BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employeescasecanada.com (29 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems and over 30 judges. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears due to Registry, Ministry & Court obfuscation. I feel like Ralph Nader in 1961 trying to convince the public of dangerous cars (Unsafe at any speed). Who knows, maybe recalling judges and chief judges may become standard fare in the future - just like automobiles. To be sure, the current system is not working as now the Canadian Justice System has been shattered in its entirety by this case.


WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT, ALFIE (remember the film?)




31) I am a completely innocent target of a conspiracy for I am not guilty of 'declining enrolment' in 1985 (if that is possible in this kafkaesque case) as there was an increase, not a decrease of teaching positions.

32) I have been robbed of my compensation as every job under the collective bargaining rules must have a price tag attached. My current 'tag' is $6 million. So far I have received nothing (includes pension rights).

33) Pay-out is dependent on the propriety of my lay-off. Due to the failure of the court to renew the arbitration that they so ordered, I have been left in limbo which flies in the face of such basic legal tenets as habeas corpus, due process, there can be no process without judgment.

33) The court is complicit in this conspiracy as over 8 separate courts (including the Supreme Court of Canada on two occasions - not heard) and over 30 judges have done nothing. While I may have a battle with the Employer, I have a full scale war with the courts.

34) Justice Estey  St. Anne Nackawic  'What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the laws.

35) Conclusion? Canada no longer has a Justice System due to systematic judicial abuse. No bureaucracy can withstand that charge. Similar to such as China, we have courts of law but no viable justice system.

36) And do you know what is so insidious about this case? This type of legal abuse is happening every day in varying degrees across the land. The significance of the Employee's Case (Canada) is that the authorities have been caught out in Canada for a first time.

35) former P.M. Pierre Trudeau 'It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.'

36) In this case, the politicians, the anti-employee media, the professional teachers of Canada and B.C. in particular, the legal fraternity; are all in the wrong.

37) The Blind Men of Hindustan Each one argued long and loud about the definition of an elephant; one proclaiming while touching its side that surely the elephant was like a wall; a second grabbing the trunk opining that surely the elephant was like a tree; and so on. The conclusion?...While all were partly in the right and all were in the wrong.

38) In the vernacular, cherry picking for truths is a lie. Canada is living a lie of grandiose proportions which  negatively affects the entire quality of life in our so-called democracy. It doesn't get any worse than that. PROTEST PLACARD: BEHIND EVERY ECONOMIC COLLAPSE IS A MORAL COLLAPSE

39) Corrupting legions of people in this legal caper by the authorities (even reading this account and doing nothing) defines us all.

40) The 'secret memo notes' of Justice Southin in 1986 in the hands of the Employer and Union (but not seen by me) hold the crux of the charge of fraud against the conspirators and the courts.








1) Notice of Appearances have been received from B) on November 21-2014 and A) on November 27-2014 and are hereby acknowledged on December 01-2014. It is noted here that Hicks, Morley et al of Ottawa appear to be no longer representing the Board. This current action is to be heard in Ottawa before a judge (no replication of earlier nonsense before the Federal Court, please)


2) As the two responses read essentially the same, a joint reply is being submitted.


3) Both factums fail to recognize that the above action alleges fraud on the part of the conspirators and the courts.


4) The first time fraud was referred to in this case was in the Preamble to the Supreme Court of Canada 2004 in which, as the targeted individual, it was submitted I was the object of a massive conspiracy. SEE APPLICATION TAB 7 Addendum pp. 22-23 (also appears on Home Page of employeescasecanada.com with this statement from the concluding paragraph: '...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....Failure to do so up to and including one appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is a denial of the letter and the spirit of the law in Canada.'


5) Also, from the same Preamble, is this statement which underlies the current subpoena request: '...Considering that Justice Southin in 1986 ordered that all material pertaining to the lay-off of Mr. Callow be made available to the court and no doubt serves as the basis of her conclusion, then we submit such information would be the property of the Union and therefore should be made available to Mr. Callow even though the court has decreed that the Union has full control of this matter as far as questioning the matter of his lay-off....'


6) In 2014, #14-61592 (H.D. September 23-2014) the charge of fraud against both the conspirators and the courts was filed for a first time hence the charge of res judicata does not apply. The above two respondents did not file a Notice of Hearing.


