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'.

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.

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?

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.

Roger Callow 


cc  Que. Premier Couillard

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)


July 20-2015



1) Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Paul Watson said July 8-2015, that he quit the country's largest newspaper (Toronto Star) so he could get the truth out...Star ordered him six weeks ago to stop reporting on the story (Franklin expedition story)-which he called a "gag order". The veteran reporter said fear leads to silence, which in turn breeds more fear... "Stand up...That's the only way we'll take our democracy back". Epoch Times  July 10-16-2015 A2

2) PRESUMPTION OF GUILT A FLAW IN INTEGRITY RULES  Policy allows Tories to suspend suppliers without proof

'...In short, the laying of charges on its own is likely to do great damage to corporate suppliers - even if it turns out later that no crime was committed....' Ottawa Citizen columnist James Bagnall July 20-2015 A6  ('...first the punishment, then the crime...' A strong parallel between the government actions above and the court actions in the Employee's Case. RC)

3) FEDERAL MUZZLING NEEDS A CHARTER CHALLENGING  O.C. columnist  Shannon Gormley  July20-2015 C5

"...It's when you know you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what. You rarely win," says Atticus Finch (To Kill a Mockingbird), that lawyer who faced down a mob when armed with only a newspaper. But here's the thing, he adds: "Sometimes you do."


July 20-2015


TO: Board of School Trustees (S.D. #45 West Vancouver, B.C.)

1075-21st Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9

tel: 604-981-1000   fax: 604-981-1001


FROM: Roger Callow  208-2220 Halifax Drive, Ottawa,ON K1G 2W7

fax: 613-521-1739


REFERENCE: Unresolved 1985 teacher lay-off under the imposed BILL 35 in which no compensation has been paid (includes pension rights). The quashed arbitration left this targeted teacher in a 30 year state of limbo due to judicial chicanery which appears to have been abetted by unnamed conspirators and is being currently hamstrung with charges of fraud in Federal Court (T-2360-14) in which I await the suspension of Chief Justice Paul Crampton before proceeding after Justice Minister Peter MacKay steps down in October.



1) While not excusing the conspirators in the B.C. government in 1985, the School Trustees (#45), and the Teachers Union, this writer appears to be the target of a massive fraud covered up by the Justice System in Canada.

2) In that regard, two inconsequential trips (hearing refused) to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999 and 2004 where the name of Justice Beverley McLachlin looms large, are at the heart of this judicial cover-up.

3) The purpose of this letter is to bring you up to date on judicial machinations including, in bottom line language, the 'missing memo notes' from B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Southin in 1986 whom quashed the arbitration and ordered the matter back to litigation when the Board failed to return employment as recommended by Southin j. Her specious claim 'that the Board used BILL 35 for the wrong purpose is underscored, it is submitted here, in that the Board used the BILL exactly for the purpose that it was intended; namely, to rid themselves of a 'troublesome pedant'. The Board never fulfilled that function to re-litigate and, since this writer was not retained on salary as per contract, the Board felt no compunction to finalize this matter. The Board is lucky that the B.C. Teachers are too much under the thumb of their Union leaders to place West Vancouver 'into dispute' in this sweetheart deal. The failure of the many Courts to hold the  Board to Southin's Decision is at the root of the accusations of fraud made here.

4) The 'missing memo notes' which were not included in the dossier in 2004 which I received under the 'access' laws in 2004, relate to meetings held by the Board in June of 1985 where the Board allegedly sanctioned Superintendent Ed Carlin's letter quoting BILL 35 in laying-off this teacher for 'economic' reasons. In fact, the Board's own figures showed an increase in staffing and testimony from Asst. Superintendent Bill May in arbitration responsible for staffing, claimed that he made no recommendation to lay off any teacher thus implying the fraudulency of the Carlin letter. Conspicuous by its absence on the stand were any Trustees to testify to these figures and Carlin's questionable lay-off letter.

