PREMIER PALLISTER
May 01-2019 - 6 pages
TO: Brian Pallister
Premier MB FROM: Roger Callow
self-represented plaintiff
450 Broadway Ave. 1285
Cahill Dr. #2001 Ottawa, ON K1V 9A7
Winnipeg MB R3C 0V8 t/f:
(613) 521-1739
t.(204)945-3714 f.(204)949-1484 e-mail: rcallow770@gmail.com
e-mail: info@brianpallister.com web:
employeescasecanada.ca MAY 2019 Sub-heading: PREMIER PALLISTER
MESSAGE:
1) As you may
read from the website (APRIL 2019);
I was unsuccessful in getting the Premiers of SK and AB to appoint Special
Counsel in a 34 year bid to obtain a (well defined) disclosure from the B.C. Employer/Union conspiracy augmented by
over 50 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada on four unsuccessful
Appeals in this unresolved labour matter regarding a senior West Vancouver, B.C.
teacher fired (oops, laid off for economic reasons) under the neophyte imposed BILL 35 which was rescinded after its sole use in this case in
typical banana republic fashion. No
compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid.
2) When I was
expelled from B.C. in 2013 for 'reasons best known to a judge'; I turned to
other Canadian venues including the Federal Court, ON courts, QC courts, PEI
courts, NS courts and more recently B.C. again (new gov't.)
AB and SK courts. Due to judicial malfeasance which no oversight body would
even acknowledge, let alone examine, this plaintiff has been left with little
other choice than to include judges as part of the civil fraud cases which I
currently launch as a means of protection against wild assertions by judges
appointed to this case registered in a corrupted judicial Registry. No
recognition therefore exists of allegations of judicial malfeasance as
oversight bodies collectively bow out. In Manitoba, I add the B.C. legal outfit
of Harris and Company to the fraud accusations which has been associated
with this case on the behalf of the Employer for many years. The Union never
appears.
3) Manitoba
is coming up against the Federal Government regarding the imposed carbon tax which, similar to SK and ON, they can expect to
lose although their case is stronger. Rather than depending on Section 91 and
92 of the BNA ACT, as was the case of the first two, MB presented a carbon tax
proposal to the Federal Government to which the latter did not respond. No
doubt Manitoba's plan did not include the 20% fee applied by the Federal
government; a distinctive downer for the Feds.
4) Providing
me with Special Counsel would enable MB to challenge the Federal government on
4 levels: a) disclosure on which all
else depends and is the focus of my case b)
the constitutional question
regarding imposed legislation c) the
named judges which I include only to protect myself from outside assertions
from the unexamined judicial record. d) the
addition of Vancouver's Harris & Co. for fraud as they are too cosy with the courts.
5) The
insidious feature of imposed legislation
is that the government level concerned may change the parameters after the initial court sanction. For example,
BILL 35 was for the purpose of
teacher lay-off for economic reasons (which was not a problem in 1985). As it
was in addition to the Schools Act,
it did not displace any of the other features related to teacher employment as
it stated in the BILL. Compensation features were included for affected
teachers (paralleling compensation features under the collective bargaining
rules and such as the B.C. Labour Board).
6) In ON
(12-54944 Ottawa Registry 2014 Mackenzie j ), the Employer as Plaintiff sought
to extinguish all rights of this Defendant for compensation on the grounds that
the courts had no oversight powers over an arbitration which the court
in 1986 quashed ruling the arbitrator to be patently
unreasonable. I was left in limbo where I remain to this day. MacKenzie j merely ruled that, as the Defendant, I
was being frivolous & vexatious. Three
different accounts of his Decision exist with each not referencing the other.
That's fraud at the highest level.
7) In brief,
Justice Southin covered up a fraud and all succeeding
courts are guilty of covering a cover-up.
8) Should you
choose not to assign Special Counsel, I will be left with the basic disclosure
features of my civil fraud case. Who knows, I might find an ethical judge in
MB; I certainly have not anywhere else.
9) Due to the
history of this case, all materials are now focused through the Office of
Governor General Julie Payette to make direct contact with the incumbent Prime
Minister on a matter of national importance for a country without an
efficacious legal system cannot be a democracy. Both you and the GG will be
kept aware of events of this MB action as it unfolds. Events are also posted on
my web site: SEE 2019 RECENT 5
THE
PERSONAL CHALLENGE TO PREMIER PALLISTER
10) France
collaborated with the Nazis in WWII with the British Parliament about to
concede as well if it had not been for Winston Churchill whom talked them into
resisting. (Canada would have been invaded by the U.S. if the Brits had
collaborated as protection of their northern flank. Would they have gone home
after the war? We will never know.) The point here is that Churchill stood up
to the bully boys so that even if Britain had lost WWII, they remained with
their heads held high. Is that 'Churchill' in Canada to be MB Premier Pallister against a capricious Justice System?
