BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the clusterfuck case’. Canada’s Watergate- Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought…A rinky dink labour case which has left the Canadian Justice System in tatters and apparently without leaders to rectify this national debacle negatively affecting 35 million Canadians. A national media boycott hamstrings publication of this legal matter which has smashed the Canadian Judiciary leaving Canada with  Third World status.

QUOTE: ‘Many are the strange chances of the world and help oft shall come from the hands of the weak when the wise falter.’

QUOTE from DT-12-1872 Nov.04-13 Ottawa Hearing now before the Supreme Court of Canada (for a third time.) Introductory Remark from this targeted employee in response to the Employer’s presentation: ‘Now for the elephant in the room; What has been decided? After 28 years and over 30 judges,I still have no judicial decision from which compensation (includes pension rights) may flow.’  




Letter from Mark Clark (Nov. 19-2013) B.C. Labour Board Deputy Registrar

     ‘…if it is your intention to file a Section 12 complaint, a complaint cannot be made with respect to a matter that has been already decided, and it must be filed in a timely manner…As the nature of the document you have sent is unclear, and as it does not constitute a properly filed complaint or application under the Code, the Board will not be taking action with respect to it.’



     The above letter which I label ‘law by osmosis’ could stand for virtually all contact with the judiciary in this matter as they duck and weave out of their judicial responsibilities leaving this target in limbo – a distinct abuse of the law although the various judicial responses such as the above make it appear all fault is accorded to the complainant. Following is an analysis as it relates to ‘matters that have already been decided’; in law known as res judicata. This mantra has been sown by the Employer into the minds of willing judges as a means of concealing a government conspiracy in which the B.C. Government was hi-jacked(‘imposed’ BILL 35) the judiciary co-opted (government –appointed arbitrator later ruled ‘patently unreasonable’ by the court (he converted 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs and added this writer, a senior teacher, as the necessary 17th knowing full well that I was the only lay-off in June of 1985 year); to approve a ‘sweetheart deal’ between Employer and Union. Following is one interpretation of ‘what has been decided and when’ (namely, nothing).

1) Was it the private meeting I had with the Superintendent, Ed Carlin (removed one year later never to serve again in the public education field) in June of 1985 in which I was asked to withdraw my accusations of fraud against Principal John Williams of West Vancouver Secondary School vis a vis his ‘doctored’ Professional Report on me which I had mailed to Jim Carter, Deputy Minister of Education in Victoria in 1985, and himself the subject of a highly questionable dismissal of a senior teacher in 1978 at this same school for so-called ‘incompetence’ (see web for story)? When I refused which would clear the way for three carefully crafted reports (it would be difficult to dismiss a teacher if one of the three reports was shown to be fraudulently written); he told me he was looking into the new BILL 35 to be enacted on July 1,1985 if I did not resign willingly. Was that when the ‘matter was already decided’, Mark?

2) Perhaps the matter was decided when the School Board refused to follow the court recommendation that employment be returned to me when the judge quashed the arbitration favouring the School Board. When the Board declined, Justice Southin ordered the matter back to arbitration before the same arbitrator. He promptly died. Of course any hearing held for the purpose would have exposed this government conspiracy …and that would never do. Far better to sacrifice the Judiciary than to expose themselves to ridicule and possibly something much worse.

3) The death of the arbitrator was certainly a ‘decision maker’ for Justice Spencer in 1995 when he said that the only person who could make the final evaluation was the arbitrator who was dead. Ergo, Spencer did nothing knowing full well that under the laws of ‘frustration’; litigants are not to suffer adverse effects due to glitches in the law. Is that what such as BCLB’s Mark Clark is thinking with ‘matters already decided’?

4) And then there is the BCLB’s very own Barbara Parkinson Order (B117/2002) which saw nothing wrong with how the Union failed to represent my unresolved case under conditions in which the court in its wisdom decided that this employee lacked status to conduct his own affairs. That definitely would suit Clark’s ‘matters already decided’ and an end to this ‘dreary’ embarrassment of a legal case.