7) In an earlier hearing launched by Hicks, Morley et al of Ottawa for the Employer, #13-59060 held before Justice Colin McKinnon on April 11-2014, the Plaintiff requested that all claims be discussed. Justice McKinnon made no reference to that request in his decision which is currently being appealed by me hence there is no outstanding legal debt as claimed by the Board.


8)A second hearing on DT-12-1872 is also pending on costs alone hence there is no outstanding debt. The Board was told that they could access surety monies in B.C. which were posted for the purpose of a hearing which was never held. Without any status in B.C. Courts, I cannot re-claim that money. The Board and the Union have already acquired monies from that account under dubious circumstances as I had no status to be represented on that account.


9) The argument against the Respondents essentially concludes in 1999 with A-990790 Vancouver Registry, which is essentially the case for fraud in B.C. plus the Supreme Court of Canada  on two occasions culminating in the 2004 accusation noted in 4) above. That numbering from A-990790 is used here for this rebuttal.


10) The legal case against the conspirators in 1999 written by Ottawa legal counsel, Paul Conlin, is still valid in 2014 concluding in the 5 page CALLOW ARGUMENT (pp 451-455) plus a 2 page letter from BCTF letter dated April 8-1999 (pp 382-383) with this statement: '...Both the School Board and the Association seem more intent on immediate collection of legal costs awarded against Mr. Callow as a result of his effort to achieve fair compensation than they are in providing fair compensation to him.' Both accounts are included in this Rebuttal.


11) In the same account as above labeled SECOND ASPECT OF COMPLAINT - CONFLICT OF INTEREST (pp 456-7), the account included here concludes with this statement: '...Mr. Laughton, who was put in the difficult position of defending an unfortunate agreement he partially authored, on the one hand, and acting in the interests of the Petitioner, on the other hand, appears to have chosen the Board's questionable interpretation of the agreement. But, it was not until September of 1997 that Mr. Laughton communicated his position on the applicability of the agreement to the compensation issue to the Petitioner. The Board in deciding on the timeliness of this aspect of the complaint completely ignored this critical fact (the timing of Mr. Laughton communication of his position) underlying the complaint. In doing so it acted without jurisdiction and in a patently unreasonable manner.


12) As to the matter of being declared a 'vexatious litigant' thereby limiting future cases to a prima facie basis; I do not recall ever receiving the background list necessary for such a charge from the B.C. Courts and ask the Board to provide it at this time.


13) I did receive the requisite information from Justice Colin McKinnon of Ottawa Superior Court (OSC) #13-59060 in his judgment which I included in #14-61592 with a complete rebuttal as to major inaccuracies but was never referenced by OSC Justice Robert Scott in his 'temporary' judgment.


14) Regrettably, as there was no final disposition, the Appeal Court rejected a hearing on this account. The activities of these two judges named above and Hicks, Morley et al have been referred to the respective oversight bodies in which I have requested in a running enquiry (form included here) that Ontario Chief Justice, G. Strathy, oversee. As of Dec.01-2014, there has been no acknowledgment of these complaints let alone any judgment.


15) As to the process of alleging fraud, the APPLICATION to the Federal Court ADDENDUM to TAB 7 (p.32), the transcript evidence alleging fraud before Justice McKinnon deserves mention: COURT: You go to the Supreme Court of Canada  MR. CALLOW That's again my question to you, how do I get o the Supreme Court of Canada when they don't accept anything except through an appeal court? COURT: I can't help you there. You're not going to get there by way of Ontario. MR. CALLOW (p. 33) Well, nobody has quoted any laws as to why you can't do that.  No doubt this explanation by the court was behind the 'vexatious' labeling as a means of freezing out further court action. This case is currently under appeal in Ontario Appeal Court although that process is currently being hamstrung.


16) Was this case one to be settled under the collective bargaining rules? Certainly not so if the Harris & Co. letter to the B.C. Labour Board of February 7, 1996 (p.299 of A 990790) is any indication:

'...It is the School Board's strongly held view that the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdiction to make any ruling regarding the hearing of a future arbitration hearing due to the fact the arbitration was not a proceeding under the scheme provided in the Labour Relations Code, the former Industrial Relations Act, or the former Labour Code. Instead, the arbitration in question was a hearing pursuant to the provisions of the School Amendment Act, 1985, which the Labour Relations Board  has no jurisdiction to interpret or apply.


17) No doubt the above letter explains why the B.C. Labour Board would never hold a Section 12 complaint made by me preferring, instead, to accept the Union case at face value.