5) In speculation, it would appear that Carlin was approached by figures in the local Union in what would appear to be a 'sweetheart deal' as the local Union wished to preserve the position of a principal (and union member - the two interests were separated by legislation in 1988) of whom I had provided the Ministry in Victoria with materials accusing him of fraud. BILL 35 seemed to be the government's response. (Of interest here, is that Supt. Carlin was dispensed in the following year and never again held an educational post in B.C.) In short, what the Employer could not gain through the front door of an arbitration, they are achieving through the back door of legal chicanery with the courts co-operation.

6) The constitutional question which the courts would bury although it is of current importance is whether imposed government legislation supplants judicial systems such as the collective bargaining rules. PSAC is currently arguing that point with the Federal Government over 'sick day' leaves.

7) The B.C. 'Cullen Creed' of July 23-2013 it is claimed here, is ultra vires. In this Judicial Order, Deputy Chief Justice Cullen on his own recognizance, without taking legal argument nor quoting specific laws and 'for reasons best known to himself' expelled this targeted employee from the B.C. Justice System explaining why I have sought recourse in other courts in Canada; if only to be returned to the Supreme Court of Canada (for a third time). The all-important 'may proceed only with the permission of a judge' is lacking in Cullen's j. decision'.


Courts outside of B.C. referred to in this issue:


8) The Federal Court was the first outside court referenced (T-1386-11)as they have experience dealing with federal court employees. Regrettably, a matter which was to be heard before an Ottawa judge found itself into the hands of B.C. Prothonotary Roger Lafreniére (under the aegis of Chief Justice Paul Crampton ) whom dispensed of the matter in a secret hearing for reasons of frivolity. That conclusion was supported by Ottawa's Mosley j. in a second secret hearing. The appeal of that action was frustrated by the court as has been the pattern of all appeal courts in this matter; no doubt as a block to a Supreme Court of Canada Appeal which is the only court capable of handling all facets of this issue.

9) With the second Federal Court Appeal (following on inconclusive events in Ontario) (T-2360-14) in 2014; the same Prothonotary under the same Chief Justice whom was kept apprised of all proceedings by this writer as well as the oversight bodies; again 'jumped the gun' and on incomplete information disposed of the very serious claims of fraud against both the original conspirators and the judicial processes in being, once again, 'frivolous'. Currently, I have requested that this matter be returned to an Ottawa judge to make use of the mediation process offered by the court for which I had earlier made a request. It is unlikely that any progress on that level will be made until Chief Justice Paul Crampton is removed or over-written although by whom or which organization is not clear.

10) Ontario is a complete mish-mash where the Employer lost their Hicks, Morley, et al representation and, considering events there, is unlikely to be able to achieve credible representation in Ontario. Currently the Appeal Court of Chief Justice G. Strathy is thwarting any hearing of two appeals (DC-12-1872) & (13-58607) which, due to court machinations, were forced into overtime and an appeal by this writer for an extension of time. At this point, the Appeal Court ceased all communication with me although I was able to learn from Lavery ,de Billy (Quebec Attorneys for the Employer) that no such filing was on record for 13-58607. I do not know of the other appeal. Unfortunately, all oversight bodies in Ontario have been MIA in what must be the most egregious conduct of the Judiciary in a legal case. There are good grounds (14-61592) to remove Ontario Supreme Court judges, Colin McKinnon and Robert Scott for abuses without equal (both originally Federal Court appointees which seems a back door for judges seeking their way up; not so successfully in terms of one such Federal court judge seeking a SCofC appointment) but even Parliament (gang of 4: Harper / Mulcair / Trudeau / and May) are strangely silent on this major issue in the next Federal election; namely, the efficacy of the Canadian Judicial System.

