from occurrences which began in 1985 at a time when teachers or their unions were not subject to the Labour Relations Code be pursued in the Supreme Court of British Columbia?


11) In the new SK factum, I address myself solely to the question of disclosure which it is submitted here, would substantiate a charge of fraud. Under that charge, if successful, everything flowing from the initial action is 'null and void' and all back pay provisions would apply with interest.

12) As this hearing is being held in SK; a court order to the RCMP which has always been kept apprised of this case (Montreal fraud Division) is now required to obtain that evidence as both courts and the defendant Employer and Union are remiss in supplying such documents.




I, Roger Callow of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, swear and affirm the following is true:

1. I turned 65 on August 24, 2006, which brought into play my pension rights;

2. My pension rights are determined on the basis of contributions to the plan, both mine and the employers;

3. The amount of these contributions is dependent on the date of termination of my employment;

4. Because I was a tenured teacher, my employment could only be determined by a proper legal process;

5. In my case the validity of the termination has never been determined. Technically although I was unable to work and was not paid, I remained a teacher under the employment of the Board;

6.I require that a proper termination date be determined, or a settlement be achieved providing me compensation which would include pensionable service benefits;

7. The recent pension inquiries caused me to examine how I could get compensation or a termination date determined. There is no other remedy I can pursue other than as requested in this petition.

8. Whatever approach is made, disclosure as outlined above is at the root of any successful remedy.


SEAL: in the Province of Ontario (Ottawa)

on  OCTOBER 18-2018



 (signed) Roger Callow - deponent



14) In conclusion, an old saying suggests that if one takes care of the details; the bigger issues solve themselves. If this case is reflective of the prowess of the government of SK and its courts, lord help the people of SK in any challenge to the Federal government's ' Carbon Tax' which Premier Moe has threatened. Indeed, based on the principles extant in this case, I believe that he will find that the Federal government 'owns' the Supreme Court of Canada.



15) a) The total settlement fee for this caper is $20 million which includes courts, employer and union; the division of which is up to the court to divide. In brief, everything gets buried under these circumstances which accords with the national media boycott on this national debacle.

b) I will forego the $20 million should the court take those actions which provide the necessary disclosure which is my right under any circumstances. What is not to love under these circumstances as the courts can choose their own approach to penalizing errant judges should they so choose.

c) Of course should a fraud be demonstrated from such disclosure, everything flowing from it is null and void.


ADDENDUM: As this SK action is likely to be filed in 2019 when this issue becomes an international one focusing on the role of the 'individual' in Canadian society; this is in all likelihood the last appeal in 2018 of this issue as a national matter.


Yours truly (Roger Callow)


encl. 'Brower' e-mail


DECEMBER 10-2018


ON August  26-2018, I wrote:

TO  1) B.C. Teachers Federation                                FROM: Roger Callow aka 'Outlaw'

e-mail: presidentsoffice@bctf.ca                                          

2 pages                                                                                    employeescasecanada.ca

2)  Board of School Trustees (WVST)                         

(S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)                               

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9                 

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001    sent by fax


To whom it may concern:

1) Whom are your respective appointed legal counsels for Vancouver Supreme Court 

S 188996? You are going to put in an appearance, aren't you? = third fraud case

2) Are you going to provide me with disclosure in a timely manner (outlined in previous accounts) and avoid embarrassment  to the court? 


September 04-2018

1) I still have not heard from either Party as to Representation. If you wish me to alter the court  forms to read WVST Chairperson, Carolyn Broady and BCTF President, Glen Hansman, as Defendants,  you will have to notify me accordingly ASAP.

2) To date, there appears no notice to contest either of the two civil fraud cases in B.C. or ON. Nor is any inclination shown to provide the necessary disclosure on which the $20 million claim is to be based in both venues.

3) The presiding Justice appointed to hear this case in B.C. is in an intolerable position if the above disclosure is not made available to me. While previous judges escaped charges of malfeasance due to the claim that this was a personal dispute; in actual fact we don`t know how the oversight bodies would  have viewed that argument as no oversight body, including the RCMP, was willing to acknowledge the many transgressions by court bodies and lawyers.

