QUOTE: ‘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




August 21-2013


TO: The Honourable Peter MacKay                         FROM: Roger Callow

aka ‘The Outlawed Canadian’

        Minister of Justice & AG of Canada                   208-2220 Halifax Drive

        284 Wellington Street                               Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7

        Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8                         PHONE/FAX: (613)521-1739 

        email: mcu@justice.gc.ca                          www.employeescasecanada.com


ENCLOSURE 1: From Federal Court Justice Madame Gleason to Senior Registry Officer, Actions dated August 13, 2013.

RE: Roger Callow v Board of School Trustees (related file no. T-1386-11)

     Please return the materials at Tab B to Mr. Callow. Do not accept them for filing as they do not conform to the requirements of the Federal Courts Rules as an originating document and cannot be accepted for filing in T-1386-11 without an order from a judge, which I am not prepared to grant as the issues raised in the “motion for summary judgment” are substantially similar to those struck by order of Prothonotary Lafreniére in file T-1386-11 as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.


ENCLOSURE 2:  A) Dec. 16-2011 2 page letter to Registry Officer Elise Benoit

                     B) Dec. 21-2011 1 page letter to Chief Justice Paul S. Crampton

                          (no response)



1) As an immediate response to Justice Madame  Gleason`s epistle, I ask whether the Minister of Justice will now test the I.Q.’s of all judges to ensure that they at least average 100 and not merely add up to that figure. It would seem the judges are too terrified of this case to think straight.


2) It is clear from the Notice of Motion by this plaintiff  that there is little parallel between the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ passed in October 2011 obstensibly dealt with by Lafreniére and the current appeal of its apparent successor, the ‘Cullen Creed’ passed on July 23, 2013 by the same court.


3) Prothonotary Lafreniére in Vancouver should never have held a secret hearing (no notice given to this plaintiff) in a matter slated to be held before a judge in Ottawa.


4) In his order, he makes no mention of the `MacKenzie Creed`; perhaps the most egregious action by a judge curtailing a person`s basic right to the courts, preferring, as he does, to focus in the other direction of a judge`s prerogatives before a court noting that I had not defended myself in that regard. Perhaps if I had had a presence in court, I could have done so.


5) Currently, the MacKenzie Creed is the sole topic before the Ottawa Divisional Court DC-12-1872 to be held before 3 judges on November 4-2013 as one consequence of the complete failure of the Federal Court of Canada to act properly in this matter. No response was ever received from Chief Justice Paul Crampton in that regard. (see Encl. 2B)


6) Arguably, the Cullen Creed (S106159 Van. Registry) is more egregious than the MacKenzie Creed (CA038538 Van. Registry) – if that is possible.


7) The distinctive point here is that while I have strong reservations about the legality of the Cullen Creed; for the purposes of this current submission, I accept its finality of my rights as a means of now collecting compensation owed to the plaintiff apart from judicial outcomes. That compensation consists of 28 years of back pay with interest appropriately compounded as I should never have been released from salary before the conclusion of court events.


8) For Justice Gleason to argue that the two cases act in some sort of juxtaposition is disingenuous at best . At worst, she should be relieved of her post on the bench although I am sure she has had direction on this issue. Chief Justice Crampton would appear to be a typical Tory appointment.


9) Hence we are left with the judicial conclusion of a failure (of the plaintiff, naturally) to disclose no reasonable cause of action. This badly over-worked cliché comes under the euphemism ‘because I said it was so’.


10) I don’t know what the Justice Minister of Canada, Peter MacKay, can do under these circumstances, but if he does nothing, not only the credibility of the Federal Court is at stake, but his own credibility as Minister of Justice as well. Canada and Canadians deserve much better and the media should be telling them as much for, as matters now stand, due to the total judicial framework of judicial abuse in this 28 year unresolved legal case now including the Federal Court of Canada as outlined herein, Canada is a failed nation.


11) By acting as an agent for the Defendant in this case, the independence of the judiciary has been lost forever by the Federal Court of Canada.


