BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’. Canada’s Watergate- Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. Canadians awoke in the New Year to a Justice System in tatters and without leaders to rectify this national debacle negatively affecting 35 million Canadians. The failure of Prime Minister Harper to invoke the 'notwithstanding clause' or similar ('peace, order and good government' clause) has shown the inability of the legislative arm of Parliament to control the executive arm of the Judiciary. In brief the dual debacle of the credibility of the courts is matched by the debacle of government irresponsibility leaving 35 million Canadians in the lurch. Current series is now addressed to the Prime Minister's  Office


QUOTE: Why don't sharks eat lawyers?  Professional Courtesy


REPLY 25A -#13-58607 (MARCH 13-2014) #13-59060 Ottawa Superior Court APRIL 10-2014 (2 hours)


1) In 1986 when B.C. Supreme Court Justice, Mary Southin, quashed the arbitration labeling, as she did, the arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable', she noted that there was 'no causal connection between the lay-off of senior West Vancouver Teacher, Roger Callow, and the enumerated factors of BILL 35.

2) The key to any trial is to draw the above mentioned connection. For example, merely presenting evidence in trial to the fact of a murder victim is inconclusive unless it can be linked to the person being tried.

3) In the Employee's Case, if this analogy may be continued, there was no murder victim (i.e. need to lay-off any teacher in June of 1985 hence Southin's recommendation that employment be returned when rejected by the School Board created a crisis of cataclysmic proportions for the Justice System. Secret School Board memos which Southin demanded and then returned 'because she did not use them' would show, I submit, that she had been aware of the whole conspiracy. For example, the School Board lawyer could be called up before the Legal Society for promulgating perjury on the part of some School Board officials. She realized too late that the lay-off under BILL 35 was designed to cover-up School District peccadilloes, not expose them. Any revelation on that level of judicial cupidity would be catastrophic which explains the systematic judicial abuse over the next 29 years by 8 different Canadian courts in a matter of systematic judicial abuse. I submit that there is no equal to this debacle in any democratic country in the world. Canada is a smashed state now that the Legislative arm (Parliament) has not acknowledged a level of judicial-government deceit without equal.

4) Of course the Employer would like to escape all compensatory obligations in this case under the collective bargaining rules and, with the courts acting as their agent, that has been happening in a matter which the media would boycott. 35 million Canadians are the poorer. So, while having a battle with the Employer, I have a full scale war with the courts of the land.

5) A detailed rebuttal REPLY 25A to Ottawa's Hicks, Morley et al for the Employer response dated January 23-2014  to my #13-58607 follows as a separate heading and is also included as a newsletter under MARCH 01-2014. This account is also included as a REPLY 25A to #13-59060 to be heard April 10-2014.

6) Are the current West Vancouver School Board trustees cognizant of what Hicks, Morley are doing on their behalf? I think not hence a copy of this Reply is being sent to them as well.

7) Further, I find it inconceivable that Hicks Morley would ever pull a legal stunt of filing a second action on the same topic without gaining court compliance. The conduct of #12-54944 and its appeal #DT-12-1872 in Ottawa courts is highly consistent with the notion of a 'pre-written report' in which the Employer's Case fits like a hand in a glove with court proceedings.

8) In that process, Justice Maranger's Decision in #12-54944 makes no mention of the 'MacKenzie Creed' which greatly limited access to B.C. Courts to this plaintiff. It needs be asked how I may access the courts 'with the judge's permission' when this Creed gave a highly questionable order to the Registry to ignore any of my actions as well as permitting the Defendants to respond to any of my actions. Most regrettably, Supreme court of Canada Registrar, Roger Bilodeau, has usurped the traditional role of 3 judges to decide on any admissibility of an issue to sidetrack this issue which was sidetracked earlier in 2003 and 2004 leading to the current impasse. The issue still remains unresolved contrary to a number of major laws and explains why this matter has been addressed to the PMO as Justice Minister MacKay did nothing to 'find me a court'.

9) In the normal course of events, CA038538 filed in B.C. Supreme Court in September, 2010 contesting MacKenzie's undocumented Order in which she would take action against me by delisting the duly laid S106159 would be heard as an Appeal leaving me with access to the SCofC if necessary. No doubt that was its main intention.