18) No doubt, this also explains why the Supreme Court of Canada under the topic of 'universality of Unions' was not heard as it would lead to considerable embarrassment for the B.C. Labour Board not to mention the 'vexatious' application by the B.C. Courts. If they had heard this national matter, the litigants in the current CBC-Ghomeshi case could have had guidance. The bottom line was for this appellant to be left to be sailing on a sea of red tape never to put into the port of judgment. That's anarchy. The SCofC panel included A. Lamers Chief Justice (d) and the incumbent Chief Justice, B. Mclachlin, herself a former B.C. Chief Justice.


19) In short, the government in this imposed BILL 35 and the Employer in the CBC-Ghomeshi trial were seeking to run an end-game around the Union at the expense of the employee and the judicial system in general. While not being outright fraud, it comes dangerously close to that application. Under these circumstances, Union representation is 'gratuitous' and therefore is not wedded to the collective bargaining rules. B.C. judges, including Justice Southin were wrong. Note. This accusation against Justice Southin does not refer to her 1986 Decision where she mentions no role of the Union but rather to an Appeal Court hearing at the turn of the century where 3 female justices (The maidenform mafia reference on my web site as two judges of the three had already sat on earlier hearings on this matter. The proper course would have been to recuse themselves.)


20) The explanation as to why the Board does not owe any compensation to me, a statement made by Hicks, Morley et al in #13-59060 appears based on the following letter from Campney & Murphy dated July 6, 1988 regarding the postponement of the re-arbitration: 'We further confirm that the Board agreed to the above adjournment on the basis that there be no financial prejudice to the Board, in any event, occasioned by the adjournment of the hearing from July 13th up to the date of the publication of Mr. Lindholm's award.' (p. 344) to which Rankin & Co. (Bruce Laughton Jr. Counsel) responded to the BCTF on July 7,1988 (p.345): 'In order to obtain the adjournment, it was necessary for us to suspend the running of damages from July 1 to the new hearing date.


21) Thus in what must be one of the more stupendous acts in judicial history, Laughton through away any leverage he would have possessed in any future negotiations. Without Callow on salary, as he should have been, the Board never had to be involved in any serious negotiations.


22) It is submitted here that should a final settlement be agreed to between myself and the Employer, that the Employer could in another suit, claim back 90% of that pay-out. The Union, in turn could sue the government for passing an ultra vires BILL 35 and the courts for their failure to properly interpret this case although it needs be noted that the Union was party to those nefarious court actions. No wonder my web site labels this the cluster fuck case! No other expression comes remotely close to that description.


23) The rest of the material in TAB 7 ADDENDUM from A 990790 is primarily material between myself and the Union lawyers best enunciated legally in common parlance as 'he said/she said'. What is clear from those documents is that my communications are treated by systematic contumely by the Union lawyers. Typical of those letters is one marked p. 368 in which BCTF lawyer (November 14, 1989)would like me to sign, in effect, a 'blank cheque' and my rebuttal p.375-7 (March 15, 1990) giving detailed reasons why I dismissed Rankin and Company including Bruce Laughton from this case. As such, his current representation of the Union is highly suspect.


24) Point 8 in Laughton's November 21-2014 and duplicated in Harris & Co. for the employer in Point 7 is the only one which comes close to the topic of fraud in the case of earlier Federal Court 'non' hearings. It is not the intention to argue that distinction here but merely remark that the Federal Court may very well be in a 'conflict of interest' with the only court being competent to handle this accusation of fraud on my part being the Supreme Court of Canada. In that conclusion, both myself and Justice C. McKinnon of Ottawa Superior Court were in agreement.


25) In the event that the two Respondents do not provide this Applicant with the 'secret memo notes' of Justice Southin (1986) plus the meeting notes from (pp.239 and 240) relating to the Board's refusal to re-employ me and to the Union's failure to place the School District into dispute as requested by me; then there is no point in the Respondents attending court. In that event, I will ask the court to combine the primary meeting with the main meeting to resolve this issue. My due date for the above requested material is December 20, 2014.


