Saskatchewan - In Queen's Court - July 03, 2015

                                                                                                          No. 'pending'

STATEMENT OF FACTS plus - due to the exigencies of time - the addition of ARGUMENT (A)


1) The lay-off of senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985 under the auspices of the neophyte imposed BILL 35 has never been determined in law. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid.

(A) TAB 1 - 3 page excerpt from B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Southin (1986) whom quashed the arbitration favouring the School Board ruling, as she did, the arbitrator to be patently unreasonable. She noted the causal relationship between the 'enumerated factors' and why this particular teacher was selected for lay-off was missing.

TAB 1 - Court of Appeal (January 21,1986) rejection of Board on grounds that Southin did not err. Interestingly, they rejected any new material which Southin would have accepted in any re-hearing. In short, material alleging perjury on the part of the Board at arbitration would not be permitted.


Current Demonstrated Ability Undefined in the Act or in Law hence this document is ultra vires and therefore any proceedings from it are null and void Weber vs Ontario Hydro (included here) 


2) The prolonged delay in judicial action has been aggravated by the many courts which fail to make decisions which have left this plaintiff in a permanent state of limbo.

TAB 2 Preamble to Supreme Court of Canada Appeal  (2004) (refused)

(A)  '...Simply put, how can the justice system of Canada in all good conscience deny Mr. Callow access to the court to resolve an unresolved legal matter which even the court has declared should have been re-arbitrated....'


Reference to laying of fraud charges in Federal Court (T-2360-14) and Quebec 'extension for material evidence #550-17-008208-157 . Application of MAGNA CARTA to the Employee's Case: Article 39- "No free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or dispossessed or outlawed (my underlining) or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go and send against him except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."


3) The above condition flies in the face of such basic legal tenets as due process, habeas corpus, and there can be no process without judgment.


4) The initial arbitration did not withstand judicial review and when the Employer failed to return employment as recommended by the court, the matter was referred back to litigation.


5) In 1995, the plaintiff  went back to B.C. Supreme Court before Justice Spencer claiming that, as the Employer had apparently abandoned the court Order, that this court should change the 'should' (Justice Southin) to 'must' return employment  with all terms of the contract to apply.

(A) In law, a recommendation must be pursued by the court.


6) As it was clear that if the court was not going to follow my request, the only alternative, as Justice Spencer well knew, was to order the matter back to arbitration.


7) Spencer j. did neither questioning, instead, the status of this plaintiff to initiate any proceedings.

(A) He unilaterally created the notion that this was a collective bargaining issue as opposed to the Union gratuitously representing this plaintiff apart from the collective bargaining rules. All B.C. Courts followed his reasoning of whose shortcoming would have been obvious if the B.C. Labour Board or the Supreme Court of Canada (Chief Justice A. Lamers-d.; B. McLachlin and Cory sat on this rejection panel) heard this issue.


8) That status question had never been raised before. Was this a matter under the collective bargaining rules as only Spencer j. asserted, or one under the conditions of the neophyte BILL 35  which the Employer asserted? That question remains to be dealt with and is the subject of this factum. (BILL 35 was only ever used against this targeted teacher before it was withdrawn in the 1990's.)

TAB 2 1996 Employer Letter to Labour Board


9) This status question plagued any resolution of this case in B.C. over the succeeding years including two inconsequential attempts to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada.


10) In latter years, the Union has amalgamated their case with that of the Employer. It appears that this plaintiff was and still is  the target of a sweetheart deal.


11) In frustration, the plaintiff laid S106159, in 2010 in B.C. Supreme Court in which he sought the assistance of the court to resolve this outstanding legal matter as the B.C. courts would only recognize the Union and the Employer in resolving this matter.

TAB 3 S106159


12) With the Appeal of the above on the lack of status (CA038538) this plaintiff was forced to pay a $10,000 surety under specious circumstances to ensure continuation of this case. The claim of speciousness related to the fact that, as attested to by his attorney, Callow had always been current with his bill payments. The hearing was never held due to an 'outside' ruling by Supreme Court Deputy Chief Justice, Anne MacKenzie in October 2010.