10) Hence where was I to go? The Chief Justices of the two B.C. courts and Attorney General did not reply to this request. The SCofC was unwilling to hear this matter of a gross interference in the judicial process so I entered the matter in Federal Court in 2011 T-1386-11

11) This matter was held in two secret hearings without my knowledge and certainly without my consent before Vancouver prothonotary Roger Lefrenieré (as opposed to an Ottawa Judge as requested) and Ottawa Justice Mosley, who rubber-stamped that decision. The Appeal in Federal Court was mangled by the Registry of which Chief Justice Paul Crampton failed to intervene. There was no action from the Justice Minister or the SCofC where I attempted to appeal this farcical situation.

12) The question which needs to be noted here is why the courts would not entertain a case in which a Justice (MacKenzie) had acted clearly beyond her mandate to interfere with the course of justice in Canada in a most significant way in this unresolved labour case where no compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid? That is contrary to the collective bargaining rules. Surely if she were in the right, the courts should be only too happy to support her stand with reasoned argument as opposed to ducking out by accusing me of being 'frivolous and vexatious' in raising this question on a major legal point. The argument set forth by the Employer that my actions were res judicata on the grounds that I am merely re-litigating matters already decided (without being specific) is as preposterous as the court decisions quoting this mantra without question.

13) The Ottawa Divisional Court DT-12-1872 would support the Federal court opinion that 'no cause of action was raised' by this plaintiff and that both the Federal Court and Ontario courts have no jurisdiction over actions by justices in British Columbia. Neither court quoted any applicable law in that decision. Appeals to the Chief Justice (Ottawa) and the Ontario Attorney General on this level did not receive a reply. Nor did the incumbent Minister of Justice, Peter MacKay respond to this and other irregularities leaving the Prime Minister's Office as the residual interest in this legal matter of national importance. There has been no response. Nor has there been any media recognition of a legal case which has seen Canada reduced to Third World status.

14) In brief, the question I recently raised to the authorities says it all: 'Find me a court!' Without this access, Canada is further reduced to being a smashed state where a written contract is 'not worth the paper on which it is written'.

15) The 'Cullen Creed' of July 23-2013 quoting a docket number #S106159 (Vancouver Registry) is a second Deputy Registrar to produce an even more - if that is possible - egregious court Order. That Order is included here with my response as an addendum. No mention is made of the earlier MacKenzie Creed which it would seek to duplicate suggesting the inadmissibility of the MacKenzie Creed:

a) The Cullen Creed includes a docket number; the MacKenzie Creed does not.

b) The all-important 'with permission of a judge' is missing from the Cullen Creed and therefore takes an absolute stand in rejecting me from court access for reasons 'best known to himself'.

c) Again without quoting any pertinent laws, he also decides unitarily and in a carte blanche manner as to which matters the Registry may not deal with; namely any matter attached to Roger Callow.

d) As no recognition is given to the existence of the MacKenzie Creed, we do not know whether this action supplants the previous provisions of the MacKenzie Creed.

e) Whatever way one looks at it, it's a 'dog's breakfast' but is the focal point of #13-58607 laid by the plaintiff and the subsequent #13-59060 laid by the Employer on apparently the same topic to be heard first on April 10-2014 and hence, it is submitted here, a highly illicit action for which I have requested $30,000 maintenance fees for perversion of the court processes? The court is further requested to quash #13-59060 as this action brings the conduct of law into disrepute.

16) For the above reason, this Reply is also forwarded to the Ontario Legal Society to take action against Hicks, Morley et al. Depending on court actions should they parallel earlier Ottawa judicial decisions, the presiding justice may be cited to the authorities on this account as well.

17) The thrust of my argument in #13-58607 is to accept the Cullen Creed which places an indisputable end of all court legalities regarding this 29 year unresolved teacher lay-off matter. Now compensation may apply (29 years of back salary which exists apart from judicial outcomes which, by rights, Cullen should have assigned in his Order. Due to the B.C. judicial embargo, that action lies to another court which, I claim, may act under the legal provisions of 'inherent jurisdiction'. In short, I have nowhere else to go and, regrettably, no one in authority is able to say where I may go. I am, it would appear to be kept 'sailing on a sea of red tape never to put into the port of judgment'. That is an unconscionable position for any nation and is now a challenge to the Prime Minister's Office considering Stephen Harper chose to do nothing.

