BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case)    CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’



1)‘The only thing required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing. Lord Acton (No good men in leadership positions in Canada)

2) ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law’ Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic) (The Canadian Justice System has now crossed this Rubicon with the Employee’s Case)

3) old aphorism:  Not to decide is to decide.’ ( ‘No legal answer is now a legal answer in Canada as a consequence of the Employee’s Case which denies the aphorism ‘there can be no process without judgment’.

4) ‘…Everybody conspires, nobody gets done. But if it’s cover-up time, God help us all….The Mission Song  John LeCarré (The key here is systematic injustice from the E.C. as to both an original conspiracy as well as a judicial ‘conspiracy of the grievance process’. SEE SCofC 2004 refused Appeal elsewhere on web site.

5)’...Justice System as slow, costly and dangerously flawed.’  newly appointed SC of C Justice Richard Wagner

(Rather, the Justice System is in a state of collapse leading to Canada ‘as a failed nation’)




1) As a litigant exposed to the B.C. Supreme Court plus Appeal Court; the Ontario Superior Court plus Divisional Court; the Supreme Court of Canada; the B.C. Labour Board; I have some kafkaesque observations never seen before in print.


2) All courts have parallel rules but expressed differently so that the rules of one court are not directly contingent on the actions of another court. That relationship gets murkier and murkier as a litigant seeks to conjoin appeals between courts leaving unscrupulous judges to cop out of giving a judicial decision. Typical is the situation in 1982 when Canada repatriated the constitution in a highly publicized presentation in which the court public address system malfunctioned forcing the SCofC judges to borrow the media devices. That act symbolized the outcome as reflected in the comment of then Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau: ‘They ducked the central question’.


3) If judges can hide behind the skirts of the court administrations in challenging cases of which the  Employee’s Case certainly is one, they will.


4) As a litigant running such a case, one has to have direct contact with court officials who will – if they are not too officious –  tell you which rules are being enforced and which ones have gone by the Board. For example in all courts, currently, one must include a form which declares the matter is not subject to privacy claims; i.e. available for public consumption.


5) Punctilious clerks merely state: see a lawyer. As one clerk informed me; we rarely see non lawyers. Also, the rules are merely ‘examples’, he said (whatever the hell that means) of what is considered significant. In the last appeal in Federal Court, a plethora of rules were quoted but, according to the judge ruling on this matter, my factum did not include the one specific to my cause. ‘See a lawyer’ I was told. “He wants to know too, I responded.” Harper’s new appointee to Chief Justice in 2009 was no greater help in providing the necessary information.


6) The opposite is also true; that is, when the administrators make up the rules. Section 40 of the SCofC Act is a key on appealing matters to that court. It appears to be specific in requiring a lower ‘Appeal Court’ Decision although I have my doubts. It does NOT state that the Appeal Process at the Appeal level must be one heard before 3 Appeal Court judges and yet every court appears beholden to that concept.


7) To make matters juicier are  those telephone calls to the court in which the requested official ‘is not at her desk right now; please leave a message and it will be returned’…yeah,right. What they don’t tell you is that if the caller to the Lower Court should be, for example, the SCofC, then indeed the call is returned but if you are a mere litigant, the call is never returned.


8) In a recent submission to the B.C. Appeal Court, I quoted a named clerk from the SCofC in my factum as claiming that she was informed by the B.C. Court of Appeal that they would extend the time limit for my action which they would accept. While the surety case was heard ‘in under five minutes’ on November 26-2012 in which I was barred from a presence except through the offices of the respondents; the decision was posted on January 16-2013 with no copy sent to me by the court.


9) B.C. Court of Appeal Deputy Register, Maria Littlejohn (at first, like most clerks, she merely referred to herself by her first name with no definition of her position), who was unfamiliar with the SCofC arrangement and was uninterested to ask others including the Registrar, Jennifer Jordan, as to what arrangements may have been made, took it on her own authority to reject my submission on the 7-day rule; that is, I would have had to make a separate claim to court (where my status may be at question despite Littlejohn’s assertion) for an extension as the 7 days applied to the Nov. 26 date; not the January 16 publicization date (and of course the courts insist on proper documentation).


10) Regarding proper documentation, I made reference to the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ which bars me from B.C. Courts. ‘Not our (Appeal) court, as we have different rules from the B.C. Supreme Court’, Miss Littlejohn opined. “Then explain how my Appeal against the MacKenzie Creed (B.C. Supreme Court) was rejected by an un-named court official at the Appeal Court level for ‘unknown reasons’ in an action which Chief Justice Lance Finch has repeatedly refused to explain?” The dialogue continued: ‘Oh, we see a number of undocumented Orders of this type for frivolous and vexatious reasons.’ “Where does it state in the Mackenzie Creed where any reason exists for this judicial action let alone any one reason?” ‘I see your copy of this Order does not include the Judge’s signature. How do I know that you have not made it up?’. That shortcoming has since been rectified.