TAB 4 CA038538 and Deputy Chief Justice A. MacKenzie disallowing the appeal.

TAB 4 Letter to Union from Callow (September 21-2010) offering to handle the Appeal at his own cost. I always believed that I had access to the courts but in B.C., the judges decided otherwise.

(A)  The B.C. Supreme Court was outraged as evidenced by an Order from Deputy Chief Justice, Anne MacKenzie, whom on her own recognizance, without taking legal argument nor quoting specific laws hence acting 'for reasons best known to herself, banned this plaintiff from B.C. Courts. I could proceed only with the permission of a judge although her ruling included directions to the Registry and the Respondents negating that feature.


13) It is submitted here that the MacKenzie Order was to disappear 'down the same rabbit hole' as CA038538, so that the only thing left on the judicial record was the 'failure of this plaintiff to proceed.


14) A second B.C. Supreme Court ruling on July 23-2013 from Deputy Chief Justice Austen Cullen  appears to parallel the earlier MacKenzie prohibitive Order.

TAB 4 The Cullen j. Order plus my rebuttal

(A) The all-important  may proceed only with the permission of a judge is conspicuous by its absence hence I was frozen out of B.C. courts.


15) With the refusal of oversight bodies in both the judiciary and the government to intervene, the plaintiff was forced to turn to courts outside B.C. for a resolution under the terms of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice.

TAB 4 Supreme Court of Canada - 3rd Appeal - April 2011

The B.C. rules (CH. 241) for Judicial Review were therefore 'off limits' to this plaintiff. (rejected bySCofC for technical  reasons)



(A) "statutory power" means a power or right conferred by an enactment

(d) to do an act or thing that would, but for that power or right, be a breach of a legal right of any person or

(e) to make an investigation or inquiry into a person's legal right, power, privilege, immunity, duty, or liability.


Error of law

3 The court's power to set aside a decision because of error of law on the face of the record on an application for relief in the nature of certiorari is extended so that it applies to an application for judicial review in relation to a decision made in the exercise of a statutory power of decision to the extent it is not limited or precluded by the enactment conferring the power of decision.  RSBC 1979-209-2


Power to set aside decision

7 If an applicant is entitled to a declaration that a decision made in the exercise of a statutory power of decision is unauthorized or otherwise invalid, the court may set aside the decision instead of making a declaration. RSBC 1979-209-7


Interim Order

10 On an application for judicial review, the court may make an interim order it considers appropriate until the final determination of the application. RSBC 1979-209-11

(A) As back pay (deferred salary) belongs to the plaintiff apart from judicial findings, back salary to November 1985 is requested. The full amount appropriately compounded is requested as this plaintiff was deprived of social advantages.




16) Is BILL 35 ultra vires? If so, any action flowing from it is null and void. Reference: Constitutional Question Weber v. Ontario Hydro Dominion Law Reports 125 D.L.R. (4th) p. 594


17) The Union argument in the 11 day arbitration consisted of a half hour presentation claiming that BILL 35 was 'in addition to the School Act' and did not supplant any of the provisions of that School Act. This position was reinforced by the court of Justice Southin claiming that 'the School Board used the Act for the wrong reason...to rid itself of a teacher who had become a trouble to it'. (I had provided the Education Ministry in Victoria with evidence of a fraud on the part of an administrator = whistleblowing.)


18) The 'plateau test' of BILL 35 was failed by the Employer in that new teaching positions were created in June of 1985. (The arbitrator had converted 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs adding Callow as the necessary 17th.) Callow was laid off on June 28-1985 (no 30 day notice) with BILL 35 becoming operative on July 1-1985


19) The term 'current demonstrated ability'; the only term applied to the Callow case, is undefined in BILL 35 nor in law in general. Hence this Act which was only ever used against this targeted teacher before it was withdrawn by the government in the 1990's, is ultra vires.


20) None of the above issues have been dealt with by any court hence the oft abused term res judicata by the Employer does not apply here.


21) Unfortunately, the many courts dealing with this matter are accused of acting as an agent for this Employer which explains the charge of fraud currently extant in the Federal Court of Canada.  To date, oversight bodies in  both the judiciary and government  do not respond to the many formal complaints against specific judges and courts laid by this plaintiff.