5) My legal counsel wrote the Union telling them that if they were not returning to litigation as  earlier ruled by the court, then they must sign an agreement with the Employer. They refused leaving me in a permanent state of limbo due to the B117-2002 Order. Thereafter, they dropped representation of this case and joined with the Employer in undermining any attempts of this litigant to finalize this issue; usually on judicial grounds so that the issue proper was never discussed in court. Now that has to be ‘matters already decided’ to such as Clark and his ilk sitting on the various benches as I was to be continually screwed by the Justice System in a systematic manner which has cost Canada the credibility of its Judiciary. Now that’s what I call ‘matters already decided’.

6) The inverse of the BCLB 117/2002 would appear to be something that Clark and his gang would not like to examine as ‘matters already decided’; namely,the BCLB – nor any succeeding court – did not argue that the matter of my illicit lay-off should NOT be examined and did NOT order that there should be any finalization  to this case and that compensation NOT be paid. Apparently that proposition comes under the heading of proving a negative to these erstwhile legal entities which, as everyone knows, is an impossibility.

7) Under the NOT label comes the first Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada under the ‘universality of Unions question’. Does a Union represent an employee in all matters such as tying up his compensation rights under the collective bargaining rules as well as his pension? The failure of the SCofC (Chief Justice Lamers (d) /Beverly McLachlin/ W. Cory) to deal with that national question left me in limbo and employers in this position: ‘We are not going to dismiss you for cause and incur fiduciary responsibilities; rather, we are going to lay you off – with recall rights if you like (which I had) – with this admonishment: If you do not sign a $1 settlement for all grievances; you will not collect your pension.’ Now that IS a matter which has been decided which put an end to the Collective Bargaining arrangement in Canada. Unlike every other civil case that the SCofC rejects, they were prepared to leave me in a permanent state of limbo which flies in the face of any number of major laws; habeas corpus/due process/there can be no process without judgment. That’s when the Canadian Justice System imploded.

8) And to add insult to injury, the SCofC, in failing to hear this issue in 2004 under the ‘ultimate remedy’ provisions (a contract provision of the Collective Bargaining rules in which money must change hands); another NOT produced this bon mot from my legal advisor: You have exhausted all remedy under the law.’

Now that IS a matter already decided which led to the collapse of the Canadian Judiciary.

9) Enter two more matters under the ‘already decided’ label. B.C. Associate Deputy Chief Anne MacKenzie’s Order of October 2010 in which she delisted a duly registered case in the B.C. Supreme Court in an undocumented Order which did not hold a hearing nor quoted her authority, took no argument, quoted no laws and denied this litigant from court access all for ‘reasons best known to herself’. She did include the all important ‘without permission of a judge’ as a means of one and at the same time, hamstringing this litigant and seeking to keep the judicial system intact by implying the onus was on me to resolve my case without telling how that should be done. The MacKenzie Creed is another NOT which is currently before the SCofC.  The point here is that neither the Employer nor courts will answer to this question: ‘Is the Employer obligated to pay compensation in this case? If so,how and when?’ Without an answer to this all-important question; the Canadian Justice System remains in a smashed state.  Clark and his judicial cronies CANNOT escape that one.

The question of national importance is whether a ‘rogue’ judge may undermine the course of justice by issuing an Order which disappears ‘down the rabbit hole’ by leaving a case appeared to have been abandoned on the Judicial Record? Of course, the plaintiff is made to appear to be the culprit for this abandonment.

10) A second Associate Deputy Chief Justice from the B.C. Supreme Court, Alistair Cullen, passed a second draconian and prohibitory Order in July of 2013 which makes no mention of the earlier MacKenzie Order with one very important distinction; there is no ‘with permission of a judge’ addition.

11) The Cullen Creed is currently being appealed in Ontario Superior Court in Ottawa (#13-58607) to be heard in 2014. The key difference with the MacKenzie Creed is that while I oppose the former, I am prepared to accept the latter – egregious as it may be – as conclusive evidence that the courts have abandoned this case so that compensation may now flow. As I am banned from B.C. Courts, I am depending on the law of ěnherent jurisdiction` of Ontario courts because I have nowhere else to go. So perhaps Cullen has drawn closure after all to `matters already decided` in this long drawn out case although in a manner he never anticipated. Ironically, should the Employer not contest his Order,  the credibility of the Canadian Justice System is shattered beyond all recognition as it will be seen that any individual (not only a judge) may write such an Order falsifying, if necessary, a signature because that Order will not be a part of the  Judicial Record on which the Justice System depends for its existence. It’s a calamity of world shattering implications for any democracy as Canada is now seen to ‘judicially run but now is unable to hide’. How’s that for ‘matters already decided’?