Yours truly



Roger Callow


cc Chief Justice Paul Crampton  Registered Mail

Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver S.D. #45) (no enclosure 2)  Registered Mail

SCofC Hon. R. Wagner plus Federal Court factum of the plaintiff    Registered Mail








A) Background Chronology to 2010


1) In June of 1985, Senior West Vancouver Teacher, Roger Callow, was laid off due to declining enrolment under the auspices of the neophte BILL 35. He was the sole candidate in British Columbia so affected before this Bill was withdrawn before litigation was completed.


2) The arbitration did not survive judicial review and the courts ruled this matter back toarbitration when the Employer did not return employment as recommended by the court.The arbitrator had been ruled as being ‘patently unreasonable’. He had converted 16 new teaching positions to 16 lay-offs adding the plaintiff as the 17th knowing full well that Callow was the only lay-off in June of 1985. The court later noted that no evidence existed showing that the School Board intended to lay-off a teacher in June of 1985. No trustee took the stand at  the arbitration to testify.


3) The plaintiff was not retained on salary creating the 28 year debacle in which the courts up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada on two occasions (not heard) obviated any attempt by the plaintiff to seek finalization  to this case so that compensation (includes pension rights) may flow. All these hearings were denied for jurisdictional reasons so that no proper hearing has ever been held. In short, the Employer is able to gain through the ‘back door’ with the connivance of the justice system what they could not gain through the ‘front door’ of the arbitration.


4) In 1995, the plaintiff appeared before Justice Spencer in B.C. Supreme Court, requesting that the court  should’ return employment to the plaintiff should be altered to ‘must’ return employment  with all terms of the contract to apply. This application  was made due to the failure of the Employer to return to court as per the earlier Order. Justice Spencer neither granted the claim nor ordered the matter back to arbitration, his only other choice. Nor did he order the plaintiff back on to salary leaving the plaintiff in limbo and setting the format

followed through  6 Canadian courts (including the Federal Court) of inconclusive dealings as far as settlement was concerned.


5) While many court hearings were filed by the plaintiff in succeeding years, all were obviated by the court in that they would not recognize the plaintiff as having the necessary status to appear in court. While I always believed that I had access to the courts, in this case the judiciary decided that only the Union could represent my needs. Apparently that decision exists right into retirement (which the Employer rejected) so that my pension rights are imperiled. In latter years, the Union has joined forces in court with the Employer to deny this plaintiff’s representation. This plaintiff claims that he had always been a target of a ‘sweetheart deal’ but was denied a hearing under Section 12 of the B.C. Labour Board. (B117/2002 Laura Parkinson Decision). Consequently the plaintiff was left in limbo in contradiction to that legal adage that ‘there can be no process without judgment’. My constitutional rights to a fair hearing were denied.


6) In the course of those proceedings, the plaintiff was labelled as being ‘frivolous and vexatious’ by B.C. Supreme Court ‘s Williamson j. 2003


B) Chronology from 2010


7) On September 10,2010, a Notice of Claim was filed (S106059) basically seeking ‘interim compensation’ (salary which belongs to the plaintiff apart from judicial outcomes). This is the court docket number quoted by Associate Deputy Chief Justice Austin Cullen on his Order of July 23-2013.


8) On October 01, 2010, Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie in an undocumented Order dropped S106059 from the docket and banned this plaintiff from access to the court for reasons best known to herself. SEE APPENDIX I (4 pages) for the Appeal of her Decision noting bias on her part.


9) On December 20, 2010, Justice K.C. MacKenzie (no relation to A.W. MacKenzie) heard an Application by the Respondents for security of costs, and gave his judgment in favour of the Respondents. That security was paid on January 12, 2011. (it should be noted here that the plaintiff had always been current with court debts to date and still is.) Monies paid out to the

defendants from a surety where the plaintiff did not have any standing is currently under appeal although there is no response to the filing of that action in the B.C. Appeal Court.


10) In January of  2011, the B.C. Appeal  Clerks refused to accept the factum and Appeal Book (CA038538) for reasons best known to themselves. Chief Justice of the Appeal Court, Lance Finch, failed to respond to this impasse (and a number of others since that time) prompting the plaintiff  to turn to the Federal Court for redress.