11) The fact that the Respondents did not enter an Appearance notice within the designated time limit in 2010 which was followed by the MacKenzie Creed is evidence, I submit, of cullusion; a collusion – for other reasons – which I experienced recently in Ottawa Superior Court with the Maranger Decision (SEE web).


12) The insidious nature of this kafkaesque Creed is that it does not exist on the Judicial Record which explains why every effort is being made to keep this undocumented Order from being presented to a court of law.


13) What the Creed does, in essence, is to permit a judge to ‘run a court within a court’. That proposition undermines the whole concept of a justice system. For example, while the MacKenzie Creed can be used to keep me from filing in a court of law (as to which one(s) is not clear – if any); my non-presence on that basis is noted merely as a no-show on  the Judicial Record, the blame for that situation of course devolving onto this litigant.


14) What is stopping any powerful influence – such as Organized Crime – from paying a judge to pass a ‘MacKenzie Creed’ to evade a prosecution? And to whom is there to protest this nonsense? Surely not a politician. Nor for that matter, the media, as the confusion at court administration level, I submit, is deliberate for two reasons; to create legal billable time nonsense and to keep any nosy investigative reporter at bay leaving them with merely reporting on ‘pre-determined’ court answers which I have experienced for 28 years in this unresolved labour case in which no compensation (undermines entire collective bargaining process) has been paid (includes pension rights).


15) The MacKenzie Creed cannot stand because it must not stand if the Canadian Justice System is to retain  credibility. Without credibility, a justice system implodes.


16) The Employee’s Case is analogous to living in a termite invested house in which a façade of a structure passes for reality…no democracy can withstand that kind of attack for long...ashes unto ashes….


CC  Hon. C. Wagner – Supreme Court of Canada – on behalf of all SCof C judges

       Christie Blatchford – Postmedia news – on behalf of all media

       ON MP’s  Horwath/Hudak/ Premier Wynne – for their reaction (none       forthcoming)




BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case)    CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’




1) ‘…So, let me get this straight. In Canada today I can state something that is true, mean no harm to anyone nor cause any actual harm to anyone and still be in violation of various human rights acts spread across the country…See, in Canada we have rights as long as the government and courts say we have them….’

Danger in being truthful Brian Lilley  SUN Media March 01-13 p. 29 (on Whatcott’s opinion passing out pamphlets accusing homosexuals of being, among other things, disease carriers.)

2) ‘…George Orwell said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”…. The high price of Whatcott’s opinion  Farzana Hassan  Ibid

3) aphorism: Your freedom ends where your fist meets my nose.



1) On another topic regarding the dismissal of a Calgary University professor and prominent Tory supporter, he was pilloried on the internet for claiming (on a secret student video) that viewing child pornography should  not constitute a crime. We do not know the context of those remarks although we are told that the question from a student was not on topic . (For example, downloading child pornography – similar to possesion of illicit narcotics – is a crime. But what if someone surfs the net to view unfavourable sites including ‘snuff films’ and horrific torture scenes? It’s a slippery slope for anyone to define. The professor resigned (probably because he wanted his pension from a donor-shy University) apologizing for his choice of words.


2) The aspect I wish to comment on from the above is on the ‘gotcha’ journalism. For example, two columnists locally disposed of a British newspaper sensationist approach to Princess Diana’s attire suggesting the academic environment of the comments were misconstrued by the popular press. In the above case in 1), the professor was no doubt deliberately targeted for this internet event.


3) High School Teachers have to be on guard against such ‘fun-loving’ students. For example, in 1984, I was reprimanding a student in an empty class-room one morning before classes when a second student entered and sidled up behind the first student whispering; ‘Go tell your mother’. I redirected my ire to that second student whom, in the midst of my reprimand, asked, “Is this the text we are using today?”. Of course, his report to his mother consisted of saying; “All I did was ask the teacher if this was the text for today’s class…and he went bananas.” His gullible mother bought it. At one time, administrators were wise to such stunts; I’m not so sure that is the present case in many schools.


4) As to the matter of libel d. defamatory writing or misrepresentation, I make a conscious effort to work within the laws although the element of ‘hatred’ as seen above adds a new dimension permitting judges a broad power to intervene:

   (i) cartoonists get the most hate mail of any newspaper source. The original joke is a man slipping on the proverbial banana peel much to the amusement of bystanders and the misery of the victim. Is this a hateful message from the Gods on the victim?

   (ii) recently, the religious authorities with one exception writing weekly in the Ottawa Citizen, accepted satire within the folds of their faith as long as it was not hateful. The Muslim rejected all satire.