22) As to the significance of imposed government legislation which would seek to run an end game around such as established legal entities as the collective bargaining rules; all provinces are negatively affected. This is a matter of national importance.


23) For example, in Ontario in 2013, the government sought to ape BILL 35 by passing the imposed  Education BILL 115 and soon after withdrawing it. In common parlance, this is known as 'banana republic  justice'. This aspect of the case is a constitutional question necessitating a court response.(At this time, the Sask. Attorney General or Federal Minister of Justice have not been notified.)


24) While the bigger issues are a matter for the Supreme Court of Canada; nonetheless, it is submitted here that the lower courts are capable of providing legal services which would help shape the case; the mediation services of the Federal Court being one such alternative where the charge of fraud has been invoked by this plaintiff. In that endeavor, I had the agreement of Ontario Supreme Court Justice McKinnon (who invoked the frivolous and vexatious charge in Ontario which is under scrutiny by the oversight bodies) that this was a matter for the Supreme Court of Canada but, according to him, I was not going to get there through the Ontario court system. That message created a crisis for the Justice System of Canada never encountered before.




25) Ascertain which rules are to apply to a resolution of this case: those of the collective bargaining agreement as promulgated unilaterally by the B.C. Courts starting in 1995 (Spencer j. Decision) or the terms of BILL 35  as promulgated by the Employer? That move would negate the MacKenzie and Cullen Creeds and any future B.C. Court action along that level.


26) To lift any blocking orders against this plaintiff to proceed anywhere in Canada. In brief, the Appeal CA038538 would be permitted to proceed without further judicial obfuscation. At this juncture, it would appear that the MacKenzie and Cullen Creeds were nothing more than an attempt to block a third trip to the Supreme Court of Canada; the organization which dropped the ball in the first place.


27) The decision in the above two matters would have to be made in a court outside the jurisdiction of B.C. otherwise, the B.C. Courts would block any submission I might make there on the status question. The Employer must not be permitted to appeal any Sask. ruling in B.C. as I lack status in that province.


28) Alternatively, this court could make a prima facie case that BILL 35 is ultra vires thus nullifying any court action against this targeted employee. It follows that re-employment would be ordered with all terms of the contract to apply. In that matter, I am, and have always been, available for re-employment. Should the Employer fail to address the issues in this factum, that is the recommended course for this court.

TAB 6 Plaintiff Letter to the Ontario Ombudsman


__________________  (Roger Callow)  June 24-2015 (awaiting filing)


1) Governor General Rt. Hon. David Johnston - a titular role but there are times that the GG does not merely act as a government factotum...this is one such time

2) Supreme Court of Canada Hon. M. Fish - so that the SCofC judges are aware of what the Registry and a few SCofC judges would do in their name.

3) Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton - I have called for his suspension for gross irregularities repeated a second time to thwart the charge of fraud

T-2360-14 where I had asked for mediation services before an Ottawa judge.

4) SK Premier B. Wall/ Chief Justice M.D. Popescul - Will SK fall into the trap of other provinces with this issue currently being frustrated by the Regina Registry?

5) QC Premier P. Couillard - Does French Canada suffer from 'the English disease'?

6) Ontario Premier Wynne and B.C. Premier Clarke 'have been tried and found wanting'. (no copies sent)

7) RCMP Commissioner B. Paulson - to reinforce a request to the Montreal Fraud Squad to acquire key evidence which the Employer refuses to pass over; a request which the QC court rejected to ask of this particular Employer.

8) Canadian Judicial Council - It is their long time failure to respond and that of Parliament plus Minister of Justice which has permitted the collapse of Canada.

9) Gang of 4 (Harper/Mulcair/Trudeau/May) - the Employee's Case IS THE FEDERAL ELECTION ISSUE. There is no point waiting another 4 months for the Federal Election for publicity as to their individual stands. Considering that E. May will not be the next P.M.; her silence is a great let-down for the Green Party.