11) It is clear that in both the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ and its apparent successor, the ‘Cullen Creed’ that access to the B.C. Judicial System is impaired to such a degree that it may be claimed that this plaintiff has been robbed of all access to the courts in that jurisdiction. SEE APPENDIX II for ‘Cullen Creed’ and appended letter (2 pages)


12) Regrettably, the Supreme Court of Canada had ducked two earlier submissions from the plaintiff in this regard and, as such, has created a judicial miasma without equal. It would appear that many legal challenges such as the Cullen Creed are designed to frustrate any further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on vital points of law.


13) The Cullen Creed would appear to predate the MacKenzie Creed in which the Appeal of her Decision - CA038538 which would normally be expected to take priority according to file sequence. No mention is made in the Cullen Creed as to the validity of the MacKenzie Creed in that respect hence it is an open question as to which Order should prevail. Due to some key differences, they cannot exist in tandem. For example, the MacKenzie Creed applies to both defendants, the Union and the Employer, as does the Cullen Creed. The rejected action by Cullen is limited to solely that role of the Employer.  Further, what is the status of  the letter from Cullen written as an addendum and which is not part of his Order?


14) A more proper course for the Cullen Creed – if there is one – would be to quash the MacKenzie Creed which is currently under examination in other courts before proceeding as he does. As such Cullen j. has exceeded his authority in a most significant way and it is the submission of this paper that he be removed from the bench as well as MacKenzie j. The appearance of the Cullen Creed is that he would seek to brush the MacKenzie Creed under the carpet.


15) The most significant difference between the two Creeds is that the MacKenzie Creed would not finalize the outcome of this matter. Indeed, the entire credibility of the Employer’s position and that of the Court is that sometime in the future, a judicial answer would be prescribed.


16) That is not the case with the Cullen Creed which includes a follow-up letter in which he concludes in barring any presentation in B.C. Supreme Court: …’You must accept the finality of this outcome.’ In short, the Justice System – as opposed to the Employer – has abandoned this case and in the process has undermined the entire credibility of the justice system.


17) In that regard, compensation can no longer flow due to the lack of a finalization by the court which Cullen has given in a most specious manner as his action is tantamount to deciding on the validity of the initial lay-off without an enquiry. That’s not justice, its anarchy.






18) Assuming the Cullen Order is to stand, the question is what the court should now decide in terms of compensation which must follow on his conclusion based on collective bargaining principles.


19) The logical sequencing should now be to assign all back salary with interest appropriately compounded (28 years) which exists apart from judicial findings. Full salary is requested on the grounds that social benefits were denied the plaintiff for 28 years.


20) Further, it follows that the court release the plaintiff from any legal restrictions to further finalize this matter. In short, the MacKenzie Creed, The Cullen Creed, and the ‘frivolous  and vexatious label’ would be removed so that the plaintiff would have full status in any court of law.


21) As to the argument of ‘res judicata’ so often raised by the Employer and supported by the court including Cullen as a means of sidetracking any settlement, the following analogy is pertinent. The authorities in being contacted to act on a ‘missing persons’ matter after two hours absence would be justifiably delayed although after 28 years, the authorities would instantly concede that the case had been abandoned. At exactly which point in time abandonment would be declared depends on the circumstances at the time of abandonment hence the issue being dealt with here has been continuously open and is never res judicata as circumstances are continually changing.  The Cullen Creed would seek to end all judicial action which is tantamount to abandonment by the courts; an entirely new proposition.


22) The action taken by Justice Cullen is so egregious that B.C. Attorney General Suzanne Anton should remove him from the bench.




23) To declare the 28 year legal matter between the Employer, the West Vancouver School District and former senior teacher, Roger Callow, laid off in June of 1985 under the auspices of BILL 35 to be abandoned by the court.


24) To recompense the plaintiff with full back salary with interest appropriately compounded which belongs to the plaintiff apart from judicial findings.


25) To free the plaintiff from all encumbrances affecting his status to appear in any court of law in future to pursue a finalization of the above legal matter.





26) There is possibly only one case remotely connected to the elements of this case; namely, the oft quoted Justice Estey in St. Anne-Nackawic: ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law’.