11) Being unsuccessful in Ontario, I next turned to Quebec (550-17-008208-157) reducing the case to 'bite-size' proportions for the judges in order to avoid evasive judicial actions. The sole request was to produce the secret memo notes of meetings held by the Board and the Union which Justice Mary Southin called for in 1986 and later returned 'because she did not use them.' It is that latter feature, it is submitted here, that has permitted the conspirators to blackmail the courts into submitting to the Employer's will. And that exposure would never do....

12) Currently the Quebec courts, no doubt wishing to avoid this 'out-of-province' case, have assigned a super-numerary Justice to the case which has led to a plethora of material filed by both myself and the Employer. It would seem, in some contradictory manner or other, that the Employer's Vancouver representative, Harris and Company, would wish the courts to examine all aspects of this case; not a surprising gambit considering that is exactly what they asked Ontario's Justice McKinnon to do in an Employer sponsored #14-59060 where I was the Defendant. In that missive, the Employer was unsuccessful although they gained a highly specious 'frivolous' application against this Defendant which, if used by the Quebec court, will tie the latter into the English disease of cover-up. No wonder Quebec is asking for additional guidance considering Premier Couillard is being kept apprised of this case on a daily basis.

13) Current machinations by the court in SK would derail this 'out-of-province' case before a docket number is assigned; a dangerous precedent as the Registry is usurping the court processes in a preliminary hearing; a first as it is only at the Appeal level that all other courts undermine any attempt that I may make to get to a hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada. Re-filing is under way. The focus here is on the constitutional question as to which set of laws apply to this case; those of the collective bargaining system as the B.C. judges starting in 1995 asserted (the union never pretended to be functioning under the collective bargaining rules although their actions in that regard are, it is submitted here, fraudulently enacted) or those of the imposed BILL 35 (since revoked before this sole laid case was resolved) which is the Employer's argument. The point is salient with regards to the CBC dismissal (without giving a reason) of employee, Jian Ghomeshi as collective bargaining rules require a reason to be given. The employer in this gambit is attempting to run an end-game around the Union which is representing Ghomeshi (similar to my own representation). The Union in this perspective represents the litigant on a 'gratuitous' level hence the collective bargaining rules do not apply.


14) The Employer could save considerable grief for the Justice System, particularly that in Quebec, by providing me with the missing memo notes.

15) The Employer would be wise to consider my 'without prejudice' settlement offer for $6 million with the price to go up, not down from there. Should I be in a position to sue some day, the charge will be for considerably more.

16) Why does the current WVSB feel an obligation to the School Board of 1985 and President Margo Furk along with the Union and respective legal Counsels for both interests? Surely, their obligations are to the current taxpayers whom are demonized as a consequence of this  30 year unresolved illicit teacher lay-off. As to breaking faith with the Canadian Justice System? Already Canada has been reduced to Third World status by the Employees Case(Canada). Due to the exigencies of the internet - unknown in 1985 as was the fax machine - this case has further eroded the powers of the Canadian media illustrating - as it does - that the individual no longer has a place in Canadian democracy. The Internet with its social media has now displaced the media due, in large part, to their silence on many major issues (e.g. pedophiles in our social organizations; military abuse of female soldiers) with this particular lead legal issue hitting  at the very essence of our democratic existence.

Yours truly

(Roger Callow) 'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System'



Hon. David Johnston, Governor General of Canada

Canadian Judicial Council

Gang of 4 (Harper/Mulcair/Trudeau/May

Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton

ON Appeal Court Chief Justice George Strathy

Premiers Brad Wall / P. Couillard

SCofC Hon. R. Wagner




QUOTE: When there's no one there to provide any kind of structure or care, lawlessness takes over. The Law of Dreams  Peter Behrens


July 27-2015  TO: HON. D. GOULET



RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT EMPLOYER and super-numerary question raised by Hon. D. Goulet j.s.c.


REFERENCE: file: 550-17-008208-157  Goulet 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?


