APPEAL #DC-12-1872  (OTTAWA DIVISIONAL COURT-JAN. 23-2013) revised


 (OTTAWA SUPERIOR COURT #12-54944) R. Maranger j. Nov. 01-2012


N.B.  ‘the plaintiff’ is abbreviated to p. in the following plaintiff’s factum

Also note the request to forego a  court hearing presence as noted in 8)




1) Five Quotes capture the essence of this 28 year labour case in which the lay-off of senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, has never been tested in law despite over 30 judges including numerous trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. No compensation has been assigned. Pertinent laws being abused are: habeas corpus, ultimate remedy (a cornerstone to the collective bargaining process) and ‘there can be no process without judgment’ (a basic concept underlining the credibility of any legal system).


A) The lawyers and the judges, absorbed in the excruciating legal minutiae that see substance subsumed by procedure…’ Crimes of War  Peter Hogg

B) ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law’ Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic)

C)  'The law's a farce, sonnyboy. You can plant evidence and suborn witnesses and make sweetheart deals with the prosecution. The only laws we're really interested in making stick are the laws of contract - because if commerce doesn't work we're eating tree bark instead of bread.' Cassidy Morris West

D) 'What needs we fear it, for who can call us to account?'  Lady MacBeth

E) ‘…Everybody conspires, nobody gets done. But if it’s cover-up time, God help us all….The Mission Song  John LeCarré


2) The above supports p.’s assertion that he has been the target of a government conspiracy. He was the sole member laid off under BILL 35 (became law on July 1, 1985; the Superintendants’ s lay-off notice pre-dating that action by 4 days) which was later repealed before this case had been resolved. Hence the claim is that the government was hi-jacked and the judiciary co-opted ( gerrymandered arbitrator appointment who was later labeled ‘patently unreasonable’ when the arbitration favouring the School Board was quashed by the courts). The apparent goal of these conspirators was to sanction a ‘sweetheart deal’ between Employer and Union. The word ‘apparent’ is used because it would take a court hearing to reveal the cupidity of all concerned; a court hearing never heard and unlikely to be heard thus leaving p. in a perpetual state of limbo.


3) The 1995 hearing before Justice Spence in Vancouver Superior Court is symbolic of all later court actions which have kept p. in this perpetual  state of limbo:

Justice Spencer, in his decision in 1995, states the obvious but failed to take action, a position repeated by over 30 judges up to and including Justice Maranger more recently in Ontario in November of 2012 - #12-54944 Superior Court Ottawa Nov. 01-2012.

No. A950147 Vancouver Registry  June 2-1995 Hon. Justice Spencer  Motion Record TAB 2 (Respondent) p.8  Note 16 

     If, as I think, this law does not permit me to grant any of the relief which this petition seeks (be returned to employment due to the failure of the employer to return to arbitration as earlier ordered by the court. RWC), the petitioner appears to be left in legal limbo with his case half heard but incapable of completion… Without in any way addressing the merits of any complaint against the petitioner’s performance (as a whistleblower. RWC), I observe that even if he was unsatisfactory from the Board’s point of view, he was entitled to be dealt with according to law under the School Act and not to be made the victim of abuse of authority. Whether he was remains to be decided….’(my underlining  RWC)


4) Hence what the Employer could not achieve through the front door has been acquired through the back door with the big loser being the entire Canadian Justice System due to systematic judicial abuse. Those accusations include the B.C. court system, B.C. Labour Board, The Federal Court of Canada, The Supreme Court of Canada, and now, the Ontario Courts.


5) Due to the significance of this issue in Ontario, p. kept Chief Justice C. Hackland (Ottawa Superior Court) and the McGuinty government apprised of all events of #12-54944. The Maranger Decision is in keeping with a Liberal Government which would enact BILL 115 which has as an antecedent, BILL 35. One political projection of that situation is that p. is looking at little more than this Appeal Court being a ‘road bump’ as I cannot imagine any judge producing the Maranger Decision without a promise of back-up on Appeal.