To be heard in Ottawa by a judge.


(signed) Roger Callow   2013 – 08 – 06 (UPDATED to 2013-08-21)




cc  B.C. A.G. Hon. Suzanne Anton.




On October 10-2010, I wrote my legal advisor: (annotation-2013)

1) You no doubt were aware of the enclosed 2-page MacKenzie document (dated Oct. 01-10) included here and received by me on Oct. 8-2010. (NB As the respondents did not file an appearance; they must have been given prior notice of this action = collusion)

2) As there is no case number, I have asked MacKenzie to state whether or not (her) prohibitive action applies to an appeal of her own decision? It may be that you will have to telephone the B.C. Courts to see under which rules she is functioning. (NB There is no such rule for this arbitrary type of Order which was made ‘for reasons best known to herself’)

3) There would appear to be a basic contradiction in her order to the extent that she includes the phrase ‘except with prior leave of the Court’ and our action: RELIEF SOUGHT 3. Permission of the court to institute this action’.(NB There was no contradiction from the perspective that this bid was to block a Third Approach to the Supreme Court of Canada. Currently there are five rejections of my appeals over the MacKenzie Creed by the SCofC quibbling over Section 40 rules.)

Currently, there is an action solely on the MacKenzie Creed in Ontario’s Divisional Court (Appeal) DC-12-1872. Will 3 judges ‘ tried and true’ screw up on it? Based on past history; count on it. In short, Canada will become ‘a failed state’ with the consequence of the demise of Canadian democracy not with a bang but a whimper.

Below is the MacKenzie Creed. Can you spot the anomaly which horrified the authorities to such an extent that the B.C. Attorney General’s Department asked, in effect, the Federal Court of Canada to fall on its sword on behalf of this government conspiracy? (See answer at bottom of the following Creed.

Re: Callow v. the Board Of School Trustees S.D. #45        Vancouver Registry No. S106159

Please find enclosed a copy of an order issued by Associate Chief Justice MacKenzie in the above noted proceeding on Oct.01,2010.

H.L. McBride  (Supreme Court Law Officer)

- o -

Supreme Court of B.C. Oct. 01-2010 Entered                            

In the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Between:                    Roger Callow        plaintiff

and   `West Vancouver School Board` and `the Union’ defendant

THIS COURT, on its own motion and without a hearing, at Vancouver, B.C. on       .         Oct.01-2010


1. The Notice of Civil Claim herein is a nullity and is set aside.

2. Roger Callow shall not, except with prior leave of the Court, initiate any

proceedings in any Registry of the Supreme Court pertaining to or in any way

connected with the subject matter of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of  B.C.

Registry File Nos. S087238, S075775, S022978, A950147, or pertaining to or

connected with the subject matter of his allegations against the Defendants in this

action or arising from or related to that subject matter.

3. Any document or process filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order

or any process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry is a nullity.

4.The Defendants in this matter will not be obliged to respond to any process that

is filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any document or process

inadvertently filed or received by the Registry.

                                                                                   By the court        

(garbled signature)

                                                                                   District Registrar

Answer to the question ‘anomaly’. In suborning the District Registrar,

 MacKenzie elevated that body to that of one with judicial standing equivalent

to a court of law which no doubt explains why an Appeal Court clerk believed

 he had the necessary authority to reject an Appeal (CA038538) to that court

without explanation. The failure of Appeal Court Chief Justice Lance Finch

 to adjudicate this matter is why I called for the dismissal of both judges to be

 arranged through the office of the Prime Minister as it is clear that

 MacKenzie usurped the law and nothing was done about it. That’s how

 Canada became a failed state: permitting a judge to run a court within a

 court. No justice system can survive under those circumstances.


B)  FEDERAL COURT  T-1386-11 (excerpt)


(7) Justice A.W. MacKenzie set aside the related action in the Supreme Court without notice, without a hearing, and without giving reasons, contravening the principles of natural justice.

(8) There is also appearance of bias because Justice A.W. MacKenzie refused the Appellant the opportunity to present his evidence and argument.