18) Presumably the Employer would choose to duck all his fiduciary responsibilities and with the courts acting as their agent, they have been highly successful to date with that course of action. The question which the Employer refuses to answer in court and the court refuses to direct to them follows: 1) Is the Employer bound to pay compensation (in whatever amount) to this former Employee? (The collective bargaining rules would affirm in the positive) 2) If so, when and how? As matters now stand, no employer will dismiss an employee again incurring financial obligations. 'We are not dismissing you; rather we are laying you off and if you do not sign a $1 settlement fee for all outstanding legal matters, you will not collect your pension.' That precedent shatters Canada as no employee will hold formal connections to a Union and pay into a work pension.


SEE REPLY #13-58607 & #13-59060 for detailed legal response to Employer's Factum of Jan. 23-2014





QUOTE: 'I have seen enough arbitrary, unfair and malicious actions taken against employees by persons in authority, to pretty much destroy any faith I previously may have had in human decency.' Jeff Goodall guest columnist who served for 20 years as a union steward and executive board officer for CUPE Local 79,Toronto inside workers Ottawa Sun  Feb. 20-2014 p.19


BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ (29 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’. Canada’s Watergate- Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. Canadians awoke in the New Year to a Justice System in tatters and without leaders to rectify this national debacle negatively affecting 35 million Canadians. In brief the dual debacle of the credibility of the courts is matched by the debacle of government irresponsibility leaving 35 million Canadians in the lurch. Current series is now addressed to the Prime Minister's  Office



1) How do two litigants wind up opposing the State, you ask? Here's how.

2) Now that sufficient time has passed, the Employer School Board in league with the B.C. government (BILL 35) no longer fear being exposed for fraud in this case of the lay-off of senior West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow, in June of 1985 in a later quashed arbitration leaving this target in limbo. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. In brief, the Justice System has served its purpose for the Vancouver School Board.

3) Now the Board would desperately like to conclude this phase of the Employee's Case, but how to do it? They can't be seen to pay out $6 million of the taxpayer's money in compensation when they are under no obligation to pay anything which leaves the collective bargaining process in tatters.

4) The answer lies in making an out-of-court settlement with this targeted employee and to do that they have to first see me collect on 29 years back salary. This amount belongs to this target apart from judicial findings. From there, a negotiated package for the $6 million could be made without losing face. Of course in that process, they would blame the courts - not incorrectly so - for prolonging the outcome. The modus operandi is to lay an incredibly weak case that any judge would reject leaving this employee to collect his back pay.

5) Of course, the Justice System is not about to be used as the whipping boy in this conspiracy and have consequently dug in their heels; the Justice System be damned.


6) In seeking to drive this targeted employee out of the Justice System, the courts have merely imploded leaving democratic Canada rocking on its heels.

7) The first thing to realize is that the Justice System appoints judges to this case who were obviously at the bottom of their legal class with dreams of becoming Chief Justices. Indeed, both B.C. Supreme Court's Anne Mackenzie (MacKenzie Creed-2010) and Alistair Cullen (Cullen Creed-2013) are two Deputy Chief Justices whom have played a significant part in recent events as they seek to undermine any court-sanctioned finalization of the current phase for back pay. Both Creeds are from judges, it is submitted, acting outside the law to thwart duly laid actions; an abuse no legal system can entertain and still call itself credible.

8) There is a significant difference between the two Creeds to the extent that MacKenzie's version includes that the plaintiff may continue only 'with the permission of the judge'; something completely lacking in the 'absolute' Cullen Creed in its bid to shut down my total access to the courts. Hence while I rejected the MacKenzie Creed (death by a thousand legal cuts right up to the Supreme Court of Canada where it 'sits');

I accept the Cullen Creed as a measure of the court's abandonment of this issue hence back pay may commence. As I am barred from B.C. courts on any basis, I must apply elsewhere under the rules of 'inherent jurisdiction', hence these hearings in Ontario.

9) The most recent action laid by me contesting the Cullen Creed of July, 2013 in August of 2013 (#13-58607) Ottawa Superior Court) was subsequently countered by Hicks Morley et al for the Employer by laying #13-59060 and arranging a hearing date of January 16-2014 without any notification to me. I have appealed to the Upper Canada legal Association to adjudicate that caper asking for $30,000 in maintenance fees.