   (iii) From my website, one may see self-effacing cartoons directed against myself. On other occasions, unflattering cartoons  such as the one shown above are included. Is this ‘fair social commentary’? You decide. One cartoonist, for example was found guilty of showing former B.C. Premier Bill VanderZalm picking the wings off of flies with a Nazi motif. Prince Harry was publicly chastised for using banned Nazi regalia as a party costume. In Nuremberg a few years ago, I was told Mexican tourists got in hot water for taking photos of themselves with a Nazi salute on the former parade grounds. Hatred, in short, is culturally sensitive.

   (iv) As to my protest placards: how about this one: WHY OBEY THE LAWS?...JUDGES DON’T. The problem a court of law would have dealing with this placard is the question ‘Judges of what?’  Figure-skating which has a record of fixes? It is not easy being a judge but far too many judges complicate their task with cover-up as evidenced by the Employee’s Case.(E.C.)

   (v) This placard from a few years ago left a passing Guelph professor in stitches: SUB-CONTRACT PARLIAMENT TO CHINA / BRAIN TRANSPLANTS: FIRST COME FIRST SERVED BASIS. Every M.P. could be expected to buy into a class action for hatred with that one!


5) As to the E.C., the truth of the matter has become the egregious ‘MacKenzie Creed’ and the subsequent cover-up which has changed forever the legal landscape of Canada. That Creed is the sole question before the 3 judge Division Appeal Court (Ottawa) decision yet to be delivered.

   (i) If the judge had given a reason for her carte blanche action dropping a duly laid action from the docket in B.C. and banning this plaintiff from any access to the courts, that would be one thing. The point is that no reason was given explaining why this is the lead case in Canadian jurisprudence.

   (ii) Instructing the Registry not to register any future documents (which the Registrar signed), again for unstated reasons, demonstrated a power which she did not hold and, as such, should never have been signed by the Registrar who rejected my appeal (CA038538) on her decision on an a priori basis. Normally, a Chief Justice would intervene but Chief Justice of the Appeal Court, Lance Finch, never responded on this level.

   (iv) That’s essentially how Canada became a country of ‘no legal answer being a legal answer’ and where ‘there can be no process without judgment’ became disfunctional. No Justice System can withstand those charges and the facile attempt of the B.C. Attorney General’s Departmenmt in league with the Federal Court in a facile attempt to justify those actions are backfiring.

   (v) The Superior Court of Ontario (Maranger Decision #12-549440 Nov. 01-12) made no reference to the MacKenzie Creed. The Appeal in Divisional Court #DC-12-1872 has been stripped down so that the MacKenzie Creed is the sole item being appealed. In short, t5he future of Canada may end in an Ontario courtroom. This time there is no Attorney General (nor defendant) standing up for the MacKenzie Creed. Will those three ineffable judges screw up? Count on it…it is in their genes.


6) The very real problem for the ‘anti-employee’ media is what happens should any aspect of the E.C. go viral on the internet and the media, as a consequence, is seen as part of the problem due to their boycott?


March 4, 2013


TO: Board of School Trustees S.D. #45                    FROM: Roger Callow

       (West Vancouver,B.C.)                                                    208-2220 Halifax Drive

       1075-21ST Street                                                               Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7

       West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9


QUOTE:  ‘…Everybody conspires, nobody gets done. But if it’s cover-up time, God help us all….  The Mission Song  John LeCarré


BACKGROUND: 28 year unresolved senior teacher lay-off (for economic reasons Under BILL 35) in which no compensation has flowed (includes pension rights) due to judicial cupidity. Collective Bargaining Rules are one casualty which has been capitalized on recently in Ontario where the government played an end game around their teachers on this basis.



1) An action accompanying this letter was filed today by registered mail by this plaintiff in B.C. Supreme Court.


2) This action parallels an earlier action in an unresolved legal case filed in 2010 (S106159) but truncated by the undocumented `MacKenzie Creed`; a judge whom, on her own authority, without taking argument or citing relevant laws, and for reasons best known to herself, dropped S106159 from its docket and banned this plaintiff from court. She also gave the Registrar carte blanche to reject all future submissions on this topic from this plaintiff to which the defendant(s) were no longer obliged to respond.


3) The ramifications of that action are immense and threaten, as they do, the very underpinnings of the Justice System of Canada. Those ramifications continue to reverberate within the Canadian Judicial System.


4) An Appeal to the Federal Court (T-1386-11) did not lead to the quashing of this iniquitous Creed.