4) The current presiding Justice is faced with the challenge of fraud and should expect to be pursued to the fullest extent of the law should he or she seek to emulate the earlier judges.

5) The choices are clear for the presiding judge:

a) the above defendants are asked to give up the disclosure documents willingly

b) the presiding Justice orders those documents to be produced

c) the presiding Justice orders the RCMP (Montreal Fraud Division) to seize those documents.

d) at the very least, as the Union client directly impacted, I have a right to the Union`s copy which I claim was purloined from me.

6) I will wait a few days more awaiting your respective responses.

7) As matters now stand, if you do not put in an appearance, then by law my assertions must stand as fact. The only alternative for the presiding Justice should he or she deny a)-d) above is to provide the $20 million as forfeiture with the court deciding on how that would be divided between the two defendants. No other amount is acceptable.

8) Without a response, I will instruct the court to proceed to final judgment in writing only. Any further information required by the court would be limited to written arguments between solely myself and the court.


Yours truly, (Roger Callow) 


 cc RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki / Attorney General D. Edy


December 10-2018

TO: WVST  FROM: Roger Callow

1) As you know, the Defendant West Vancouver School Trustees (WVST) and West Vancouver Teachers Association (WVTA with everything conducted by  B.C. Teachers Federation) did not put in an appearance in the above S188996 Vancouver Registry hence the court was obliged to accept my assertion that, indeed, a fraud had taken place by the two Defendants. My very real threat to sue any legal counsel representing either Defendant for the full $20 million dollar settlement obviously took its toll.

2) A similar action is extant in ON courts and is growing mould - CV18000 76950 0000 Ottawa Registry for which, again, the sole Defendant WVST did not file a Response within the time limit. Again, they were threatened by me as per the B.C. case should they make an appearance

3) SEE the letter to SK Premier Moe dated December 06-2018 employeescasecanada.ca DECEMBER-2018 under this date for a parallel case being re-launched in January 2019.

4) The cases in ON for civil fraud include the names of two judges from 2014; Colin McKinnon j. and Scott j. along with the Employer's legal counsel, Hicks, Morley et al whom unceremoniously dumped the Employer. A special prosecutor would need to be appointed on that level if the Ford government is so inclined. My sole interest lies in getting disclosure (or $20 million in default)

5) The case projected for SK parallels ON with the addition of fraud charges against B.C.'s Hinckson cj and SK's Appeal Court's 3 person 'hi-jinks' panel. B.C.'s Harris & Co. represented the WVST and included the fraud from the originating McKinnon-Scott 'tag-team' fraud in ON.

6) While being consistently dunned for all legal costs in these trials, I have never received an invoice from any legal firm representing the Defendants. Who paid them? The WVST is strangely silent on this question which I posed to them last year in which the far-right wing tabloid, the North Shore News, remains even quieter on this apparently extravagant waste of the taxpayer dollars.

7) Now for the best part: provide me with the complete disclosure (meeting notes from the WVST in June of 1985 wherein my lay-off under the imposed BILL 35 was discussed) and I will drop all legal cases. What's not to love about that proposal? With evidence of a proven fraud, everything flowing from it is null and void. Scuttlebuck has it that I was 'laid off with extreme prejudice' for whistleblowing on a principal whom I had evidence of a fraud vis a vis my professional Report on Teacher (he altered the account from a positive to a negative and I caught him). It appears that two colleagues (former WVTA Presidents) of that principal along with Superintendent, Ed Carlin, pressured two members of the five member School Board - Chairperson Margo Furk and her successor, Mike Smith - to condone this action. The document approving the lay-off did not have the vote count and seems to have been created later in July by their legal Counsel, Stuart Clyne = fraud which Justice Southin, whom quashed the arbitration ruling the arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable', covered up.

8) At the beginning of January 2019, the settlement amount increases by $500,000.