10) anti-employee media - Their fortune is going the way of Canada's judicial system as they don't seem to realize that this case marks the demise of the individual in Canadian democracy. In future, only such broad amorphous entities as 'the middle class' will dominate Canadian political history. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been eclipsed as has been the ancient rights of Magna Carta. To leave these matters on the constitutional books is a matter of the highest hypocrisy. Further, Canada need no longer study Nazi Germany as to how a nation loses its freedoms.

11) ILO (International Labour Organization-Switzerland) What to do with this 'dog's breakfast'?

12) Ontario's Ombudsman André Morin



June 30-2015


TO: SK Queen's Bench - Regina

        ATTN: Wendy Seed - Registry clerk (306-787-5377 or 5381)

        SENT BY FAX ONLY   fax: 306-787-7217


FROM: Roger Callow - Ottawa  phone/fax: 613-521-1739


Reference: Your phone call of June 29-2015 in which you claimed that as I was not a resident of SK, you would not be filing an action by me delivered last week. My response was that should this action not be filed, this matter would be reported to Chief Justice M.D. Popescul and Premier Brad Wall.


Reasons for why this action must be filed as discussed with you:

1) The Registry is not in a position to give a judicial evaluation. If the court decrees that I am ineligible to be heard due to the residency condition; that I can accept but not a Registry rejection.

2) The only condition or rule which applies here - and it is similar to the courts of other provinces - is the rule of a local mailing address of which I have provided one in Regina.

3) I have not been a resident of B.C. for 27 years and yet that province has never used the residency provision although I have to submit a local address for legal purposes.

4) Similar to SK, Quebec was not happy about accepting this case but did not deny me the right to be heard in a court of law (June 8-2015).

5) Even in Ontario where legal events are highly contentious, the Ottawa court was not prepared to deny me a filing of fraud charges although I deferred to the Federal Court of Canada (T-2360-14) where this issue is extant and will include SK Court accusations should I be denied my rights to lay this case.

6) Why would you deprive the Defendant of providing argument?


Recommended Actions


6) As per your telephone discussion and your intended reference of this issue to Jennifer Fabian (Registrar); I would submit that any correspondence on this level should now be from her personally. She may contact me at the above telephone/fax number.

7) In the event that Ms. Fabian chooses to write a rejection letter for my request, that letter should be specific in quoting support of her decision from Chief Justice M.D. Popescul.


Should the action sent by me not receive a docket number by Thursday, July 2, 2015, I will send a letter outlining my complaint to the Chief Justice with a copy to the Premier on Friday July 3-2015.


Yours truly,


Roger Callow


cc Regina Leader-Post



July 03-2015


TO: L'honorable Dominique Goulet

Court supérieure du Quebec

Palais de justice de Gatineau

17, rue Laurier

Gatineau, Quebec J8X 4C1

Natalie Dumont Expediteur  tel: 819-776-8152 ext. 60526

fax: 819-772-3004               

                   sent by mail with enclosures (plus 4 pge. CJC Letter Sept. 25-2014)

FROM: Roger Callow

208-2220 Halifax Drive

Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7

Tel:/fax: 613-521-1739


REFERENCE: file: 550-17-008208-157  Your letter of June 30-2015 re Hearing on June 08-2015 before Justice Therrien.


Court Question: Can a party be declared quarrelsome (or vexatious) and prohibited from instituting proceedings in Quebec based substantially on proceedings taken in another province?


Response of this plaintiff:

1) A much better question to be asked in this matter: 'May a litigant in an unresolved legal case seek redress in another province if he is expelled from an originating province 'for reasons best known to a judge' (Cullen j. Creed-B.C.)?

By including this question, your perspective would have been vastly expanded.

2) These central questions were never put to the Defendant by Justice Therrien.

3) Indeed, he did not ask any questions central to the case before him which is typical of a judge with his mind made up before he enters the court room.

4) I have had many such judges not conducting 'due diligence' in the past 30 years which forms my accusation that the judiciary in Canada is acting as an agent for the defendant Employer in a matter of systematic judicial abuse stretching across 8 court systems in Canada in which there is no resolution to an unresolved labour case with its genesis in B.C. where I have been expelled 'for reasons best known to the judge'. In brief, the Justice System, in trying to bury this case, has merely buried itself.