1) Justice Minister MacKay who apparently cannot tell the difference between a `daycare center and a high school class`.He has until Dec. 20-2013 to act on judicial irregularities already outlined to him from the B.C. Courts (abandoned by A.G. Suzanne Anton in which Premier Christie Clark failed to remove her); the Federal Court (Madame Justice Gauthier ducked out registering an appeal by claiming the MacKenzie Creed was similar to the Cullen Creed and therefore not an originating argument…`matters already decided` department) and the Ontario courts due to Premier Kathleen Wynne`s failure to remove 3 Judges from the Divisional Court (DT-12-1872 now under appeal to the SCofC) for dereliction of duty. Now those are matters which should indeed be `already decided` but haven`t been.

2) Two other Prime Ministerial hopefuls, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair (he whose fax machine is always `busy`) have until the same date (Dec. 20-2013) to make a public statement otherwise their respective parties must choose a new leader thus validating one of my placards: BE ETHICAL / DON’T VOTE

3) Clark and Wynne whose own tenures are now suspect. No Response requested=past redemption.

4) CTV’s POWER PLAY with Don Martin/Robert Fife who would fiddle with picayune expense account irregularity issues while the Canadian Judiciary burns to the ground. Dec. 20-2013 deadline

5) CBC’s Peter Mansbridge and his AT ISSUE gang. A couple of years ago, I challenged Rex Murphy, he of the polysyllabic word to ‘out’ the Employee’s Case. In the year end summary, Mansbridge asked, ‘Any other issues this year’ to which Murphy responded, ‘No’. Dec. 20-2013 deadline

6) To Union leader dinosaurs who think that in the battles ahead with management, that they are dealing with a level playing field. The Employee’s Case is showing that by keeping their heads in the sand along with Canada’s professional teachers, employees are going to be skinned alive by an Opposition Employer interest in league with Canada’s  compromised Judiciary. Even the ‘Whistleblower’ group fromed in Ottawa is on the wrong track thinking that new laws will make a difference. How so when it is seen that the old laws don’t work? Our native peoples and their protest style along with such other groups as Greenpeace have shown how a country must function under Third World conditions.

7) In the case of Senategate, the worst case scenario is the replacement of one political party with either of two others not associated with this scandal. However,there is only one Canadian Judiciary. While the media prattle on about ‘the truth’ as some sort of mathematical formula; governments operate on responsibility as the public intuit that polticians will lie: placard;  HYPOCRISY / CANADA DOES IT BEST. That is not the general case with a Justice System where truth is paramount…placard;  IN THE LAND OF THE BLIND, THE ONE-EYED MAN (JUSTICE SYTEM) IS KING. QUOTE ‘What to do with a tyrannical king?’ (age-old philosophical question)


(signed) Roger Callow

cc  Justice Minister MacKay / SCofC Hon. R. Wagner / Ontario Premier K. Wynne


web address www.employeescasecanada.com December 02-2013

November 08-2013

TO: Charles Hofley esq.                                                  FROM: Roger Callow

        Hicks, Morley et al                                                           208-2220 Halifax Drive

        #2000-150 Metcalfe St.                                                  Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7

        Ottawa, ON K2P 1P1                                                       PHONE/FAX: 613-521-1739

        FAX: 613-234-0418       SENT BY REGISTERED MAIL

REFERENCE: Bill of Costs from #DT-12-1872 Hearing Date November 4-2013 being appealed under Rule 61A


1) I intend to challenge the $10,000 cost assignment in the above case as being exhorbitant under the circumstances of, arguably, the Defendant merely re-entering material filed at the lower Superior court (#12-54944) hence about half the effort. Your presence was gratuitous in that the pecuniary position of the Defendant was not affected plus no major argument on the MacKenzie Creed was presented.Your suggestion that substantial fees be applied to discourage ‘litigious clients’ bordered on ‘bringing the course of justice into disrepute’. I submit that no compensation should be given to you under these circumstances.