11) If so, all
I ask is the appointment of Special Counsel leaving me to do the heavy lifting
by myself at insignificant cost to the MB government. Of course disclosure which underlies the other two
points regarding misbehaving judges and the Harris & Co. connection can
easily be disposed of as Harris & Co. cannot represent themselves with no
legal Company in its right mind representing them. A brief written Decision
would suffice here covering the disposition of both the judges and Harris &
Co.. All I need is protection from Justice Canada which the naming of Special
Counsel by you should do.
12) While my
goal is solely disclosure; I am
prepared to fight against imposed legislation
as the only case on record entitled to do so due to its unfinished nature. Your
government lawyers may wish intervener status on this case for the purpose.
13) I will
keep you apprised as Premier (as per all other provinces) of legal events as
they unfold with this admonition: do not expose Manitoba residents to being
deprived of having individual recourse before the civil law courts impaired as
happened across Canada wherever this case has been held. You can do it. Now
will you do it?
CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION
14) Unfortunately,
other than the Employee's Case (imposed BILL 35 B.C. 1985), there is
no extant case as to what can happen when a government seeks to circumvent
Parliament and the Courts with imposed legislation: Consider the following argument;
(SEE employeescasecanada.ca Sub-heading APRIL 2019 / PREMIER MOE for this account and
more related material by: Plaintiff
Roger Callow Saskatoon SK QBG 512
of 2019)
The Supreme Court of Canada
never heard a number of my appeals including
the malfeasance of judges and the
failure thereto of the oversight bodies
such as (Justice Canada) to even acknowledge the existence of these
complaints let alone dealing with these matters of national concern. To the
best of my knowledge, the SCofC has never
heard an Appeal from a self-represented individual with his 'Model T' form of action (no money
to be made for the court). Below is one
such SCofC case and my interpretation as it relates
to the employeescasecanada.ca Ref: pp.
462-3 of Harris & Co. paralegal material
B. Supreme Court of Canada Authority (in apologia: pdf
files do not translate well)
20. In its recent decision in British Columbia
(Workers' Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC
52, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the finality principle and, in
particular, the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse
of process, as follows:
[27] The three
preconditions of issue estoppel are whether the same
question has been decided; whether the earlier decision was final; and whether
the parties, or their privies, were the same in both proceedings (Angle v.
Minister of National Revenue, 1974 CanLII 168 (SCC),
[1975] 2 .C.R. 248, at p. 254). These concepts were most recently examined by
this Court in Danyluk, where Binnie
J. emphasized the importance of finality in litigation: "A litigant ... is
only entitled to one bite at the cherry.... Duplicative litigation, potential
inconsistent results, undue costs, and
inconclusive proceedings are to be avoided"
(para. 18). Parties should be able to rely
particularly on the conclusive nature of administrative decisions, he noted,
since administrative regimes are designed to facilitate the expeditious
resolution of disputes (para. 50). All of this is
guided by the theory that "estoppel is a doctrine
of public policy that is designed to advance the interests of justice" (para.
19).
Response (R.)
(27)
The Employee's Case remains unresolved with no
compensation having been paid in 34 years of litigation due to judicial
chicanery. What a boone for Employer's seeking
to avoid their fiduciary obligations! No administrative body (e.g.
Canadian Council of Judges) has even acknowledged serious judicial malfeasance
let alone dealt with the matter unless, of course, the Employer is able to claim that the court
quashed arbitration in which the arbitrator was labelled
patently unreasonable for failing to
show a causal factor is ultra vires. The Employer launched a case in 2014 before ON MacKenzie j. to justify their action on this level which
was ignored by him, rather turning everything
on its head blaming this Defendant for being
frivolous & vexatious.
(33) Even where res judicata is not strictly available, Arbour
j. concluded, the doctrine of abuse of process can be triggered where allowing
the litigation to proceed would violate principles such as "judicial
economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of
justice" (para. 37). She stressed the goals of
avoiding inconsistency and wasting judicial and private resources: Even if the
same result is reached in the subsequent proceeding, the relitigation
will prove to have been a waste of judicial resources as well as an unnecessary
expense for the parties and possibly an additional hardship for some witnesses. Finally, if the
result in the subsequent proceeding is different from the conclusion reached in
the first on the very same issue, the inconsistency, in and of itself, will
undermine the credibility of the entire judicial process, thereby diminishing
its authority, its credibility and its aim of finality. [para.