5) Without a judicial finding as to the propriety of my B.C. senior teacher lay-off in June of 1985 under the neophyte conditions of the imposed BILL 35 (since withdrawn before this sole laid case was resolved as ordered by the court) in which no compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid due largely to the judicial chicanery mentioned above, I have been left in a kafkaesque search for justice.

6) While points 4) & 5) are not central to your question; nonetheless, this background points out why any court challenge by this plaintiff is anything but frivolous and vexatious; a badly overworked term in law and one that should be eliminated from the legal lexicon. Who, in their right mind, considering the costs involved, is going to launch a frivolous and vexatious action? Further, such a label merely forces the affected litigant to request the permission of a judge to proceed on a prima facie basis. That feature is missing from the 'Cullen Creed'.

6) That is what is so iniquitous about the B.C. Justice 'Cullen Creed' which expelled me absolutely from B.C. Courts forcing me to turn elsewhere.

7) My point above is not so much to challenge the legality of using information from one province to apply to another - indeed, I am doing much the same thing by appealing to the Quebec Courts under the laws of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice: two key concepts behind my failed Supreme Court of Canada petitions in 1999 and 2004 making 'no legal answer to be a legal answer' which is a rejection of the foundation of all law. The legal question posed here is an extension of this logic which is not so much wrong as being wrong-headed. In other words, it is long on law; short on justice.

8) My focus in Therrien's j. court was to ask how he could reject my submission on any grounds without first seeing on what that proposition was based.

9) The thrust of my case was for the Defendant Employer to produce the secret memo notes; namely, the information regarding the meetings of the School Board and Union held in June of 1985 regarding the lay-off of this particular teacher for so-called economic reasons at a time teachers were being hired.

10) Those memo notes were returned - because she did not use them - by Justice Southin in 1986 when she quashed the arbitration leaving me - as it turns out - in a 30 year state of limbo.

11) I had earlier requested all information under the 'access to information' laws in 2004. Those 'secret memo notes' were conspicuous by their absence and yet those memo notes define the nature of the fraud extant in Federal Court (T-2360-14) in  that the charge is two-fold: against the original conspirators and against the judicial processes. Of course the judicial system doesn't like that second proposition and explains many furtive actions by both judges and registries all referred to oversight committees which are not responding.

12) If the Employer had volunteered the 'missing memo notes' or Justice Therrien ordered them to produce those notes as I specifically requested, then the trial would be over and I would not have had to make application to the RCMP Fraud Squad in Montreal.

13) Considering the information that I supplied to the court as an addendum to respond to an Employer statement listed in evidence; the question should not so much be what is the connection of vexatious proceedings from one province applying to another; rather, it should be the highly spurious circumstances of the MacKinnon j. action in Ontario which is under appeal along with a request from the oversight bodies to investigate his behaviour along with a second Superior Court judge (both originally Federal Court appointees). Hicks, Morley et al for the Employer was also cited and has dropped representation of the Employer in Ontario. As stated in court, I do not intend to see this pernicious MacKinnon document receive sanction in any court of law. Placed in the vernacular, does Quebec wish to tie this can to the tail of their judicial dog?

14) In conclusion, your pristine question appears to function far from the facts of this case and as 'a fine point of law' is very far from what is happening here. Looking through the 'big end of the telescope' is typical of the judicial treatment which has plagued this case for 30 years citing, as it does, the law at the expense of justice.

15) As stated in Therrien's j. court, I will appeal any decision which attempts to sanctify the MacKinnon Decision. One such attempt at the Federal Court level has led to my request for the removal of Chief Justice Paul Crampton as he usurped the processes of the court request for mediation by me before a judge in Ottawa with a summary and secret hearing by a Vancouver Prothonotary.

16) Premier Couillard is being kept apprised on a step by step basis of the progress of this case as Quebecers have a right, as I submitted in court, to see whether French Canadian courts suffer from the 'English disease'. Perhaps the BLOC should be notified.