26) Also included in this Rebuttal is this constitutional question:

Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that any law (BILL 35 RC notation) that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of Canada-the supreme law of the land-is, to the extent of its inconsistency, of no force or effect. A tribunal must respect the Constitution so that if it finds invalid a law (BILL 35 and 'current demonstrated ability' undefined in the statute or in law generally although for structural reasons, it may not refer to teacher competence. RC) it is called upon to apply, it is bound to treat it as having no force or effect. Weber vs Ontario Hydro  Dominion Law Reports 125 D.L.R. (4th) p. 594


27) To date the four Federal leaders - Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau, May along with the anti-employee media have shown a distinct inability to come to grasps with this lead civil issue threatening, as it does, the welfare of 35 million Canadians in a most significant way.


cc PMO

POST IN STAFFROOM / e-mail colleagues






BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employeescasecanada.com (29 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems and over 30 judges. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears due to Registry, Ministry & Court obfuscation. I feel like Ralph Nader in 1961 trying to convince the public of dangerous cars (Unsafe at any speed). Who knows, maybe recalling judges and chief judges may become standard fare in the future - just like automobiles. To be sure, the current system is not working as now the Canadian Justice System has been shattered in its entirety by this case.



A) 'When the law doesn't work, work the law.' Trial & Error Paul Levine

B) 'When the testimony is too damn good, when there are no contradictions and all the potholes are filled in with smooth asphalt, chances are the witness (prosecution/courts RC) is lying. Ibid

C) 'Gee, just like at home in China' fictional Chinese immigrant on 'Canadian rule of law'

D) '...As for the rule of law, historians almost unanimously agree China has never had the rule of law (i.e. judicial system that is independent of government, and treat all equally). In fact, there is no phrase for rule of law in this sense in either Mandarin or Cantonese...when Xi talks about the rule of law he really means the "rule by law" with government using the law to control and regulate society (BILL 35 as processed through the courts to control employees), and the law and judiciary always subservient to the ruler.(The Old Boys Club) EPOCH NEWS Nov.28-Dec.04  A7


1) G. Was dismissed by CBC for no stated reason.

E.  Callow was laid-off for reasons of declining enrolment (there wasn't any) under the B.C. Government imposed BILL 35; the only B.C. teacher so laid-off. BILL 35 was rescinded in the 1990's before this case was resolved. (banana republic justice... the same logic can be applied to Ontario's imposed BILL 115 which led to widespread teacher reaction) No compensation has been paid to this plaintiff.

2) G. As no reason was given, his issue does not fall beneath the collective bargaining process hence the legal issue is one of 'breach of contract'.

E. While a reason was given under BILL 35, an imposed government BILL, my issue does not fall beneath the collective bargaining rules either for other reasons suffice it to say here that the legal issue is also one of 'breach of contract' under the rules of the court and not a B.C. Labour Board which explains why that Board refused to hear a Section 12 complaint exposing their perfidy.

3)  G. & E. So why did the Union offer 'gratuitous' financial assistance to Employees in both cases due to an Employer seeking to circumnavigate the collective bargaining rules? Because Union clients would question the value of Union membership if employers are permitted to get away with this stunt of running an end game around the Unions by dismissing employees for no reason. The Employer knows full well that the individual client cannot finance a lawsuit against a powerful employer.

4) G. & E. The collective bargaining process operates under the Labour Relations Act while 'breach of contract' is a court responsibility.

5) G. With no reason given, the Employer is unable to build a case as the only question they are called on to answer is 'Why was no reason given?' which does not entail that the Employer may act if a good reason is later produced. Hence the court must find in favour of Ghomeshi.

E.  The B.C. Courts , beginning with Justice Spencer in 1995 ,declared this case a Union matter without specifying why hence all ensuing B.C. court hearings beginning with that premise are bogus. The Supreme Court of Canada's (SCofC) failure (Hon.B. McLachlin sat on that panel) to handle this matter in 1999 on the 'universality of unions' is a key in that failure because the B.C. judges had made a basic erroneous conclusion as to my status. In 2004, under the 'Ultimate Remedy' question, the collective bargaining process declares that money must change hands. If this matter is not a collective bargaining matter, then court pursuit on the basis of a 'breach of contract' must make a finding. Again, the SCofC failed to hear this case creating a constitutional crisis leaving this case in a permanent state of limbo. (McLachlin now Chief Justice). Fraud (conspiracy of process) on the part of the court was alleged for a first time.

     Subsequent judicial chicanery to the present time has led to the collapse of the entire Canadian Justice System. The current T-2360-14 filed in Federal Court in Ottawa on November 12, 2014 focuses, for a first time, on the alleged fraud of both the original conspirators and the judiciary across three court systems in B.C. Ontario, and the Federal Court; the Supreme Court of Canada being given a 'technical pass' at this time.

     The defunct 'Grand Jury' system in the U.S. is to Blacks what the defunct Canadian Judicial System is to employees.