5) A subsequent Appeal in Ontario Superior Court (Nov. 01-2012 #12-59444) avoided all mention of this Creed and is currently the sole focus of appeal in Divisional Court (#DC-12-1872)


6) Central to both these Appeals is to which court(s) is this Creed applicable, if any? A clerk in the Appeal Court of B.C. claimed that they operate by a different set of rules and had no answer as to why the Appeal Court of B.C. rejected CA038538 designed to contest this Creed. Was it an a priori action on the part of the Registrar or was there some other reason? That is one of the insidious pitfalls of this legislation. When is it even being used in this case let alone properly applied assuming that it has legitimacy in the first place? Also, may the defendant use the courts against the plaintiff where he has no standing which has happened recently regarding collection from a surety fund?


7) Recently the School District applied to this surety fund paid by this writer to ensure the holding of CA038538 for compensation due to the failure of CA038538 to be held. Without any recourse under the MacKenzie Creed, I was apparently  listed as a ‘no-show’. While the presiding Justice dismissed my claims, I have no idea which claims were passed along to him and by whom. My complaints to Chief Justice Lance Finch are never responded to in this matter. I referred to this action in other correspondence as ‘robbing the piggybank’.


8) On February  05-2012, I filed an Appeal of the surety claim as per the recommendation of the Supreme Court of Canada Registrar’s Office in conjunction with the B.C. Appeal Court Registrars Office. The reference to that agreement was made in the factum. Five applications for appeal focusing on the MacKenzie Creed are currently being held up by the SCofC while we quibble over Section 40 of the rules. Apparently these clerks are able to get a response from the B.C. Court of Appeal. My calls are never returned. My guess is that a call from you would be responded to with alacrity. Perhaps you can advise me accordingly.


9) Currently, I do not know the status of this surety Appeal. For that matter, has it merely sunk into some black hole consigned there by the MacKenzie Creed? I paid a $200 fee for this purpose.


10) One of the major questions of this creed lies in why a Registrar signed off on a document that he should never have signed in the first place. The parallel I give here is the famous hypocritical James Bond dictum: ‘Here is your assignment from government authorities but if you ever get caught, the government will deny all knowledge of you’  The variation on this theme here is that ‘Bond’ is given a signed authorization from the authorities to act; namely, the MacKenzie Creed. The authorities have spent the last few years seeking to cover up that authority while, one and at the same time, applying it surreptitiously. That’s how Canada became ‘a failed state’. The smoking gun of the MacKenzie Creed and its pernicious influence is there for all to see except, it would appear, to selected myopic judges.


11) While there has been no response to the Appeal Court of B.C. regarding the ‘surety appeal’; it is hoped that you will give some sort of response in the laying of this current action in B.C. Supreme Court.


12) Currently, I do not know the value of such a letter as this under the above circumstances, but I am including copies to:

       SCofC Hon. R. Wagner on behalf of all SCofC judges

       Christie Blatchford – postmedia news – on behalf of all Canadian media

       Christy Clark – B.C. Premier  -  comments before the May election, please

       Adrian Dix – NDP Leader of the Opposition -                                  


Yours truly,




BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case)    CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’




1) Let me say at the outset, that no Canadian employee has (or has ever had) as big a beef with a Union as this writer. In a 28 year unresolved labour case where no compensation has flowed (Includes pension rights), a rogue Union (the B.C. Teacher Union) has been instrumental in hamstringing this case although that could not have happened without court cupidity before over 30 judges including numerous trips to the Supreme Court of Canada.


2) It appears that the court is concealing evidence in the above case which would have shown that the call for the lay-off of this senior West Vancouver high school teacher under the provisions of BILL 35 (the only teacher laid off under this ‘imposed’  ultra vires bill before it was withdrawn…Ontario teachers take note) originated within the local West Vancouver Union ranks in a bid to protect an administrator from a charge of fraud. In short, I was the target of a sweetheart deal in which the government was hi-jacked (BILL 35) and the judiciary co-opted (gerrymandered government arbitrator who was later condemned as being ‘patently unreasonable’ when his decision favouring the School Board was quashed). While the case remains open for this plaintiff, such is not the case for the courts whose credibility is at stake over this debacle. Other accounts have described how Canada is now ‘a failed state’.


3) The focus of this paper is not so much on the demise of the Canadian Judiciary, rather it is on the demise of the Canadian Union movement with Ontario public teachers being posted in the vanguard of that battle. In this regard, I continue to support the Union concept although that support does not extend to such rogue Unions as noted above.


4) A survey of western countries recently showed that the Union movement has been reduced in half with Canada being a notable exception. Also noticeable is the shift in Canada from blue collar to white collar unions,  particularly with government.


5) It is difficult to see who does not benefit from union activity. Governments collect higher taxes, non-union employees are pegged at a rate related to the union rate (without undergoing strike situations); supervisors and office employees are granted an increase when the unions are successful.


6) If one belongs to a Union, he or she must expect a strike…it is what management want, the issues being of no consequence. The recent NHL strike is a case in point. If an employee disagrees with the union, he keeps his job. Not so an employee who disagrees with management who loses his job.