Roger Callow                                   Lavery, de Billy esq. for the Employer  

208-2220 Halifax Drive        v.      Ste. 4000, 1 Place Villa Marie

Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7                    Montreal, Que. H3B 4M4

TEL/FAX: 613-521-1739                Tel:514-871-1522  Fax:514-871-8977

Plaintiff (self-represented)           Defendant



1) Acknowledgment of de Billy's 54 page response to the above question sent by fax is made. The short answer from both the plaintiff and the defendant is in the affirmative.


2) So why is this question being raised on such a straight-forward legal proposition? In short, are the Quebec Courts and the government of P. Couillard flying 'a false flag'?


3) Presuming the above to be the case, the court was understandably upset by the presentation by de Billy of a case obviously created in the B.C. legal branch of the employer which, as I stated in court, made my case for a Supreme Court of Canada challenge. By posing the above question in the fashion that Justice Goulet does, he permits de Billy to have a 'second kick at the can' due to the fact that the Ontario vexatious application of Justice MacKinnon cannot be used for a number of reasons which are not germain to the present situation.


4) de Billy obliges by presenting a case rooted in Quebec case study much like the presentation of Hicks, Morley et al in the Ontario phase of this case.


5) While not having analyzed the cases (in French) presented by de Billy, a general analysis of the Ontario cases may apply here.


6) Where are there any cases included that deal with an unresolved legal matter where fraud has been alleged (Federal Court T-2360-14) against the perpetrators of this matter as well as the judicial processes? In brief, we are in precedent-setting territory and any attempt to apply so-called principles from any other case to this one beggars the imagination.


7) The judge quashed arbitration in 1986 reflects the principle here: namely, that   ' there was no causal connection between the enumerated factors and the laid off teacher'.


8) Hicks, Morley et al for the Employer in Ontario (since dropped representation) failed to demonstrate a causal connection but their version was accepted by the court. The Maranger j. Decision was supported on Appeal by the Divisional Court and is currently being hamstrung by the Appeal Court Registry of Ontario. The oversight bodies are MIA.


9) Hicks, Morley launched #13-59060 to discuss 'all issues' which failed before Justice MacKinnon although he assigned a 'frivolous and vexatious' verdict over this defendant and dunned him for legal costs in a highly unorthodox manner. His historical account, which is required for a vexatious labeling, was far off the mark regarding events in B.C.


10) It is that vexatious action which the Employer used to derail a charge of fraud against both original perpetrators and court processes in Federal Court(T-2360-14)


11) By suborning a Vancouver Prothonotary (the same one for a second time and one named in those fraud charges); a secret hearing was held to dispose of this case which was destined to go before a judge in Ottawa using mediation services available under the statute.


12) The Employer was now thoroughly rattled to see the Justice Systems of B.C., Ontario, and the Federal Court compromised to a degree and extent that the credibility of those court systems has been severely challenged by this case.


13) Considering Justice Therrien's approach in Quebec courts was aping the MacKinnon Decision; the Employer has opted for a 'contradictory' presentation.


14) At this point, I will only focus on p. 29 of de Billy's response quoting Section 40.(1) of the Federal Court of Appeal.


15) On more than one occasion, I have been thwarted in Federal Court in getting such an Appeal by both judges and the registries; an all too common problem in every court system that I have encountered. The key phrase is that a person so sanctioned for vexatious proceedings, may not proceed except by leave of the court. (That all-important phrase is missing from the B.C. Cullen Creed which makes it ultra vires and why I have sought redress outside of B.C..)


16) Persons who do proceed under a vexatious indictment must make a prima facie case; something I do as a matter of course although my arguments are consistently ignored by the courts on that level.


17) Attorney General of Canada The above process must further have the consent of the Attorney General of Canada which has been taxed with this issue on many levels but never responds explaining my direct representation to the PMO, and now, the Governor General, due to the complete collapse of Parliament over this issue.


18) (3) A person against whom an order under subsection (1) may apply to the court for rescission of the order or for leave to institute or continue a proceeding.