10) Of course the Employer expected me to get that date for #13-59060  postponed to April 10, and insert my own date of March 13 for #13-58607 as a means of undermining an attempt to have me declared a 'vexatious litigant' as a means of forestalling the holding of  #13-58607; all done to suit the request of the courts, I'm sure. I'm not so sure that they foresaw the Legal Society challenge. By not playing leapfrog again on this matter, the stage is set for the failure of the employer which suits the needs of the two litigants, but not that of the Justice System as earlier noted in this account.

11) If the Employer does not counter my claim that the Cullen Creed marks the end of the role of the Justice System in this case, then my assertion must stand. Should they contest the Cullen Creed, we will never get out of that courtroom as the legal explanations are as extensive as the laws are long.

a) Does the Cullen Creed supplant the MacKenzie Creed as both appear related to the suppression of S106159 laid in B.C. Supreme Court in September 2010 seeking 'interim compensation' i.e. be placed back on salary (as I should never have been released from salary) until a resolution was found between the only two the courts would recognize in this case; namely, the Employer and Union. The Cullen Creed makes no reference to the MacKenzie Creed.

b) It is now clear from the factum for #13-58607 that the Employer filed on January 23-2014(after the postponement of #13-59060 on January 16) that the apparent scheme was to have me declared a 'frivolous litigant' as justification for the courts not to hear #13-58607 for compensation based on the Cullen desertion.

c) What is this Ontario attempt to have me declared frivolous based on? There is already one such charge in B.C. Is this Hicks Morley claiming that B.C. outcomes are not valid in Ontario? It would seem so.

d) Hence, the only reference to Ontario for the above charge would be the earlier challenges to the MacKenzie Creed (#12-54944 Nov. 1-2012 Maranger Decision & its appeal #DT-12-1872 Oct. 4-2013 before 3 judges including Judge 'Rip Van Winkle' who fell asleep during this short hearing as I so aptly pointed out.) That Outcome is being challenged to the Supreme Court of Canada although currently being hamstrung by Registrar Roger Bilodeau. The point to be made here is that the Superior Court hearing for #13-58607 is NOT the Supreme Court of Canada.

e) Hence the Cullen Creed must stand on its own for the Employer to make any credible argument. The focus, therefore, is on the validity of that Creed and not this plaintiff.

f) For the Employer to have any credibility in court, they must answer a second question; namely, 'Does the Employer have any obligation to pay compensation to this employee under the collective bargaining rules?' Without an answer to that question, there is no rationale for the Employer's claim of declaring this targeted individual with any sanction although, to be sure, the court will leap on any excuse to deny an agreement over compensation. A number of courts have done that already.

g) The courts have not had an easy time in this conspiracy. For example, the appeal of the Maranger Decision which, one and at the same time, would deny a messy involvement with B.C. legalities on the one hand, would, on the other hand, quote the Employer's factum on those B.C. outcomes which I labeled 'sucking and blowing' at the same time. The Appeal was solely on the MacKenzie Creed and did not affect the pecuniary interests of the Employer. For 8 months, there was no appearance notice from the Employer and then two days before the finalization court hearing, they sprung an appearance notice. I guess they got a phone call. In any event, the outcome was a definitive 'Ontario courts cannot over-rule judges in another province' which was never part of the proceedings and the basis for the Supreme Court of Canada challenge. The central question here is whether the actions - as opposed to the judges per se - may be challenged in other provinces. The Divisional Court was not clear on that point but hey, a fix is a fix. They're desperate.


REPLY 25A for #13-58607 (H.D. March 13-2014) & #13-59060 (H.D. Apr.10-14)

in Ottawa Superior Court - filed March 07-14 by registered mail to the courts and Hicks, Morley, et al for the Employer, the West Vancouver, B.C. School Trustees





BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ (29 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’. Canada’s Watergate- Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. Canadians awoke in the New Year to a Justice System in tatters and without leaders to rectify this national debacle negatively affecting 35 million Canadians. In brief the dual debacle of the credibility of the courts is matched by the debacle of government irresponsibility leaving 35 million Canadians in the lurch. Current series is now addressed to the Prime Minister's  Office due to the failure of Minister of Justice Peter MacKay and P.M. Stephen Harper and now awaits the necessary leadership to face up to this issue of national importance. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears.