7) The first step in the attack against unionization is to undermine the union with ‘right to work’ legislation by permitting union workers to opt out of dues payments. No Union can survive that ‘open shop’ concept as all the employer has to do, for example, is to pay the non-union member a 5% premium as a means of attracting union members to vacate the Union. Once that is accomplished, salaries may be depressed.


8) B.C. has only one teachers Union; Ontario has many. Rather than freeze all government salaries such as happened in Alberta recently, the McGuinty government sucker-punched the teachers by first, siphoning off the Catholic and French teacher Unions by using a mid-summer appeal to the leaders to willingly compromise the collective bargaining rules. A wedge was driven between the Unions, when the public teachers ‘worked to rule’ reducing their participation in voluntary activities.


9) An interesting side issue is the Upper Canada School District launching a case with the Ontario Labour Board (whom is dragging their feet)  to condemn the Union for threatening teachers with fines should they volunteer their time based on a union ‘policy in place’ as opposed to empirical evidence. To illustrate; if a teacher had indeed been fined, there may be grounds for laying a case which could go either way. The point here is that the School District wishes to place the ON Labour Board in their back pocket by approaching the matter in the way that they do.


10) A success above for the School Board is not, I submit, so much to protect the ‘volunteer teacher’ but to suspend an ‘activist’ teacher accused of pressuring others not to volunteer. Similarly, in the Employee’s Case (Canada).com, the intention of the B.C. government in 1985 was not to deal with matters of lay-off under Bill 35 as it was purportedly designed to do. Rather it was designed to rid themselves of a whistleblower.


9) Tim Hudak, Tory leader, has, as his goal as this writer submits, to wipe out teacher seniority due to the fact that senior teachers get twice the salary of junior teachers. (I outlined in other accounts how that pattern emerged in the 1950’s in B.C.) He knows that the public  gives a rat’s ass about the welfare of senior teachers let out of the profession with nowhere to go in the teaching field (yours truly a case in point). By eliminating senior teachers, he can staff schools with plenty of un-employed junior teachers eager for the work and, one and at the same time, win kudos with the public for ‘good management’.


10) Signs carried by the teachers against BILL 115 claiming that they are fighting for all Ontario employees are deficient. The battle for the Canadian Union Movement is falling to these teachers who are in the process of losing it all for not only Canadian teachers but all union employees in Canada. It is a logical step on top of the Employee’s Case which deprived one teacher of collective bargaining rights.


11) The ‘right to work’ movement is continent-wide. Unless resistance is continent-wide, the Ontario teachers are fighting an uphill battle.


12) What Canadian professional teachers should do is organize nationally along the lines of such as the Epoch News (which is out to get the ass of the CCP) with a digital newspaper in which they control the editorial page to combat the anti-employee mainline press in the hands of management.


13) A case in point in this latter regard is evidenced by Ottawa Citizen’s Kelly Egan, who exhorts the teachers to be professional and return to their volunteer duties. This is the same writer who pilloried a 9-11 dog handler a decade ago – at least a jury trial believed as much – of which jury found the Citizen liable only to have the Supreme Court of Canada insist that the trial be redone at much more cost to the dog-handler;  which the court knew only too well that he could not finance. In one stroke, the SCofC buried the jury system as well as curried favour with the media which explains one reason for the boycott of the Employee’s Case.


14) The Unions may support the above national effort, but the teachers would be best off organizing independently.



March 18 - 2013


TO: Hon. C. Hackman – Ottawa Superior Court/Divisional Court  Chief Justice      

       161 Elgin Street Ottawa, ON K2P 2K1


FROM: Roger Callow – Plaintiff  #12-54944 & #DC-12-1872 (Appeal)

         208-2220 Halifax Drive, Ottawa, ON K1G 2W7


APPEAL REFERENCE : Feb. 11-13 Ottawa court letter signifying matter listed for Appeal on completion of specified form which followed Feb. 13-13.


BACKGROUND: 28 year unresolved senior B.C. teacher lay-off (for economic reasons Under BILL 35) in which no compensation has flowed (includes pension rights) due to judicial cupidity. Collective Bargaining Rules are one casualty which has been capitalized on recently in Ontario where the government played an end game around their teachers on this basis.



1) Can you apprise me of whether the above has been set before 3 Appeal Court judges (apparently a Supreme Court ad hoc addition to Rule 40 for SCofC Appeals)? Please don’t insult our intelligence by limiting this matter to one Appeal judge to obviate a possible SCofC appeal.