As that is the essence of an action sent to Saskatchewan on June 24-2015 and awaiting registration; I include that entire action here. Simply put, if courts outside B.C. wish me to conduct my case in B.C., I ask that all prohibitory sanctions be lifted in order that justice may be served where it should logically be served.

This Response should be considered as a request to initiate such a course.


19) The puzzling part and apparently contradictory part of the Defendant's response is why they provided 95% of their case (apart from vexatious proceedings as noted by Goulet j.) with material which, as I stated in court, made my case before the Supreme Court of Canada?


20) Similarly, they have done the same thing with their response here by including material from this plaintiff from pp.35-54 which is highly damaging to their cause. Why?


21) One can only speculate as to such contradictory action:

a) The Defendant sees that Justice Therrien was heading in the same disastrous direction as Ontario's Justice MacKinnon. Both Goulet j. and the Defendant wish to sidetrack that course.

b) The Defendant has a horror of being forced at some point or in some court to produce the 'secret memo notes' (outlined elsewhere) which has the effect of decimating the Canadian legal system. The problem for the Quebec court here is how can they make any decision as to vexatious proceedings when the root cause of those vexatious proceeding accusations grow out of those notes? In brief, will the French Canadian courts imitate their English brethren in cover-up; something I have labeled 'the English disease'.

c) In the event this case 'blows up', does the Defendant Employer wish to blame the courts for everything thus mitigating future actions against them?


22) The simple answer for the Quebec courts and the government of P. Couillard to avoid a catastrophe without equal, is to demand the production of those secret memo notes as I specifically requested.


23) Quebec has no reason to tie their province up in a legal mess without equal in other provinces and jurisdictions. Will wisdom rule?



 24) As de Billy has not created the necessary history of this case in Quebec for a vexatious labeling beyond the MacKinnon document in Ontario from which they quoted extensively in their proceedings, the court should ignore their application for reasons enunciated above. By failing to produce the causal connection; the Employer appears to be trying to send a message to the courts although it is not clear what that message is. (Merely enumerating the number of court rejections, for example, without linking individual rejections such as defining the ramifications of the Cullen Creed, reflects no causal connection). For this reason, I have further chosen to include the June 24-2015 action being placed in Saskatchewan as the Employer appears headed in a new direction.


25) Lift sanctions SEE 18)


26) Acquire 'Secret Memo Notes'




27) The constitutional question raised here is whether an imposed government Bill supplants current judicial systems such as the collective bargaining process? That question is salient in such as the 'absentee days' currently being negotiated between the Federal Government and PSAC. Another facet of this case is whether a case comes under the collective bargaining rules if no reason is given for a dismissal? e.g. CBC Jan Ghomeshi dismissal and whether the Union representation  is 'gratuitous'. Ontario had its own version of B.C.'s imposed BILL 35 with Ontario's BILL 115 in 2013 in which it sought to run an end game around the Union. I certainly don't think Quebec courts wish to entertain those questions but may very well have to depending on Justice Therrien's judgment amid puzzling and seemingly contradictory actions by the Defendant. Perhaps it is not the court or this plaintiff that they would pillory; rather, it is the Union.


Yours truly,


Roger Callow



de Billy for the Employer

Que. Premier Couillard

Canadian Judicial Council

Governor General of Canada

SCofC Hon L. Lebel



July 27-2015  TO: LAVERY,DE BILLY ESQ.



RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT EMPLOYER and super-numerary question raised by Hon. D. Goulet j.s.c.

REFERENCE: file: 550-17-008208-157  Goulet 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?


Roger Callow                                   Lavery, de Billy esq. for the Employer  

208-2220 Halifax Drive        v.      Ste. 4000, 1 Place Villa Marie

Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7                    Montreal, Que. H3B 4M4

TEL/FAX: 613-521-1739                Tel:514-871-1522  Fax:514-871-8977

Plaintiff (self-represented)           Defendant



1) The addition of the above question created a new structure for Qc Courts in contrast to the English Courts.