Yours truly, (Roger Callow)


P.S. This legal case has the provinces terrified...solution? scrap School Boards  e.g. Nova Scotia


DECEMBER 11-2018

Imposed Legislation and the Carbon Tax (SK)


1) What SK needs, and hasn't got, is a precedent case to challenge the Feds on the constitutionality of imposed legislation.

2) To the best of my knowledge, the employeescasecanada.ca is the only legal case in Canadian jurisprudence which provides the necessary groundwork for such a constitutional challenge as the above i.e. the use in this case of the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985) used only against targeted senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, before it was rescinded even though the case remained unresolved for 33 going on 34 years with no compensation having been paid (banana republic law).

3) The key phrase is 'in addition to'; namely, that the imposed legislation does not displace statute law. The mainstay of the Union argument in 1985 was that BILL 35 passed ostensibly for economic reasons did not displace the Schools Act where such matters as 'teacher competence' were covered. In actual fact that is what the arbitrator - later ruled patently unreasonable when the court quashed the arbitration - used the Act for. In short, it was a conspiracy involving the government, The Trustees and the Union. (B.C. Deputy Education Minister Jim Carter had been a West Vancouver Principal closely associated with two former Union Presidents and the incumbent principal, John Williams, on whom I had evidence of a fraud vis a vis my Professional Report on teacher. He changed it from a positive to a negative and I caught him. In brief, this 'lay-off' was a firing for whistleblowing) A second behind the scenes conspiracy extended from the arbitrator through the courts to the present time in which the Canadian Judicial System collapsed (SEE web).

4) The Employer refused to recognize court oversight claiming that there is no oversight of imposed legislation. In Ontario, they launched a court case seeking a sanction of that position. They didn't get it although Ottawa Supreme Court Justice, Colin McKinnon, in league with a second judge, Robert Scott  conspired with the Employers legal counsel, Hicks, Morley et al in a fraud which is the focal point in a case 'growing mould' in ON court. That fraud was played out in QC, SK, (2016) NS (2017) and more recently in B.C. (2018) without any oversight body acknowledging very serious transactions against numerous judges.

5) In NS, amid the usual judicial obfuscation, I raised the constitutional question apart from my case on an ex parte (no defendants) basis hence all three interests have raised this question at different times and in different ways. That is why the impasse is due entirely to that of the Judicial System and should the $20 million forfeiture fee be assigned to me (Employer/Union/court malfeasance); those other two interests have a good case against Canada's Judiciary.

6) I say 'forfeiture fee' as I am willing to forego any forfeiture fee including charges against the judges, if I am provided disclosure (minute notes of West Vancouver Trustees in June of 1985). I know what happened but knowing and getting recognition of facts by the court are two different things. I need the facts regarding the conspiracy. If a fraud is shown, by law, everything flowing from it is 'null and void'.

7) In 2016, SK had the opportunity to get an answer to imposed legislation, but fumbled the ball and are now their Appeal Court has become a part of the problem.

8) Currently, I am re-entering the case in Saskatoon where one attempt to undermine it is forcing a different approach. That approach will include the imposed legislation in one form or another along with the addition of the two judges from ON as Premier Ford and the Courts are conducting a 'ducks and drakes' approach which can only lead to further disaster. One B.C. judge is also part of that charge.

9) A note on legal Counsel for the Defendants is necessary here as they have not filed a Defense in the last two cases notably because I am on record stating that I will sue any such legal firm directly holding them responsible for the full $20 million settlement.



10) The key to appreciating the above background is that, indeed, there is no key. It is bedlam with the Employee's Case and it is to be bedlam with the Carbon Tax. In essence, SK 'owns' the SK Appeal Court outcome in much the same sense as the Feds 'own' the Supreme Court of Canada outcome. Success on that level favours the Feds.

11) The Federal case is mush. If the courts were legitimate - which they are not as testified to by the Employee's Case - the Feds have the impossible job of costing their carbon tax. By shifting their case from a 'tax' to 'climate change', they raise the question of 'a rose by any other name...is just the same'. Their cut is to be the 15% GST or, if you will, 'filing fee' in this new lexicon. No doubt the TV and media pundits will wax poetic about the 'ins and outs' of this judicial boondoggle but the answer is in...the Feds will freeze financing of payments to SK on a number of different accounts unless they play ball.