QUOTE: 1) 'Back at the computer she pulled up the Globe and Mail and read the latest Canadian news. The country was still there, somehow still surviving the ruling Conservative Party and its uptight and thuggish leader. The Scottish Banker of Surabaya  Ian Hamilton

2) '...No more excuses. No more flip-flopping or wishy washy policy. Stand your ground. The voters respond well to firm and confident leadership. Let's create the conditions where Canada can grow into a superpower. And let's be proud of it'. Ottawa Sun editorial  March 03-14  A25




Re: Our File Number 2014-135167 - Charles Villers Hofley (Hicks, Morley et al)

'...Issues the Law Society cannot (L.S. bold print) deal with include, but are not restricted to, ongoing court cases, the decisions of a judge, the amount of your legal bill, professional negligence, legal advice, and referrals to lawyers or paralegals....'


The Rant

1) Lord save us all from bureaucracies and their mandates excusing themselves from doing their job. In prayer form; 'forgive us our sins for what we have done', and of more pertinence here ,'WHAT WE HAVE FAILED TO DO'. In common parlance, 'not my department' is far too often a bureaucratic excuse for doing nothing. It's like dealing with Ontario's Hydro 1: all tails and no head.


2) While the Upper Canada's Law Society's approach is exclusionary, it would seem the Human Rights Tribunals would be prescriptive in defining their obligations and, of course, there is no category for 'what to do with a tyrannical king' or, in this case a tyrannical Justice System.


3)Either way the message from the bureaucracy is that they are awaiting a leader to make them functional. One example suffices here. Before 1990, no victim of pedophilia had voice among the authorities until such individuals as a retired judge took on the mission in the Prescott area; the Ontario Teachers College made a point of driving pedophiles out of the school system; and Christian churches took action world-wide including direct criticism of the current Pope today for being soft on the topic.


4) Legally, I submit the Employees Case is the first case exposing systematic judicial culpability in a democracy; a matter which has led to the demise of democratic Canada as we are no longer 'a land of laws' due to this unresolved legal case.


5) The ramifications of the above are immense as Canada is currently standing up on its hind legs barking at the Russian Bear for ignoring the rule of international law. Unless there is a distinction to be drawn between international law and domestic law, Canada is merely being hypocritical. PLACARD: HYPOCRISY / CANADA DOES IT BEST


6) Where, then, is anyone to turn for justice in Canada? Certainly not Ottawa Chief Justice Charles Hackland nor Attorney General John Gerritsen who were kept fully apprised of earlier actions in Ottawa's Superior and Divisional Court (MacKenzie Creed reference) which are on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCof C). The government of Canada has every right to place the Justice System under trusteeship until this case is resolved.


7) Certainly not SCofC Registrar, Roger Bilodeau, who would usurp the Justice System by making a judicial  decision in place of the judges. In short, he made judges superfluous. It would seem the SCofC has time to deal with a picayune issue in which an employee refused to give her mailing address to her Union but fail to deal with the all important question as to whether a contract in Canada 'is not worth the paper on which it is written'.


8) As for provincial politicians, Premier Wynne, Opposition leaders Susan Howarth and Tim Hudak; they await the challenge of an anointed media to tell them what is the next issue with which they should deal.




Legalities of the the current constitutional crisis

9) Reference is made here to the letter to the editor (OTTAWA CITIZEN Feb. 04-14 attached as  Appendix I) in which a 20 year legal case against an U.S. oil company was successful in Ecuador only to be reversed in an U.S. Court of law on appeal.


10) The parallel here is that while the above were legally sequential and have some validity; such is not the case in which Hicks Morley filed a separate action in tandem to my original action hence this response to two different hearing dates. In law, tandem cases are not permitted as one must be resolved before the second proceeds.


11) Here, Hicks Morley attempted to pre-empt the action laid by me with their own in which they laid a second action - as opposed to responding to my action - and setting the date of January 16-2014 without prior consultation with me. Considering earlier Ottawa court judgments in this case, I am surprised that such action would be taken without secret prior consultation with the courts.


12) The hope here, it would seem, was for Hicks Morley to evade their responsibilities under the collective bargaining process in paying compensation to this writer by seeking to involve the courts in a nefarious action by which my action would be obviated in some fashion or other.