2) As you know, I have kept you fully apprised as to developments in this unusual case along with the Ontario Attorney General and Premier Dalton McGuinty (since resigned). Rather than ensuring an open relationship on this issue, the Ontario government appears to have borrowed a leaf from the www.employeescasecanada.com  by running an end-game around the collective bargaining rules with Ontario Teachers with their ‘imposed’ legislation which is withdrawn after the legislation has taken effect (banana republic laws).


3) As no-one wished to challenge my appeal focusing solely on the MacKenzie Creed, I have requested that this matter proceed straight to judgment.


4) To be sure, the challenge to this Ontario Appeal Court in arguably the most significant civil action ever placed before a court of Canadian law ,is not to be envied. Either this court quashes this action which is clearly ultra vires or it doesn’t. There is no other course.


5) If the Appeal Court does not quash this creed for whatever reason, the entire credibility of the Justice System of Canada is sacrificed. There is no other answer. That is how Canada would become ‘a failed state’. In short, the creed sanctions judicial ‘running of a court within a court’.


6) There are two particularly reprehensible aspects to this creed: a) Without a docket number, this action functions below the radar of the judicial registry. Arguably, what is happening here is seen happening in prosecutors offices where court action is curtailed by such as plea bargaining. The creed elevates that practice by making it an alternative prerogative of the court which is an entirely new approach in Canadian jurisprudence. In short, the judge becomes an agent of one of the litigants;  b) The creed futher gives powers to the Registry which this plaintiff submits she had no business doing (the source of the complaint to B.C. Chief Justice Lance Finch which went unacknowledged). By telling the defendant that they no longer had to respond to plaintiff actions for reasons best known to the judge (no laws quoted or argument taken) and ordering the Registry to reject any submissions the plaintiff may attempt to file in this unresolved case which the Justice System had at one time ordered back to litigation; the Judge gives a heightened role to the Registry – again without giving reasons - which it does not have in terms of its original mandate. Why have a Parliament with this kind of judge-made law?


7) Hence this plaintiff is left in limbo not knowing which court(s) this pernicious legislation applies to (if any) and in which court(s) it does not. It is not possible to get any answer under the circumstances in British Columbia where two cases are pending. Hence Ontario holds the future of the Canadian Judiciary in its hands in the current appeal. (SEE web for details of MacKenzie Creed).


8) I blame President Obama in his failure to keep U.S. Investors apprised of the situation in Canadian courts as well as an anti-employee Canadian media for boycotting a story of significant  importance to all Canadians.


Yours truly,



SCofC Hon. R. Wagner on behalf of all SCofC judges

Christie Blatchford – postmedia news – on behalf of all Canadian media





BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case)   

CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’ in search of a pulitzer prize seeking columnist


March 26-2013


TO: Board of School Trustees S.D. #45             

       West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 4A9

FROM: Roger Callow

               Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7


QUOTE:  ‘…Everybody conspires, nobody gets done. But if it’s cover-up time, God help us all….The Mission Song  John LeCarré


BACKGROUND: 28 year unresolved senior teacher lay-off (for economic reasons Under BILL 35) in which no compensation has flowed (includes pension rights) due to judicial cupidity. Collective Bargaining Rules are one casualty which has been capitalized on recently in Ontario where the government played an end game around their teachers on this basis.



1) No ‘notice of hearing’ within the parameters of court time have been received from you in the filing ot two court hearings with fees in B.C. Appeal Court (Supreme Court) and the B.C. Supreme Court . Nor has a court docket number been assigned in either case.


2) This failure parallels an earlier failure in 2010 when the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ usurped the law and dropped the duly laid S106059 from B.C. Supreme Court for unstated reasons. Apparently this document supplanted your notice of hearing which, in the process, implies collusion between yourself and the court processes.


3) What has been achieved over this long drawn out legal affair is that the Employer has been able to achieve through the ‘back door’ what they could not achieve through the ‘front door’. When the quashed arbitration favouring the Employer was re-ordered back to further litigation, the Employer failed to go. Why should they considering that they illicitly dropped this plaintiff from salary before litigation even commenced; an illegal act perpetuated by over 30 judges up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada.


4) In one recent hearing in Ontario Superior Court (R. Maranger Decision #12-59444 Nov. 01-2012), the justice made this rejoinder to one of my observations regarding the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada is the final arbiter of legal decisions asking  ‘Where does one go from there?’ (p.22 transcript): “Nowhere else; that’s it.”


5) Here’s the central point from the above which explains why Canada sank to Third World status. In any other legal matter, a plaintiff is left with a lower court decision. In the exigencies of the Employee’s Case(Canada), there isn’t any lower court decision. In terms of the aphorism – no decision is a decision – the Canadian judiciary reduced itself to refuting such concepts as ‘there can be no process without judgment’ and ‘habeas corpus’. Further, in the context of this case, the collective bargaining agreement has as a basic tenet that ‘there must be ‘ultimate remedy’ in terms of compensation’.