12) What the Feds are really trying to do is to create through precedent law, a means by which they can obviate Parliament on any issue they choose. It is government by fiat. If that juggernaut cannot be resisted, Canada would be better off considering the 'Fourteenth Colony' amendment by which Canada can become a U.S. state (once in, no leaving, guys, as the U.S. Civil War has shown.)

13) As to the current efficacy of the courts, watch closely what Premier Ford and the Ontario Courts do with CV 18000 76950 0000


DECEMBER 13-2018


1) Similar to myself in the Employee's  Case (E.C.) Norman is in similar circumstances in that he is in a position of being 'dead right' and in that order. So if the judge declares a case 'dead', the question of being 'right' is deep sixed.

2) In Canada the ant-employee media refuse to acknowledge that Justice Canada (the Old Boys Club) runs Canada; the politicians and media with their 'get out and vote mantra' being little more than a bad joke. The Canadian courts of law, in brief, are mush, as are their decisions.

3) The practical problem I had when the arbitration was quashed with the arbitrator being ruled patently unreasonable for failing to show a causal factor (this crime-this perp; the bedrock of all law) was that Justice Southin in 1986 did not rule me back to employment knowing full well that the question of why I was 'laid-off' (whistleblowing) would be a direct challenge to the Old Boys Club; particularly due to the scandalous use of the imposed BILL 35 (B.C. 1985) ...and that would never do....

4) Similarly, success for Norman puts General Vance - the 'front' for the Old Boys Club - right in the crosshairs. (Norman was fired under the Harper gov't.)

5) Liberal Treasury Board Chairperson, Scott Brison,  a front for the Irving Family of N.S., seeing Norman's looming fate, decided to capitalize on it by jiggling ship contracts to favour NS over QC even though Irving interests were exposed by other contractors on that basis. Norman is to be the scapegoat for Brison's duplicity.

6) Politically, the battle is boiling down to Irvings vs the media which is championing Norman's cause. I predict the media will lose but they love victims if only to enrich their story-telling. The only faint hope Norman has is that a change of government - similar to that of Senator Duffy - could reverse his situation.

7) While my charges are for civil fraud (only the Crown and the highly political RCMP can make criminal charges); the E.C. has all the evidence necessary for a criminal charge  amid press silence due to their boycott of the E.C. plus the amazing silence of professional teachers in Canada plus the legal fraternity = cowardice. I cannot get the necessary disclosure to prove my case from over 50 judges. That's how Canada's Justice System collapsed.

8) Much is made of Norman's Case recently to acquire disclosure but in his case that evidence is not going to point to criminal fraud hence it is rather redundant. He may get some compensation but that would be as a convicted felon.

9) The Crown case is based on what constitutes a 'leak' in terms of cabinet solidarity. Ottawa is a sieve as far as confidences go but here is the reasoning by analogy. 'Sir, I have pulled you over to assign a speeding ticket.' "But everybody passing us by is speeding. What you are saying, in essence, is that the law only punishes transgressors."  'Got it in one, sir, here's your ticket. Have a nice day.' Hence asking whom was the first to leak the matter would be immaterial as a factor in Norman's case.

10) So the question reverts to what constitutes 'cabinet solidarity'. Another analogy. As a member of a jury, one is prohibited from discussing a case during the trial and is bound not to disclose that discussion after the verdict. The CBC Reporter knew Norman was breaching this code as all such breaches are from 'unidentified sources' although a court can force a media person to reveal his or her source. Norman did not go that route. He painted a bull's eye on himself by 'standing up and being counted' which in Old Boys language means '...counted out'. Galileo had that little problem with the courts a number of centuries ago when he pushed the sun-centered notion of the universe in public against the wishes of the Old Boys Club. He claimed scientific evidence (which was faulty as it took his successor, Kepler, to work out the math of planets moving in ellipses hence Galileo deserved to lose based on his own case).