Yours truly,



Roger Callow 


cc  Que. Premier Couillard

SK Premier Brad Wall

SCofC Hon. M. Fish

Canadian Judicial Council (CJC)

ILO (International Labour Organization) Switzerland

Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton


Gang of 4 (Harper/Mulcair/Trudeau/May)


GG David Johnston whom has the power to request the only body which can deal with all issues in this sorry legal mess; namely, the Supreme Court of Canada, to act (on the grounds that the SCofC may consider any question of national importance apart from lower court findings which do not exist in the unusual circumstances of the Employee's Case where the original arbitration was quashed thus concealing Employer perjury). (plus 4 pge CJC Letter Sept. 25-2014)






TO: Canadian Judicial Council

       'Higher levels of Provincial Court Judicial conduct'

       15th Floor - 150 Metcalfe St.

       Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W8

       PHONE: 613-288-1566         FAX: 613-288-1575    


      Ontario Judicial Council

      P.O. Box 914

      31 Adelaide St. East

      Adelaide P.O.

      Toronto, ON M5C 2K3

      FAX: 416-327-2339


      Chief Justice - Osgoode Hall

      Law Society of Upper Canada

      130 Queen St. West

      Toronto, ON   M5H 2N6

      Tel (416)327-5020  Fax:(416)327-5032


SENT BY MAIL TO ABOVE 3 PARTIES plus Hicks Morley et al      


FROM:  Roger Callow - APPLICANT #14-61592    H.D. September 23,2014

             208 - 2220 Halifax Drive

               Ottawa, Ontario  K1G 2W7

             PHONE/FAX: 613-521-1739   web site: www.employeescasecanada.com



        1) Charles Hofley esq.  

             Hicks, Morley et al

             #2000-150 Metcalfe St.

             Ottawa, ON K2P 1P1

             FAX: 613-234-0418

        2) Ottawa Superior  Court Justice Colin McKinnon

        3)                      ditto                 Robert Scott



1) The Respondent Employer did not file a 'Notice of Appearance' within the requisite time limits so it was with some surprise that I received an e-mail on September 22-2014 from Hicks Morley et al notifying me of his intention to appear in court the following day.

2) As matters stood before their appearance, it was clear that this action was laid alleging - for a first time in this 29 year unresolved labour matter- the matter of fraud. That fraud functioned on two levels although the two are intertwined:

a) matters pertaining to the original lay-off in which the arbitration was quashed leaving this target in a perpetual state of limbo with no compensation paid.

b) concomitant systematic judicial abuse over 8 separate courts in Canada and over 30 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada whose failure to hear this matter in 2004 ('ultimate remedy') is the source of the current imbroglio which involves the courts of Ontario. Justice Colin McKinnon and I were in agreement on one point; only the Supreme Court of Canada is in a position to resolve this matter but, and this is the crux of the matter, how do I get it there when I am thwarted at every turn by actions of the lower courts. McKinnon j. was quite specific stating that I was not going to use Ontario courts to get to the SCofC.

3) An earlier complaint to the Law Society regarding Hicks, Morley whom, rather than filing a defense to #13-58607 laid by me; chose instead to lay their own action #13-59060 in tandem arranging, as they did, to have that hearing held on April 10-2014 before Justice McKinnon in which my case to be heard May 15 was not only knocked off the docket ('cowboying' in that McKinnon j. second-guessed my approach which was folly due to the fact that in #13-59060, the Employer asked - for a first time in 29 years - for all claims to be discussed.) McKinnon's judgment made no mention of that point by Hicks Morley in his judgment. A complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council (McKinnon j. was a federal appointment) has received no response to date for this alleged egregious behaviour. The Law Society vindicated C. Hofley's actions.

4) #14-61592 was the replacement action alleging fraud which would have been the case for #13-58607 if it had not been canceled by McKinnon's Order. That action has been completely derailed by Justice Scott's application of a 'variation' of the McKinnon Order which is the basis of this current accusation of fraud.

5) Included here are 10 pages regarding correspondence with Hicks, Morley in September regarding the signing of McKinnon's j's Order 'according to form' which, to my knowledge in all other cases, should be a replication of the Order signed by him on April 23-2014.

6) As I felt that this Order was so egregious, I sent Hicks, Morley back their form with this annotation: 'It would be folly to sign this Order as to Form considering that I expect it to be quashed with the costs to be reversed. An Appeal is under way as well as notice to the Canadian Council of Judges (McKinnon j. was a federal appointment) where the usual 'judicial bias' has been supplanted by 'judicial malfeasance' (Roger Callow) September 05-2014.