6) Justice Maranger refused to ask this basic question of the Employer in absence of the Employer addressing the issue (transcript p. 22-23):

“…is the employer obligated to pay this interim compensation…And if so when should it be paid?”  The point here is that these sums belong to this plaintiff apart from any judgment due to the employer breaking the contract by curtailing salary prematurely.


7) The Maranger Decision is being challenged in Ottawa Divisional Court (DC-12-1872) solely on the grounds of the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ in order that I may have access to any court as the MacKenzie Creed is not clear on this point and explained, in part, my presence in Ontario. It was referenced by the Employer but not addressed by the court although I specifically asked it to do so.


8) The MacKenzie Creed was also challenged in B.C. Appeal Court (CA038538) in 2010 but was rejected for unknown reasons by an un-named court official. Remonstrations to Appeal Court’s Chief Justice Lance Finch did not receive any response and I made subsequent appeals to the Prime Minister’s Office to take steps to remove him. The B.C. government, the source of this conspiracy in 1985, was not to be trusted in this regard as they led the defense of Justice MacKenzie in Federal Court in two illicit hearings (T-1386-11)


9) As neither the employer nor the Ontario Attorney-General filed an appearance notice, I have asked the 3 person Divisional Court to proceed directly to judgment. Indeed, if the employer had agreed, this case could have been held at that level initially under ‘Special Case’ provisions.


10) At this time, I have no response from the two B.C. courts nor from yourself as plaintiff. For this reason, a copy of this letter is being sent to Chief Justice Lance Finch (Appeal Court) and, considering earlier problems with Justice Finch, to the Office of the Prime Minister. A copy is also being sent to Chief Justice Robert Bauman of the B.C. Supreme Court.


SCofC Hon. R. Wagner on behalf of all SCofC judges

Christie Blatchford – postmedia news – on behalf of all Canadian media

Christy Clark – B.C. Premier  -  comments before the May election, please

Adrian Dix – NDP Leader of the Opposition -                                 




BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’  www.employeescasecanada.com  (28 year unresolved legal case)    CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’ seeking a pulitzer prize journalist to expose the scam of 21st century Canada


QUOTES: 1) What has consistently escaped most Nigerians (Canadians as well- RC) in this entire travesty is the fact that mediocrity destroys the very fabric of a country as surely as war – ushering in all sorts of banality, ineptitude, corruption and debauchery…’ Chinsa Achebe


3) ‘…Once you go through the legal looking glass, normal rules of logic or evidence cease to applycolumnist John Robson (SUN MEDIA March 18-2013)

4) Abraham Lincoln’s remarks are still quoted today: “Resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your own judgment, you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. Choose some other occupation.”






1) Consider this comparison between the Employee’s Case (boycotted by the anti-employee media) and a high profile case covered by the local media in which a local dentist is charged with impaired driving causing death.

At question in the current trial of the 48 year old dentist is the validity of the actions of attending officers which were shown to be suspect in significant ways. As a consequence, the Defense wishes to bring in a ‘Stay of Proceedings’ which would effectively end pursuit of the case.


2) In the above regard of tainted evidence, with the E.C., I caught an administrator red-handed altering his professional ‘Report on Teacher’ on this personage in 1985.


3) The requisite four visits had been made and a favourable Report on the Teacher was forthcoming when an incident highly embarrassing to the Superintendent  prompted him to ‘invite’ a negative Report.


4) Hence when the Principal in question notified me that he was coming in for a fifth classroom inspection, I fired off a letter to the Ministry of Education in Victoria warning of pending shenanigans.


5) The fifth visit was highly negative but with four positive reviews, how could the Principal rate the over-all performance as negative without showing attempts at remediation? The answer? To rewrite the first two evaluations to negative.


6) When Victoria spotted this chicanery, rather than dismissing the Principal for fraud (the then Deputy Minister, Jim Carter, had been the previous principal in West Vancouver Secondary School and was himself the subject of a high profile controversial firing of a senior teacher for so-called incompetence 8 years earlier), a decision was made to fire the ‘whistle blower’ hence the creation of BILL 35 which was withdrawn after the lay-off but before the matter could be resolved in court (banana republic justice now experienced by the Ontario teachers in their current struggle with that government).


7) Fixing the arbitration with a government-appointed arbitrator was no problem (much the same thing had happened under Carter 8 years previously). The central problem was how to conceal the perfidy of the principal. The answer was to hide the matter under something else; namely, a lay-off for reasons of declining enrolment (there wasn’t any. The arbitrator converted 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs.)