6) Two questions were directed to Justice Maranger: A) the assignment of ‘interim compensation’ which exists apart from legal outcomes and should have always been paid to p. while the above matter was under litigation. B) in the vent of a rejection of A), to quash the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ (SEE APPENDIX  1)  which bars p. from access to – at least – the Vancouver Court system in order to finalize an unresolved legal case which the court at one time ordered back to arbitration. That arbitration was never held.


7) The Maranger Decision obviated (A) as being outside his powers and failed to address the MacKenzie Creed which explained p.’s presence in an Ottawa courtroom. While the Defendant included the text of the MacKenzie Creed in his factum, he did not specifically refer to it as a means of depriving p. from court access in Ottawa depending, as he did and as the court confirmed, that this was a frivolous and vexatious action with no discernable cause. In short, Maranger reduced the idea of judges ‘being a law unto themselves’ in such a manner and to such a degree that p.’s assertion is that Canadian law ‘is at an end’ should this Creed not be quashed.


8) Hence, as matters stand, p. could lay an action in Ontario specifically focusing on the MacKenzie Creed although the decision has been made to refocus the appeal eliminating the request for ‘interim compensation’ 


9) The sole focus of this Appeal then is on the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ dismissing any other claims. As such, this action does not require the presence of the defendant who did not file a notice of Appeal to the action which was laid on November 16, 2012. Nor has the Ontario Attorney General’s Department expressed an interest in attending. (SEE App. 2)


10) A similar occurrence in appealing the MacKenzie Creed with the Federal Court of Canada was problematical. Neither the Employer nor Union put in an Appearance Notice leaving a void filled by the B.C. Attorney General’s Department raising the question of a conflict of interest.


11) For the above reason, I see no point in holding a court hearing being the only one in attendance. For this reason, I ask that a Decision be written by the court without a hearing leaving it to them to conduct any further requirements on a party by party written basis.


12) Currently, p. is playing ‘mail tag’ with the Supreme Court of Canada administration as they continue to obfuscate matters as they relate to a hearing similar to the obfuscation experienced by p. with the Federal Court.  At basis in this struggle appears to be a steadfast denial of seeing the MacKenzie Creed being given recognition on the Judicial Register which would happen if a judge were to rule on it. It’s arguably a case of the ‘administration tail wagging the judicial dog’.


13) Hence the Ontario Courts may be making the single most important decision in Canadian  Judicial History by recognizing this Appeal. ‘No decision’ by the court, paralleling the Maranger Decision is in itself a Decision.


14) The ramifications of this hearing are immense. Canada’s native peoples in their current protest are not alluding to ‘white man’s law’ and the courts for their claims. Similarly, Ontario public teachers would also seek to circumvent the courts with their appeal of BILL 115 to the Human Rights Organization. Should this court fail to quash the MacKenzie Creed, 34 million other Canadians will, p. asserts, be within their rights to turn to other than the courts to air their issues. In short, giving tacit approval to the MacKenzie Creed, as the effect of the Maranger Decision has done here, is tantamount to sanctioning judges ‘running a court within a court’; a sanction under which no duly invested legal system can survive.



Rebuttal to statements from the Maranger Decision by p. :


A) ‘(6) Finally, a court in the province of Ontario does not have jurisdiction to hear a claim that is inextricably intertwined in all repects with the province of British Columbia’ Response: Why not? I don’t hear the judge on the Nortel Case ignoring non-Ontario submissions.


B) ‘(5)  …The common example appears to be the situation where a plaintiff seeks to re-litigate a cause which has already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.’ Response: ‘Re-litigate what? When the arbitration was quashed, the court ordered the matter back to arbitration when the Employer failed to return employment as recommended by the court. That court Order was ignored. In 1995, B.C. Justice Spencer had a choice; either change the word ‘should’ to ‘must’ re-employ this plaintiff due to this Employer failure or else order the matter back to arbitration. He did neither  leaving this plaintiff in a perpetual state of limbo; a state of affairs re-inforced by every court since that time including the Maranger Decision. Further, this court would imply by omission of the above facts, that ‘a grievance arbitration proceeding’ has a standing in law which is a denial of the fact of a quashed arbitration with no follow-up.