2) With the English Courts (B.C., SCofC, Federal Court, Ontario), this targeted litigant was faced with judicial outcomes which, where present, were not part of the court procedures to any sufficient extent.

3) In brief, the English Courts were in the habit of 'pulling a rabbit out of the hat' forcing this writer to make appeals, all of which have been thwarted by the respective registries. I labeled this act as 'the English disease'.

4) No doubt Appeal Court Registries, at least in the Employee's Case, are bent on denying a third trip to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) 'for reasons best known to themselves' but, in effect, usurping the judicial processes.

5) At this juncture, it appears that the SCofC is the only body capable of dealing with all aspects of this case which has been partitioned by me in courts in B.C., The Federal Court, Ontario Courts, and now, a Quebec Court.

6) Will the French Canadian Courts go the way of the English Courts? was the question posed by me in this lead civil case in Canadian Jurisprudence.

7) The direct answer to 6) is in the negative as the Quebec Court has requested further information BEFORE bringing down judgment.

8) The Qc. Court received a plethora of additional materials to their additional question from both litigants which, while being pertinent to the overall case, goes well beyond the scope of the court question asked.

9) In effect, the additional information noted above serves as a de facto Appeal Court challenge for both parties making any such appeal in Qc. courts by either of the litigants to be superfluous.



10) That both litigants request of the Qc. Courts to provide a judicial 'by' to any Appeal lodged as it is now clear that the Qc. court is not competent to hear all the issues now before it in #550-17-008208-157.



11) The presiding Qc. Justice was warned by me that any use of Ontario's C. MacKinnon's j. 'frivolous and vexatious' application in a Qc. court would automatically lead to an appeal to this highly specious document. I am not about to see a validation of this document as happened recently in Federal Court in a secret hearing for which I have called for the suspension of Chief Justice Paul Crampton. (A second time for this particular stunt.)

12) Oversight bodies and judges such as the Canadian Judicial Council chaired by SCofC Beverley McLachlin whom looms large in earlier rejections of this case, should be immediately suspended. Parliament is also suspect as a failed oversight body.

13) At this time, I am calling for de Billy's support in my bid for a joint action for an appeal as outlined above in 9) for the Employer could conceivably find themselves in the same predicament as in Ontario where they lost their legal representation with little hope of getting a credible replacement.

14) There was no case precedent history cited by de Billy in Qc. in contrast to their ON counterpart as noted by the super-numerary judge who claimed 95% of de Billy's case focused on the MacKinnon j. 'frivolous' charge. Posing the question in the manner that they did no doubt was designed to give de Billy a 'second kick at the can' which once again, de Billy chose to ignore. Further, as the presiding Justice did not call for the 'missing memo notes' on which my charges of fraud in Federal Court (T-2360-14) are based, how can he in all good conscience deny my claim without that central knowledge which was the focus of my case. The term 'judicial bias' in an appeal would move through 'judicial misfeasance' to 'judicial malfeasance' should the court ignore this all-important legal point.

15) de Billy re-opened his case by asking to include the fact that ON had no listing for an appeal to the MacKinnon j. Order which I had asserted in court. That was 'news to me', I responded as two appeals in ON Appeal Court were forced into a request for an extension of time due to Registry machinations. I have not had any response to any enquiries that I have made on this level from the authorities concerned.

16) Under normal procedures, the courts return unfiled documents with an accompanying letter. But these are not normal times in ON where I submit the Judicial System has been decimated by this case.

17) No doubt the ON authorities, not incorrectly so I might add, believe that rejection letters are catnip to my protests.

18) In specific terms, I have already submitted to the super-numerary judge that material from any source may be considered by the Qc. courts under the terms of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice (There must be a remedy.) However, for other reasons, should the court make use of the MacKinnon j. Order, Qc. would be tied inexorably to the failed court system of that province in this matter.