13) That scheme by Hicks Morley was obviated when I gained a postponement of their action to April 10-2014 in which I have requested $30,000 in 'maintenance fees' for their culpability. By setting my own action for March 13-2014, I proceed as the 'moving party' first.


14) The thrust of the Employer's argument has always been the same; namely, never to respond for 29 years to this question: Is the Employer obligated under the collective bargaining rules to pay compensation to this laid-off senior employee school teacher? If so, how and when should this amount be paid?


15) The problem with posing the above question does not lie so much with the Employer, as they may launch any defense they wish. The problem lies with over 8 separate courts and over 30 judges (including the SCofC on more than two occasions) for failing to pose the question in order to gain a finalization of a legal case which has exposed the Justice System to ridicule and contumely beyond imagination.


16) With any other case, a rejection leaves a litigant with a lower court decision. Due to the quashing of the original arbitration, there is no lower court decision in this case. That is how the Judicial System was caught up in their own lies and why media and government exposure is a must.


17) It would further appear to be the case that Hicks, Morley et al by filing their own action would seek to ignore challenging the 'Cullen Creed' of July 23, 2013 in which B.C. Associate Chief Justice, Alistair Cullen, on his own initiative, without taking legal argument nor quoting pertinent laws would expel this plain from the Justice System; I believe to be a first for any democratic country. (The previous 'MacKenzie Creed' of 2010 from the same court included the all-important 'without the permission of a judge to proceed'; it is that Creed which is currently being challenged in the SCofC which Registrar Bilodeau would hamstring.


18) The significance for my presentation is that while I contested the MacKenzie Creed; my position with the Cullen Creed is to accept this action as proof that the Justice System has abandoned this issue. While such action creates horrendous constitutional questions; my direction is not to question this action. Rather it is to claim that now the Justice System has concluded legalities on this matter, compensation (which the B.C. Courts failed to address), may proceed.


19) Due to the exclusionary nature of the Cullen Creed in B.C., the Ontario court is requested to act under the law of 'inherent jurisdiction' and the rules of 'natural justice'. Those laws were earlier invoked when the courts ordered the matter back to arbitration when the Employer refused to return employment as recommended by the courts before the same arbitrator which the court had condemned as being patently unreasonable. There were no directions from the court as to which questions the arbitrator was to deal with (such as placing the School Trustees on the stand to attest to lay-off figures which showed an increase rather than a decrease in teacher employment.) The arbitrator's untimely death left this matter in limbo. The court never addressed the matter of 'frustration'  and the Employer never returned to court. Why should they when they had untimely cut this writer from salary in 1985 when they should have paid that salary until this matter was resolved. In short, the Employer owes 29 years of back salary plus interest appropriately compounded to this writer apart from legal outcomes. The courts are steadfast in refusing to adjudicate that aspect of the case placed before them.


20) The thrust of Hicks, Morley et al to date is to use jurisdictional reasons for disallowing my claims; the prime one being that this litigant is 'frivolous and vexatious' and hence his claims should be thrown out of court. To date, the Employer has had much success with that fallacious approach with a court desperate to extricate itself from this debacle.


21) The point here in these present cases is that a 'frivolous and vexatious' challenge already exists in B.C. courts. Why does Hicks, Morley require a second one unless they are claiming B.C. laws do not apply in Ontario? If so, then their claim must be based on Ontario procedures in this case.


22) As the MacKenzie Creed is currently being appealed to the SCofC, the Ontario courts are excluded from using those two decisions in their judgment. In short, the Superior Court of Ottawa is NOT the SCofC.


23) Further, no mention is made of the Cullen Creed in the above case and as the Cullen Creed makes no reference to the earlier MacKenzie Creed, there is no causal connection.


24) Hence Hicks Morley would be limited to a  prima facie case on the Cullen Creed 'before the fact' of having discussed it as it relates to the action laid by me. Gaining a court sanction  to impede the hearing of my case i.e. frivolous and vexatious label, would undermine the course of justice to such an extent and degree as to render the court processes as worthless. That is why I am claiming $30,000 for maintenance in the Hearing called by Hicks, Morley for April 10-2014. (It should be noted here that I have still not heard back from Osgoode Hall's Chief Justice in the laying of an Appeal for Costs from DT-12-1872 in which there appears to be court irregularities.)