11) While I am a 'nobody', Norman has an established reputation as a career officer of which reputation the media propel. That is the only thing standing in his favour from a legal point of view to provide for a suspended sentence but a sentence nonetheless. In military language, that means 'eating your gun'.

12) I point that out because my only 'crime' was being laid-off for economic reasons which were not proven. All courts have said as much but all courts have failed to show the E.C. to be 'dead' as a means of forestalling whether I was right or not; although not for trying by the courts. That's why the courts - not this plaintiff nor the two defendants - are guilty of a level of malfeasance unequalled in the history of any democracy. By the end of December, the anti-employee media will be assigned the same status as the Justice System in 2004 by me in which the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear this case under the terms of ultimate remedy. In brief, a judge may not 'pick up the ball and go home' until the game is finalized. But that is what they did in the E.C. Have I ever been wrong? ...dead, maybe, as some judges erroneously claim, but it is the judges themselves which are shown to be 'dead wrong'. All judicial findings in Canada are jeopardized under these circumstances. This is the nightmare scenario that Norman is facing for doing what is normally labeled 'office politics'. Norman needs outside help which I will display in 2019 on my placards: MARK NORMAN CASE / IRVINGS vs MEDIA / NORMAN 'TO LOSE' Hopefully, Norman can get public help - apart from the media which is already supporting him - denied to me.




To: PREMIER FORD  by fax (2 pages)   From: Roger Callow plaintiff


OCTOBER 23-2018 - SECOND APPEAL: CV 18000 76950  0000 (Ottawa Supreme Court) copy to Ottawa Sun columnist, Mark Bonokoski

1) Considering that the B.C. action mentioned above filed after the Ontario Action has been adjudicated (with much prejudice - see employeescasecanada.ca), why is there a delay in providing a written Decision in Ontario particularly considering that the Employer did not file for an appearance in either case?

2) Also in contrast to B.C. is the fact that the Ontario action lists two Ontario judges whose actions still go uncontested as to malfeasance and were a factor in other venues across Canada.  The Ontario action, also in contrast to the B.C. action, is for civil fraud although production of the disclosure by the highly politicized RCMP would most likely lead to a criminal charge of fraud. Under those conditions, in the event of a successful suit, everything flowing from the imposed BILL 35 (1985) as used by the Employer in an illicit senior teacher lay-off in 1985 would be 'null and void'.

3) At heart of all court actions for 33 years has been the issue of disclosure (as is the case of the criminal trial against Vice Admiral Mark Norman but that trial continues with this difference; I have no media coverage. Is that what Canada has become?...a newspaper democracy?)  Bonokoski, are you listening?

4) The proper course for the Ford government (all correspondence now goes to Premier Ford considering the abject performance of his A.G. Carolyn Mulroney on this file) is to place the Ontario Judiciary under a trusteeship until answers are forthcoming explaining why the above legal case appears to have disappeared down the proverbial black hole.


Yours truly, Roger Callow aka 'outlaw'


DECEMBER 09-2018

1) Nothing has transpired on the above file no.; that is nothing from the court, and nothing from your office.

2) This letter is being written now to forewarn of a 'dirty little stunt' which the laws prohibit but from whom can one expect legitimate oversight? For example, a court letter is written on the last day of work on December 21 with delivery delayed in January so that a due date for response is passed. Looks good to other bureaucrats and possibly the media; but it's codswallop with which the justice system abounds as testified to by the Employee's Case.

3) And yes, as Premier, you are directly affected by any such stunt as the above.


Yours truly, (Roger Callow)


DECEMBER  17-2018  To Ottawa Supreme Court by fax: 613-239-1507  1 page

REFERENCE: CV 18000  76950  0000

1) Your attention is drawn to the letter above to Premier Ford as nothing has changed.

2) Considering your chicanery, the names of two ON Judges, Colin McKinnon and Robert Scott, whom I have charged with fraud in the above action, are being shifted to another venue.


Yours truly, (Roger Callow)