19) The broader possible ramifications to Qc. under the terms outlined in 18) would be, due to the structural difference as noted in 1) and 7), could lead to a reformulation of my question: Does French Canadian justice suffer from the English disease? could easily become 'Does English Canada suffer from the French disease? due to the 'a priori' addition of materials to the court.

20) The ramifications to French Canadian society at large are immense. For example, what excuse could the 'Separatists' give to Quebecers for separation when it is shown that their own judiciary is highly suspect as a credible entity?

21) The ramifications of this issue in the coming Federal Election this autumn are even more immense as the employeescasecanada.com  IS the election issue for without credibility in our Justice System, what good is any government?

22) This case also marks the end of the 'individual' in the Canadian bureaucratic System as exemplified by the media boycott of this lead civil case. The internet, in that regard, and my blog is a prime example of that point. (I was blogging in the 1990's on this case even before the word 'blog' even existed.)

23) The current media message is that 'the vote' can reform Parliament while the courts are given 'a pass' in this battle to control a 'tyrannical government'. Protecting the populace from 'imposed' legislation is the media war-cry. My version is that both bureaucracies are bad guys and that, at most, the vote merely replaces 300 unelected PMO party personnel with another similar group who function in secrecy. In one sense, this fall's election is a harbinger of the demise of the Canadian media which conceals major stories such as the Employee's Case from the public. The 'game' of 'vote getting' is a media 'false flag'. In another matter consider this QUOTE: ...It will be more proof of the media's unwillingness to correct the false narratives we create. Ottawa Sun columnist Lorrie Goldstein


Yours truly,


Roger Callow



Gatineau Court Hon. D. Goulet

Que. Premier Couillard

Canadian Judicial Council

Governor General of Canada

SCofC Hon S. Coté


CBC's  W5

July 27, 2015

TO: Mark Kelley

the fifth estate

P.O.Box 500 Stn. A

Toronto ON M5W 1E6

FAX: (416) 205-6668



The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System (Roger Callow)


208-2220 Halifax Drive

Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7

FAX: (613) 521-1739


encl. 2 pages (July 20-2015 excerpt) plus these two



1) If my memory serves me correctly, you interviewed a Grade 5 class in Prince Rupert which was the lowest rated class in a Fraser Institute national survey.

2) As a retired teacher, my interest lay in the calibre of the classroom teacher which appeared to be good; my point being that a level salary schedule for teachers in Canada provides quality teaching which is the first step to improvement for such impoverished classes.

3) The U.S. is characterized by varied teaching scales so that you have the situation of the young black student asking President Obama at his inauguration; 'How do I get into a good school?'


4) More recently you aired the story of the Qc judge imprisoned for murdering his wife. Forensic evidence supplied by W5 suggested the more appropriate charge would have been one of assisted suicide. My observations:

a) The judge would be well aware of the Bismarck dictum that '...in liking sausages and the law; it does not pay to ask how either is produced.' (In studying the laws; it does not pay to study the lawgivers.)

b) His first mistake was in choosing a jury trial unless, of course, he had made many enemies in the judiciary.

c) He had weak legal representation whom should have realized that forensics was the key to the wife's suicide.

d) His mistake was to place the gun alongside his wife as opposed to telling her where she could find it.

e) He decided to gamble all largely due, I suspect, to his 'high society' family which did not want any charge to be registered against him.

f) Similar to a recent trial in Ottawa where a clearly demented litigant decided to try his own case, he was found guilty and subsequent legal actions were ineffective in reducing that finding. A lawyer would have pled insanity without his agreement.

g) The Crown never expected to win a first degree murder accusation. That was a mere ploy to get the judge to plead to the lesser 'assisted suicide'.




5) I have included material (SEE web JULY-2015 regarding a 30 year unresolved labour matter where no compensation has been paid. This case has been before 9 courts and over 30 judges and due to systematic judicial abuse, Canada reverts to Third World status in which the Judicial System has collapsed. It can't get any worse than that.


Yours truly



The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System