C) ‘(4) …my review of his claim discloses…a written criticism by him…of (B.C. Courts)to his various claims. I can discern no cause of action pleaded in the statement of claim…. Response: One and at the same time, the court would disclaim itself not to involve itself in matters from the B.C. courts while, in another, it would quote evidence from British Columbia to justify that decision. In common parlance, that is known as ‘sucking and blowing at the same time’. Cherry-picking, I submit, is not an option for the court. If matters from B.C. are alluded to then surely the matter of the Mackenzie Creed (APPENDIX 1) must be paramount.


D) The significance of a ‘frivolous and vexatious’ charge is that ‘leave of the court’ is required before being permitted to proceed. S106159 was filed in B.C. Court in September of 2010 by the plaintiff including that request hence the MacKenzie Creed was gratuitous as well as being redundant and is, arguably, the most pernicious action of a judge in Canadian Jurisprudence justifying, p. submits, ‘the running of a court within a court’. Her undocumented Order included instructions for the Administration to block all materials including, as it turned out, the filing of CA038538 challenging her action. The material in the Defendant’s factum and the court response which is little more than that factum, do not measure up as a viable challenge to that action. (APPENDIX 4)


E) Consequently, the above is hardly a vexatious and frivolous charge which explains why I requested a ‘Special Hearing’ before 3 judges under the rules. As the Defendant would not agree to this request, the matter was remitted to a single judge. In this respect, I had asked Chief Justice Charles Hackland to appoint his most experienced judge. He chose Robert Maranger.


F) If Justice Maranger did not feel the court was competent to deal with the ‘interim compensation’ aspect of this case, surely he should have seen his way to quash the MacKenzie Creed so that I may regain access to the British Columbia Courts in this unresolved legal matter.


G) That failure is the one which I ask this court to rectify for, as matters now stand, it would appear that the Ontario courts are re-inforcing what this plaintiff is claiming as a government conspiracy in which the B.C. government was hi-jacked (BILL 35) and the judiciary co-opted to sanction a ‘sweetheart deal’ between Employer and Union.


H) Surely if Justice Maranger believes that this case should be tried in British Columbia, he would do everything possible to make that happen. Quashing the MacKenzie Creed as ultra vires would be consistent in that regard in the cause of justice in both Ontario and British Columbia let alone all of Canada. His statement under  COSTS ENDORSEMENT  I attribute more to being in the nature of a self-fulfilling prophecy than to any other cause: (2) (b) The matter was not complicated. The self-represented litigant had virtually no chance of successfully defending the motion.’




1) The court did not express the level of due diligence which is required in an issue which has negative implications for all Canadians, especially employees under collective bargaining rules.


2) The court did not take into account the very serious ramifications of what is labeled here as the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ which would deny a litigant from a court of law for ‘reasons best known to the judge’. This Creed cannot stand because it must not stand if Canada is to remain a democratic country under ‘rule of law’ . Justice Estey’s warning regarding ‘justice under the law’ is pertinent here: ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.’


3) The Maranger Decision can only be considered viable if two propositions are accepted: a) that this plaintiff does indeed have access to the British Columbia courts of law;  b) that there has been a final judicial decision from which compensation may flow in this labour case. Neither is the case. The court would gloss over both these central points bringing, I submit, the course of justice into disrepute.


4) No litigant may be expelled from the Justice System for ‘reasons best known to the judge’ but the effect of the Maranger Decision as ‘the court of last resort’ has just that effect.


CC  Hon. C. Wagner – Supreme Court of Canada – on behalf of all SCof C judges

       Christie Blatchford – Postmedia news – on behalf of all media

       ON MP’s  Horwath/Hudak/ Wynne – for their reaction – 15 days, please