(9) The court, because its decision is judicial in nature, should follow the highest standard of natural justice, which includes at least the right to sufficient notice, the right to a fair hearing, and the right to reasons for the decision.

(10) Justice A.W. MacKenzie, in her order dated October 01,2010, stated (Mackenzie Order – see above)

(11) Justice A.W. MacKenzie did not give any reasons for the order.

(12) The Appellant admits that he was ordered not to institute any proceedings against the Respondents without leave. However, the Appellant in his Notice of Civil Claim specifically asked the court for a “Permission…to institute this action”, which is equivalent to a request for leave to bring an action.

(13) Natural justice which guides decision making in our courts and in all courts of free and democratic societies is based on a fundamental principle, namely a right to fair unbiased hearing with adequate notice and the opportunity to present evidence and argument.

(14) It is also true that a court must avoid appearance of bias. It does so by making a decision based on a carefully balanced assessment of the evidence and arguments of the opposing parties. This was not done in this case, leaving, at the very least, the appearance of bias.

(15) The Appellant has been branded a vexatious litigant. It may well be true that the Respondents and even the court find him annoying. But consider his plight. His 17-year teaching career was decimated by the Respondent School Board in “laying him off” in 1985. The legality of the “lay-off” has never been judicially determined, but was certainly found to be questionable by Madam Justice Southin, who reviewed and set aside the arbitrator’s award upholding the School Board’s actions. See Appendix 1 (not included in this account)

(16) The Appellant’s cause was initially supported by the union, but subsequently was abandoned by it because the Appellant did not agree with its strategy.

(17) The Appellant has not received anything by way of compensation.

(18) Is it not reasonable that the Appellant should try every means possible, however annoying or vexatious, to remedy this injustice, and is it not reasonable that he should at the very least be given the opportunity to state his case?

(19) Therefore, the Appellant is entitled to be heard, at least on whether he should be granted leave to bring the action, if not on the substance of his action.


(20) The Appellant requests that the order of Justice A.W. MacKenzie be set aside and that the Appellant’s action be reinstituted in the (B.C.) Supreme Court.




Docket S106159 Registry Vancouver

Between:   Roger Callow                                     Plaintiff

And  The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 and West Vancouver Teacher Association                                                                                                                                                    Defendants



THIS COURT, on its own motion and without a hearing, at Vancouver, British Columbia on Tuesday, July,23,2013, ORDERS AND DECLARES THAT:

1. Roger Callow shall not initiate any proceedings or seek leave to initiate in any Registry of the Supreme Court pertaining to or in any way connected with the subject matter of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia Vancouver Registry File Nos. S08728, S075775, S022978, A950147, or pertaining to or connected with the subject matter of his allegations against the Defendants in this action or arising from or related to that subject matter.

2. Any document or process filed by Roger Callow in contravention of this Order or any process inadvertently filed or received by the Registry is a nullity to which the Defendants will not be obliged to respond.

BY THE COURT (signed) A. Cullen ACJ.

Accompanying letter to above from Cullen ACJ

Dear Mr. Callow

Re: Your request to file a new Notice of Civil Claim

     You have presented to the Supreme Court Registry in Vancouver, a Notice of Civil Claim which you have requested be filed, as well as a bank draft for the filing fee. Both are enclosed for return. Also enclosed is my order of today’s date, dismissing your application for leave to file this claim.

    Your proposed claim is an attempt to relitigate matters that have already been decided in this Court and have no prospect of success. You have unsuccessfully brought the same issues before the Labour Relations Board three times, and prior decisions of this Court have made clear that those results can only be challenged in judicial review proceedings, where they must be shown to be patently unreasonable. You have failed on one judicial review application and an application for leave to bring further judicial review proceedings has been rejected. Your prior application before Justice Smith for leave to commence a further proceeding was characterized as futile and vexatious and resulted in an order for special costs being made against you.

     No further proceedings arising out of or pertaining to the 1985 termination of your employment with the West Vancouver School District will be permitted to be brought in this court. In addition, no further leave applications pertaining to the same events may be brought by you. You must accept the finality of this outcome.

Yours truly (signed) A. Cullen (Associate Chief Justice Cullen)