2) Please consider this letter as official sanction for the Defendant to apply to a surety held in the B.C. Appeal Court with approximately $7,000 still in that account. I give my full legal support to the extent that I am recognized as an entity before the B.C. Courts to this request. Any additional sums to be added or subtracted is recognized.

3) You will recall with the earlier  Superior Court costs #12-054944 Bill of Costs that we settled for $5,000 cash as you turned down the offer of $7,500 from this Surety fund.

4) The Vancouver Branch of the Employer, in league with the Union, have already accessed this fund to the tune of approximately $3000 in an action where I had no court standing and objected as such. The appeal on that action is on its way to the Supreme Court of Canada for while the MacKenzie Creed bound me from entering court; no such stricture applied to anyone filing against my interests which raises a constitutional question of national importance regarding court access. Of course, that is not the case in this current application as I give full support to your application.

5) I mention the above point here because those funds are frozen to which I have no access as I have no status in B.C. courts due to the MacKenzie Creed. I would rather the Defendant  receive those funds in payment as opposed to seeing these monies end up in the Judge’s Xmas fund.

Roger Callow

cc  Justice Minister MacKay / SCofC Hon. R. Wagner / Ontario Premier K. Wynne

encl. to above 3 parties: 2 pages Court Endorsement #DT-12-1872 plus letter to Wynne


November 28, 2013


TO: Hicks Morley ATTN: C. Hofley 

FROM: Roger Callow



1) Acknowledgment of your letter File #9091-2 of November 27,2013 is made.

2) Your desire to collect a $10,000 court award by Dec. 06-2013 as assigned by DT-12-1872 does not make any acknowledgment of an action contesting this allotment which has now been forwarded to the courts in Toronto and is pending as you know.

3) ‘…Should we not receive these funds by that date (December 06-2013), we have been instructed to take appropriate collection action.’

4) Instructed by whom?  ‘Appropriate collection action’ sounds like a dunning letter turned over to a collection agency who has no interest in background explanations including an extant court appeal. If the collection activity is to amount to a court hearing, be sure to include the above material in your claim and notify me of the date of that hearing.


IN ADDITION regarding #13-58607 (laid by me on Aug. 22-2013 in Ottawa Superior Court) and your subsequent laying of #13-59060 in October, 2013

5) On October 01-2013, you filed an ‘Intent to Defend’ Notice without further material to #13-58607

6) On October 24-2013, I filed REPLY25A to your subsequent  filing of 13-59060 as an Application to be heard January 16-2014 which would appear to supplant your October 01-2013 statement as your response as a Respondent.

7) While not knowing, it would appear to be your intention to show this litigant as a ‘financial deadbeat’ at that hearing requesting, as you no doubt will do, that the ‘frivolous and vexatious’ label attached by the 3 Divisional Court judges should be sufficient to deprive this litigant of any further access to Ontario Courts including the duly laid #13-58607.

8) Of course that duplicitous behaviour will mask the fact that the 3 judges cast that opinion based on very flimsy evidence relating to the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ which was never discussed in court although it was the sole topic under consideration. That decision is now under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada along with my request that these 3 judges (one even fell asleep in the hearing as I aptly pointed out) be removed from the bench for dereliction of duty.

9) What that court could not consider were the elements of the ‘Cullen Creed’; a second more egregious Order – if that is possible – from the same B.C. Supreme Court. What relation it has with the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ is not known. However, while I reject the MacKenzie Creed which had the all-important addition of  without the permission of a judge for me to proceed’; the Cullen Creed damned the torpedoes and expelled me completely from the Justice System without any recourse in this unresolved 28 year legal matter. That action created a constitutional question without equal for any democratic country.

10) Be that as it may, I accept the Cullen Creed as it clearly shows the abandonment of this unfinished legal case by the court. Now compensation (includes pension rights) may be assigned although due to the exclusionary role of this Order in B.C., this litigant must turn to Ontario under the rules of inherent jurisdiction for I have nowhere else to go within the structure of the Justice System.

11) That proposition is so important that I requested your co-operation in having this declared a ‘Special Case’ which would permit us to go directly to the 3-judge Divisional Court level. You did not reply.