8) For the above reason, Ontario teachers need be wary of the Upper Canada School District appearing before the Ontario Labour Board charging the teachers Union with threatening (as opposed to actually doing which is what the courts require as fact) teachers with fines should they break the Union boycott of extra-curricular duties which are not part of the contract. The point here is that the School Board hopes to use this ruling, should they get it, to dismiss ‘rabblerousers’ accused of persecuting other teachers.


9) The mistake the Employer’s legal counsel made was to include my material to the government in his factum as he intended to run his enquiry with no other than a reference to an unsatisfactory report. When this omission was pointed out to him after he rested his case, he requested permission - which was granted - to re-open his case and present a detailed version of the Principal’s perfidy. Suffice it to say, the Employer’s case fell apart and – if it had been any other School District – he would have been fired. Losing his notes for the first two sessions was the only way he could explain the marked difference between his account and my account earlier mailed to Victoria.


10) Why was the Arbitrator confident of a decision supporting the School Board? Because he knew that elements within the local Union who were close friends of the principal (administrators were part of the union in 1985 and not separated until 1988) asked, I submit, that the Employer use BILL 35 in this case. Hence  the Union was dedicated to throwing the case and could hardly be expected to appeal.


11) The Trustees would never have gone along with this scam if they had been called to the stand to testify under oath as to lay-off numbers hence neither lawyers for the Employer nor Union would call them despite my pleadings with the Union lawyer. Nor was the arbitrator asking for their evidence.


12) However, this whole scam could not go ahead without the support of the anti-employee media who boycotted this very high profile case.


13) It should have ended there for the conspirators and yours truly when the arbitrator ruled in favour of the School Board but , due to a change in lawyer, an appeal by me led to the court case in which the arbitration was quashed and the arbitrator ruled as ‘patently unreasonable’ although one would never know that conclusion reading the postscript media accounts. (SEE web: REDNECK MEDIA)


14) Unfortunately for the future of the Canadian Justice System, Justice Mary Southin (r. 2004) made a horrible, horrible mistake. She asked for all Employer and Union secret memos on meetings held in this matter which she returned later, ‘as she did not use them’.


15) In short, Southin saw the depths of this government scam and felt the only way out was for the School District to return employment to this writer.


16) The School District was overjoyed that she did not see fit to expose the scam as now she could be blackmailed on that account. Indeed, the entire progress of this matter through the courts has been designed to cover up her perfidy. That is how the Justice System of Canada became compromised to a level and degree in which Canada is now ‘a failed state’.


17) The School District appealed her decision on the grounds that BILL 35 was a ‘consentual agreement’ between Union and government (it was no such thing but the Board figured that they had the Courts over a barrel) and not an ‘imposed agreement’ by government (which it was and a point earlier made by Southin in defeating the Employer on this point).


18) The Appeal Court supported Southin’s demand that the matter go back before  the same arbitrator knowing full well that he would not change his decision because the Union would block any appeal challenge I might make for a second time. Their pointed recommendation to the lawyers was ‘to settle out of court’ (to save the Justice System).


19) The Union lawyer tried all sorts of stunts to get me to acquiese to a renewed hearing in which the case could be thrown. I objected but it was the untimely death of the arbitrator (at least he got something right with his leavetaking of this world) which curtailed those stunts (creating a “frustrated” legal situation in which litigants are not to suffer as a consequence).


20) For well over a decade, the courts ducked out of calling any re-arbitration as calling for re-arbitration would have exposed the legal scam of the century.If the court had earlier seen fit to call for re-arbitration, however,surely they had an obligation to see justice done. By failing on this level, Canada was reduced to Third World status now that habeas corpus plus other key laws no longer have any meaning.


21) In 2010, the Justice System even outdid their own excesses in this case by passing the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ (detailed elsewhere on this blog) which, among other things, blocks this litigant from court ‘for reasons best known to the judge’. It even blocked this litigant from appealing that decision (CA038538 Vancouver Registry). From there it has only been a steady downhill descent for the Justice System to reducing Canada to being ‘a failed state’.


22) Many appeals have been stalemated at the Supreme Court of Canada. In 2004, that august body saw fit to deny a challenge on the grounds of ‘a conspiracy of the grievance process’ which was a little like asking the fox charged with guarding the henhouse to write a report  and make recommendations as to why so many chickens were disappearing…’No problem here, boss, but you could send more chickens.’

fox (2)


23) In conclusion, there are no longer any collective bargaining rights in Canada (for that matter any justice system) and it is a foolish employee who holds union membership and pays into a company pension program for any Employer may now quote this case as a precedent to avoid their fiduciary obligations by telling any selected employee; ‘I am not dismissing you; rather, I am laying you off and if you do not sign for a $1 settlement, you will not collect your pension.’


24) The last word I reserve for the Canadian media boycott on this issue. You may not have a democracy if you do not have an efficacious media. Canada does not have an efficacious media if, indeed, it ever did have.