51] (See also R. v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63 (CanLII), [2008] 3 S.C.R. 316, at para.
106, per Charron J.)
R: (33)
Arbour SCofC j. has
hit the hammer on the nail...the
credibility of over 50 judges is
on the line if disclosure, which underlies this case is produced hence 'ready, aye, ready' is the response of
all courts to date. But that can change. Consider the Pope still trying to pray
for the souls of all in the pedophilia scandal when individual victims are
saying...forget the prayers; we want
justice against pedophile priests!
[34] At their
heart the foregoing doctrines exist to prevent unfairness by preventing
"abuse of the decision-making process" (Danyluk, at para.
20; see also Garland, at para.72, and Toronto (City), at para.
37). Their common underlying principles can be summarized
as follows:
• It is in the interests of the public and
the parties that the finality of a decision can
be relied on (Danyluk, at para.
18; Boucher, at para. 35).
• Respect for the finality of a judicial or
administrative decision increases fairness and
the integrity of the courts, administrative tribunals and the
administration of justice; on the other hand, re-litigation of issues that have
been previously decided in an appropriate forum may undermine confidence in this fairness and
integrity by creating inconsistent
results and unnecessarily duplicative proceedings (Toronto (City), at paras. 38 and 51).
• The
method of challenging the validity or correctness of a judicial or
administrative decision should be through the appeal or judicial review mechanisms
that are intended by the legislature (Boucher, at para.
35; Danyluk,
at para. 74).
• Parties should not circumvent the
appropriate review mechanism by using
other forums to challenge a judicial or administrative decision (TeleZone, at para. 61; Boucher,
at para. 35; Garland, at para.
72).
• Avoiding unnecessary relitigation
avoids an unnecessary expenditure of resources (Toronto (City), at paras. 37 and 51).
R: (34) 5
points
a) see (27) regarding 'finality' in the
Employee's Case
b) The
courts have bought into the
specious Employer's argument that the
central issues have been previously
decided. Not so. Justice Southin in 1986 ordered the
matter back to arbitration when the Employer failed to return employment to
this Plaintiff as she recommended
(not ordered). The Employer did not
return to arbitration even after losing an Appeal on that point of a reconvened
arbitration.
c) R: I
have had a belly-full of Appeal Courts which in this case and many others
provide political answers as opposed to good judicial responses. Ignoring the central
issues is key to this cabal of Chief Justices operating under the protection of
Justice Canada where there is no oversight - or alternatively political
interference - hence one sees such as the LAVSCAM disaster. In the Employee's
Case, every Province this case has been seen (6 );there has been considerable
judicial abuse.
d)
R:That's exactly what the Employer did in this case by claiming that the courts
have no oversight powers of imposed
legislation (BILL 35 -B.C. 1985) of which Appeal they lost as noted
above. Even ON Mackenzie j. refused to discuss this issue which was the reason
why the Employer launched the case as the Plaintiff.
e) R: If
this matter of my senior teacher lay-off had been a playground disagreement; it
would have been resolved inside of 15
minutes and, I dare add, with considerably more justice than 34 years of wasted
litigation. If Justice Southin in 1986 had ordered my return as opposed to recommending my return to teaching in
West Vancouver, this matter would have ended there. It was a stunt, according
to my then legal Counsel, Harry Rankin (d), that she could not get away with.
Well, she has to date, as a cover-up of her perfidy has been reinforced by over
50 judges in a 'cover-up of the cover up': Justice Canada, by rights, should
pay all bills for this travesty of immense proportions never before encountered
in any judicial system.
Roger
Callow Plaintiff (in many forums)
rcallow770@gmail.com
Yours truly,
Roger Callow
cc Governor
General Payette
web site:
MAY 2019 Sub-heading: PREMIER
PALLISTER
ADDENDUM
A parallel
action against only the Union is being refiled in PEI
from 2016 under the new government
with a special challenge to the Opposition Green Party to divorce themselves
from the traditional parties by speaking publicly in their legislature
to this issue as they too are contesting the imposed carbon tax. SEE employeescasecanada.ca
MAY 2019 Sub-heading PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. As a side note, there is
an interesting observation on the 'principled' Jody Raybould-Wilson
in 2016, now the ex-Justice Minister.