12) On Jan. 16-2013, in the hearing that you scheduled for #13-59060, I will request:

a) That the court dispose of your Order without a hearing and award me $10,000 in maintenance fees

b) Should the court not dispose of your Application, then to postpone it until after #13-58607 is heard which pre-dates your #13-59060.

c) That you answer this question which you have failed to do and no preceeding court has asked you to do, even at my specific request: “Is the Employer obligated to pay this litigant compensation under the collective bargaining rules? If so, how and when?

d) Included here is a NEWSLETTER –DECEMBER 01-2013 which outlines in detailed fashion the argument of the Employer that this case is res judicata in terms of ‘matters already decided’ when nothing in fact has been decided. I do not have any judicial decision by which compensation (includes pension rights) may flow. As matters now stand, the collective bargaining agreement has no meaning in Canada. That’s a devastating indictment of court inaction in this matter.

13) This letter plus the December 01-2013 newsletter is included as a REPLY 25A to #13-59060 for the Jan.16-2014 hearing date.

14) As you did not respond to my request for ‘Special Case’ denotation, I will proceed to obtain a date on my own for a hearing date (2 hours) #13-58607 in March or April. Please state dates you are unavailable.


Yours truly,


Roger Callow


cc West Vancouver, B.C. School Board

    Chief Justice (Ottawa) C. Hackland/ Justice Minister P. MacKay/ ON Premier K. Wynne      

    Canadian Judicial Council of Judges / Canadian Human Rights Commission

    SCofC Hon. R. Wagner







DOCKET NO. 13-59060








                                              BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES (S.D.#45 WEST VANCOUVER, B.C.)                               PLAINTIFF


ROGER CALLOW                                              DEFENDANT

208-2220 Halifax Drive

Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7

PHONE/FAX: 613-521-1739


HICKS, MORLEY et al                         for the    PLAINTIFF

150 Metcalfe Street Ste. 2000

Ottawa, ON K2P 1P1

FAX: 613-234-0418                                         REGISTERED MAIL


N.B. The following including the two quotes below is to be found on web site www.employeescasecanada.com ‘OPEN LETTER TO U.S. NEWS-DECEMBER 10-2013’


QUOTES: 1)‘We of the law are accustomed to arguing the smallest points of jurisprudence while often neglecting to see its glaring deficiencies. The law must be based on the charitable behaviour of people rather than making people behave according to the law. Laws should be based on natural justice and not on punitive reaction, on enlightenments and not on our fear. As a judge I am charged to uphold it. As a human being I have only this last to say…. JESSICA  Bryce Courtenay

2) ‘Hawk laughs. “Justice requires integrity and there is little enough of that among lawyers. They would sooner get rid of you than have to deal with their own consciences.” ‘ SOLOMON’S SONG  Bryce Courtenay


BACKGROUND TO THIS APPEAL (as quoted in Callow’s factum in DT-12-1872 but ignored by that court heard on November 04-2013 and now under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada)

1) Two 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 here are: habeas corpus, due process, ultimate remedy (a cornerstone to the collective bargaining process) and ‘there can be no process without judgment’.

2) The above supports the plaintiff’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’  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 B.C. 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 thus leaving this plaintiff in a perpetual state of limbo.



1) Recognition and acceptance of April 10-2014 by you as a hearing date for #13-59060 is made.

2) It still is not clear as to your position on my earlier filed case as petitioner in #13-58607 on the same topic. The only change would appear to be to make you the petitioner in #13-59060 for reasons best known to yourself.

3) For the above reason, I have asked this court to quash this hearing and assign me $10,000 in maintenance fees.

4) I still do not have an answer from you in declaring #13-58607 as a ‘Special Case’ permitting us to go directly to a 3 judge Divisional Court hearing.  As such, no hearing date has been set.

5) The above inaction parallels your failure to declare an earlier hearing (#12-54944 Maringer j. and subsequent #DT-12-1872) as a Special Case which has now been directed to the Supreme Court of Canada;  whether as an Application or Motion is yet to be decided.

6) The Maranger Decision ignored the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ which became the sole topic before the Divisional Court and now the Supreme Court of Canada. Maranger, one and at the same time, showed a distinct lack of interest in a legal matter from another province and yet would quote the finding of a ‘frivolous and vexatious’ charge from that selfsame province.

7) That basic contradiction above was ‘remedied’ by the Divisional Court (#DT-12-1872 Nov.04-2013) by declaring a second ‘frivolous and vexatious’ charge based on the same B.C. Court information.

