The Bobbsey Twins of Ottawa Superior Court Justices Colin McKinnon (#13-59060 H.D. Apr. 10-14) and Robert Scott (#14-61592 H.D. Sept. 23-14) could arguably be perceived as either two judges with razor sharp minds able to cut to the core of any legal issue or, alternatively, two hectoring bully boys whom between them, have managed to smash the Canadian Justice System in its entirety.





TO: 1) Canadian Judicial Council

       2) Ontario Judicial Council

       3) Law Society of Upper Canada

       4) Hicks, Morley et al for the Employer

       5) PMO


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

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



        1) Charles Hofley esq.  Hicks, Morley et al

        2) Ottawa Superior  Court Justice Colin McKinnon

        3)                      ditto                         Robert Scott



1) The Respondent Employer did not file a 'Notice of Appearance' in #14-61592 within the requisite time limits so it was with some surprise that I received an e-mail on September 22-2014 from Hicks Morley et al notifying me of his intention to appear in court the following day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



A) 2 page excerpt from #14-61592 pp. 7 & 8 'Preamble to Supreme Court of Canada June 2004' (SEE Home Page for this account)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ACTION? You tell me.


Yours truly


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




Document received from Hon. Associate Chief Justice Austin Cullen dated July 23-2013:



Docket S106159 (Vancouver Registry)

Between:  Roger Callow (Plaintiff)

And: The Board of School Trustees of School District No.45 and West Vancouver Teachers 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.




1) How is the above Order different from the (undocumented) Order of Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie dated October 1, 2010? There are key differences as outlined in CA038538 contesting her Order which the B.C. Registry rejected for reasons best known to itself.

2) Why is this Order and accompanying letter from a second Associate Chief Justice rather than from Chief Justice Robert Baumann of the B.C. Supreme Court?

3) Number 1. is much the same as the earlier order with this clear addition: …or arising from or related to that subject matter.’

4) It would appear in some disingenuous way or other that Cullen’s Order would seek to obliterate any recognition of the challenge to the  MacKenzie Creed’ as seen in the Appeal Court (Supreme Court) of B.C., the Federal Court of Canada, The Superior Court of Ontario (Ottawa) currently under Appeal in the Divisional Court, and entries pending to the Supreme Court of Canada.

5) Justice Cullen, in the above regard, has not only perverted the course of justice in the B.C. Supreme Court, he has usurped the course of Justice in Canada as his Order well exceeds his authority.

6) CA038538 supplants the earlier Orders listed by Cullen and hence his Order is redundant in that regard.

7) How can Cullen expel this plaintiff from an incomplete judicial action which the courts at one time ordered back to further adjudication in line with the legal precept that ‘there can be no process without judgment’. The oft quoted Justice Estey in St. Anne Nackawic pinpoints this difficulty: ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law’. That aberration is what Cullen would sanction in what I submit is ‘patently unreasonable’.  Of course his Order is structured so that no such appeal may be conducted.

8) What if, at some future date, the Union decides to pursue this case? In an accompanying letter, Cullen adds, ‘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.

9) For unexplained reasons, Cullen would seek to finalize any future proceedings as the phrase ‘with permission of the court’ (MacKenzie Creed) has been eliminated without a proper hearing. My constitutional rights have been abrogated by this Cullen Order in this unresolved labour case where no compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid.

10) ‘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.’ Who wrote this? (The Employer?) Who is Justice Smith? Do you mean Justice Maranger of Ontario Superior Court #12-54944 Nov. 1-2012 whose Decision is under Appeal in Divisional Court(Ottawa)? That Account was settled for the going rate of 1/6 the Employer’s request which was labeled as being exorbitant by Maranger. Including those facts, it needs no doubt to be noted, would undermine the salacious appeal of your line.

11) The notion that the onus is on this party to show that court actions have been ‘patently unreasonable’ through the judicial review process is exactly what CA038538 (B.C.) was all about but was denied filing by the Vancouver Supreme Court Registry. Why have judges under these circumstances to do anything?

12) ‘You must accept the finality of this outcome’. (Cullen) Does that mean the Minister of Justice, Peter MacKay, must accept your statement?

13) Without media coverage, it would seem that the Judicial System of Canada is getting away with the hoax of the century much to the detriment of Canada and 34 million Canadians.


Yours truly,


Roger Callow aka ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com


cc B.C. Attorney General Suzanne Anton

     SCofC Hon. R. Wagner