7) I have no way of knowing if McKinnon j. saw this form before signing his new Order on September 15 as Hicks, Morley was not forthcoming on that point. That newly signed Order contained point (6); an addition to the form that I was asked to sign 'as to form'.

8) It would appear that McKinnon j. was knowledgeable of my factum - probably handed to him by Hicks, Morley -  which explains his new signature.

9) I was puzzled as to why Scott j. refused the entry to court records as to my annotated response outlined in 6) as it did not have McKinnon's signature. It now seems clear that Scott j. whom was only too willing to accept this Sept. 15 Order from Hicks, Morley with alacrity as it formed the basis of why he disposed of my case (final decision pending), was cognizant of the change from the original Order.

10) Legal Counsel Charles Hofley of Hicks, Morley had to be aware of the change and yet was prepared to file this new document in evidence without noting that it differed from the April 23-2014 Order. In short, he set out to deceive the court in a significant way with the apparent complicity of the two judges named above. I call that fraud.


11) Central to my presence in Ontario Courts is the 'Cullen Creed'; a highly specious B.C. Supreme Court Order in which this litigant is barred from B.C. courts; a point McKinnon j. would seek to imitate in Ontario courts although he does include the all important 'with permission of the judge to proceed'; a feature entirely lacking in the more absolute Cullen Creed. My appeal under 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice' - I have to have a court source to finalize this unresolved legal matter - were ignored. Indeed, it would appear that the intention of the lower courts is to keep this matter out of the hands of the SCofC.

12) Both judges sought to apply a rationalization to the Cullen Creed which does not exist in that Creed. We do not know why Justice Cullen acted the way he did. In their failure to authenticate (see inclusive notes on this point) this Creed, both judges have given de facto credence for any judge to act in any fashion that he or she wishes quite apart from the law of the land. That is anarchy. As the Ontario Courts (4 Ottawa courts at any rate) are not up to the task of dealing with this question of anarchy; the point needs be directed to the Supreme Court of Canada providing the Ontario Appeal Courts don't follow in the footpath of the above two judges.

13) The conduct of the three parties noted above would seem to reflect a shared opinion with this writer of judicial review bodies in general; that they are more useless than tits on a bull. These review bodies appear to have only one goal; namely, to keep matters out of the media and out of Parliament (another totally useless body). As such, Prime Minister Harper's 'law and order' program is little more than a bad joke. It would seem that the wrong people are behind bars.



A) 2 page excerpt from #14-61592 pp. 7 & 8 'Preamble to Supreme Court of Canada June 2004'

B) 3 page handwritten 'pending' judgment of Scott j. of #14-61592

C) 3 page Disposition excerpts from April 23-2014 judgment of McKinnon j. for #13-59060

D) 3 page Order 'as to form'  filed by Hicks Morley with addition (6) from McKinnon dated Sept. 15-2014

E) 6 page communications entry into court record of #14-61592 from Callow to Hicks, Morley outlining sequence of signing 'as to form'

F) 1 page annotated Sept. 5-2014 signature 'as to form' which Scott j. would not accept in filing because it did not have McKinnon's signature.

G) 1 page 'Notice of Appearance' from Hicks Morley on September 22 in my e-mail account.

H) 2 page excerpt (pp.18 & 21) of Callow's detailed response to McKinnon j. inaccuracies such as imputing motivation to the MacKenzie Creed which, similar to the Cullen Creed does not exist in those documents.

I) 2 page Cullen Creed and Callow's response.

J) 5 page Newsletter to PMO October 01-2014  which includes above documentation.


ACTION? You tell me.