8) The major reason for the Appeal of #DT-12-1872, however, was the line that the Ontario courts do not possess the necessary legal power to over-rule a judge in another province leaving the question as to who does in that eventuality when a litigant is barred from a provincial court for reasons best known to a judge?

9) The Supreme Court of Canada has refused a hearing in the past on irregularities in this case because  the ‘magical’ Appeal provisions apparently have been elevated from the rules of a

lower  Appeal Court decision to mean ‘3 judge’ Appeals in this case.

10) Even the Federal Court of Canada did not refuse the challenge of making a ruling against a provincial judge, depending on this last round to reject what became #12-58607 on the grounds that it was not an ‘originating argument’ being too closely aligned with an earlier hearing on the ‘MacKenzie Creed’.I have referred this judgment by Madame Justice Gleason to Justice Minister Peter MacKay for action against her on this preposterous argument.

11) Is that going to be the argument of the Employer here? Granted, I dare say you may present any argument you like in this regard. If the court, however, buys into this specious reasoning, I will make recommendation for a further judicial removal to the authorities. The old saw of res judicata promulgated by the Defendant and bought into willy nilly by the court cannot apply to the recently passed Cullen Creed of July 23,2013.

12) There are two ingredients which distinguish the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ from its apparent successor, the ‘Cullen Creed’; both of which emanate from the B.C. Supreme Court; the MacKenzie Creed on October 1, 2010 and the Cullen Creed – which makes no reference to the MacKenzie Creed (does it supplant it?) – on July 23-2013. Both Creeds are by judges who do not quote their authority to act; nor take legal argument; nor quote pertinent laws to take steps barring this party from court to resolve an unresolved legal matter for, apparently, reasons best known to themselves. The fact that subsequent courts go out of their way to dodge any discussion of these actions is sufficient proof that judicial skulduggery is afoot.

13) The marked difference between the ‘Mackenzie Creed’ and the ‘Cullen Creed’ is that the former includes that I may not proceed without permission of a judge; the only justification keeping this egregious judgment barely legal. The Cullen Creed differs significantly in that this party is barred absolutely from the courts creating a constitutional legal crisis the likes of which has never been seen in the Judicial History of Canada. In effect, the Cullen Creed in a penstroke scraps the Charter of Rights and Freedom for individuals in Canada. That is the first discrepancy between the two Creeds.

14) The second discrepancy lies in the fact that while the MacKenzie Creed left this plaintiff in a perpetual death by a ‘thousand legal cuts’ where he is invariably dunned for all legal costs; the paramount feature of the ‘absolute’ Cullen Creed is that the Canadian  Justice System has deserted the Employee’s Case (Canada).

15) Be that as it may, it is not my intention to go the route of contesting the Cullen Creed. Rather, I accept it as a finalization of this long drawn-out 28 year legal matter as now compensation may be applied (28 years of back salary plus interest appropriately compounded which exists apart from judicial findings). Due to the exclusionary provisions of the Cullen Creed – at least in B.C. Courts – I request that the Ontario Courts act under their powers of ‘inherent jurisdiction’; an argument ignored in DT-12-1872)

16) Should you wish to elevate #13-59060 to ‘Special Case’ status – which I believe you should – you will have my acquiescence although it should be noted that I will still seek ‘maintenance’ fees as noted earlier in this account.

17) Of course, the question which needs be asked but is conspicuously absent by the courts is whether this case must NOT be resolved. Capricious judgements by over 30 judges and 7 different courts would imply that this answer is in the affirmative. Of course that reduces Canada to the level of a failed state.

18) Once again – considering that you did not address this question in the past two courts nor did the court address the question to you even at my insistence (your current factum is also deficient in this regard): Is the Employer bound to pay this employee compensation under the collective bargaining rules? If so, when and how?



Chief Justice C. Hackland (Ottawa) / ON Premier K.Wynne / Justice Minister P. MacKay (N.B. December 20-2013 deadline to take action) / SCofCanada Justice Hon. R. Wagner

Two other Prime Minister hopefuls, Opposition leaders T. Mulcair and J. Trudeau with the same December 20-2013 deadline as noted for MacKay in materials defined elsewhere.

Judicial Council of Canada / Human Rights Commission / media