Yours truly


Roger Callow aka 'The Outlawed Canadian'  www.employeescasecanada.com


July 13-2015


TO: Hon. Chief Justice M.D. Popescul       FROM: Roger Callow - litigant

Court of Queen's Bench  SK                        208-2220 Halifax Drive

2425 Victoria Avenue                                 Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7

Regina SK S4P 4W6   306-787-5391          tel:/fax: 613-521-1739


Reference: Complaint against Deputy Local Registrar, Wendy Seed (306)787-5381

Material Reference: My letter of June 30-2015 and her reply of July 04-2015


Nature of complaint:

1) As it was clear that any reply to my letter of June 30-2015 should entail a signature from Chief Justice Popescul, or alternatively, Registrar Jennifer Fabien, quoting sanction from Chief Popescul the latter of whom Wendy Seed consulted, Seed's letter falls far short by giving a bureaucratic as opposed to a judicial response.

2) That shortcoming has wide ramifications. Why have courts of law when junior clerks are able to be judge, jury and executioner?

3) The above feature is not limited, regrettably, to the courts of SK. Judges at large are at the vicissitudes of Registrars and the Office of the Chief Justice acting capriciously without any oversight other than the media which, to my knowledge, has never revealed this major shortcoming in the Canadian Justice System.

4) That feature explains why I supply copies of my memos in the Employee's Case- the story of an illicit teacher lay-off in British Columbia in 1985 where there is no judicial finding and no compensation paid as a consequence (includes pension rights) - to individual Supreme court of Canada judges (where this matter has been rejected for a hearing on two occasions leaving me in a permanent state of legal limbo) so that they are at least made aware of the machinations of Registrar Roger Bilodeau.

5) On one occasion, I remonstrated with the B.C. Judiciary for pulling a similar stunt with a 'copy girl' reply and was provided a judicial response in its place.

6) Further, in conversation with Wendy Seed, the concern voiced was that this matter had its genesis in B.C. and therefore did not involve SK courts. No other concern was voiced.

7) It now appears that the SK court would circle the wagons by pleading that my entry 'is not in the correct form' without being specific. (On one occasion in another province, I shot back at the court clerk that I did consult with a lawyer whom 'wants to know too'.)

8) That ploy is a favourite with court registries to duck out because 'as we are not lawyers, we cannot give legal advice'. I have had that stunt pulled on me by a number of Appeal Courts but this is the first time that a lower court would seek to obfuscate this issue.

9) I have reviewed the materials and other than the delivery notice which complicates filing for which I wished to add a docket number; I see no shortcoming with this filing. If this reason or any other specific reason is the problem, please notify me and I will correct it. I now include a faxed receipt to the recipient Defendant here as proof of delivery.

10) While the issue is an unusual one in that this litigant, having been expelled from B.C. (Cullen j. Creed included here) for 'reasons best known to a judge'; I must seek legal redress elsewhere under the provisions of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice.

11) I would be happy if the SK courts would merely lift any ban on this litigant from appearing in any court in Canada; certainly so in B.C. With that Order, I could return to pursue this matter in a B.C. court of law; the logical place for this unfinished legal case to be heard. I deserve no less. Would the SK courts deny one Canadian such a right of which rejection would negatively reflect on 35 million Canadians? If so, who then would be able to stop any judge from giving carte blanche orders to impede any legal matter? In brief, in attempting to suppress the Employee's Case, the Canadian Judiciary has only managed to decimate itself. 

10) A copy of this letter is provided the Regina Leader-Post as well as Premier Brad Wall and Opposition Leader, NDP Cam Broten, with this question: Is SK to join the legal junk-heap of B.C., ON ,Que.(pending), Federal Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada in which Canada has been reduced to Third World status? The basic denial of court service is right at the top of human rights abuses.


Yours truly, 


(Roger Callow)



A) Callow letter to SK Queen's Bench ATTN: Wendy Seed

B) Wendy Seed letter July 4-2015

C) faxed receipt of non-docket numbered 'Application' delivery to West Vancouver School District #45 (to Popescul c.j. only)

D) 'Cullen Creed' with my rebuttal



E) Chief Justice M.D. Popescul to be refiled /Wendy Seed (extra copy included here for her)

F) Premier Brad Wall/Opp. Leader Cam Broten

G) Governor General David Johnston - a titular role but the 'last man standing'

H) Canadian Judicial Council - which would fiddle while the entire judicial system goes up in flames. They have been MIA for some time now.

I) SCofC Hon. A. Karakatsanis

J) Regina Leader-Post