25) Should Hicks Morley request that the April 10-2014 hearing be rolled up into the March 13-2014 hearing, I will accept this action should Hicks Morley agree to  pay the $30,000 maintenance fee requested for their perfidy.


26) In conclusion, the Justice System must stop accepting willy nilly, Hicks Morley assertions which function far from the truth and must ask pertinent questions on this case in court; the most significant one outlined earlier in this account as to the Employer's obligations. Of the two hearings held so far in Ottawa Chief Justice Charles Hackland's courts, the impression given to this writer is that the judgments are pre-written with the presiding justice asking very limited questions as they seem only to be permitted to deal with the matter of costs which consistently are awarded against me. Indeed, lawyer Charles Hofley invites the court to levy substantial fees against me as a means of chasing me out of court. One judge even ruled his request as being exhorbitant.


27) Where is that leader - in the courts, the government, the media - who has the necessary where-with-all to stand up for the rights of not only this litigant, but now 35 million Canadians?


28)In the words of the famous Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic) 'What must be avoided at all costs, is a fundamental deprivation  of justice under the law.' That has happened here.


cc Law Society of Upper Canada

SCofC Judge R. Wagner

Premier Wynne/Opp. leaders Horwath/Hudak

P.M. Harper/Opp. leaders Mulcair/Trudeau/May

CBC's Peter Manbridge

Ottawa Sun's Ezra Levant

Ottawa Citizens Editorial editor Kate Heartfield

Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver S.D.#45)

Chief Justice - Osgoode Hall



February 5-2014

Letters to the Editor

c/o Kate Heartfield  via e-mail

Editorial Page Editor (Ottawa Citizen)


REFERENCE: 'Big Oil defeats villagers' "Ecuadoreans barred from collecting damages from Chevron" "There is no Robin Hood defence". Ottawa Citizen  Feb. 5-2014 D1


1) Under the laws of 'frustration'; the general position of the courts is that no litigant is to suffer deprivation due to 'glitches' in the law beyond the control of those litigants.

2) That would appear to be the case in the above story in which judicial irregularities in Ecuador have been cited by an U.S. judge to nullify a claim against Chevron for polluting the Ecuadorean jungle in a 20 year legal battle in Ecuador.

3) The basis of the U.S. judge's opinion is quoted thus: '...The wrongful actions of Donzinger and his Ecuadorean legal team would be offensive to the laws of any nation that aspires to the rule of law, including Ecuador - and they knew it.' In this evaluation, we are not told which extra-judicial influences, if any, guided the U.S. judge in his findings.

4) Applying this principle to the unresolved, in which after 29 years of litigation and over 8 different courts and over 30 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada, there is still no judicial finding.

5) Without a judicial finding, this writer is unable to collect compensation due to him which includes pension rights. Currently this matter sits in the hands of a dithering incumbent Prime Minister who would rather 'fiddle' while the Canadian Justice System 'burns to the ground' before the eyes of 35 million Canadians.

6) If a parallel situation between the U.S.courts/Ecuadorean courts and Canada were drawn, presumably a Canadian Human Rights tribunal could justifiably throw out the compensatory claims of this writer on the grounds of systematic judicial abuse of Canada's Justice System.

7) Under those circumstances, no legal answer becomes a legal answer in both countries; a preposterous notion detrimental to the operation of any justice system as well as to this case.

8) Two hearing dates in Ottawa Superior Court on March 13 and April 10-2014 focus on a court system already on record as stating that they may not over-rule a judge in another province (MacKenzie Creed) which is currently before the Supreme Court of Canada. More recently, B.C. Associate Chief Justice Alistair Cullen on July 23-2013 (Cullen Creed) - for reasons best known to himself - has eliminated this litigant from any court access. Truly that is a first but an ignoble first for Canada. The above hearings focus solely on the Cullen Creed.

9) In the words of that great jurist, Justice Estey (St. Anne/Nackawic): What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law. Prophetically, he must have had the Employee's Case in mind although the Ecuador story also qualifies.

10) In financial peccadilloes, follow the money trail is the watchword. In matters of credibility, cornerstones of the Judiciary and the media, follow the credibility trail.

'The Outlawed Canadian' (Roger Callow) fax  613-521-1739

-   o   -


March 19-2014


Letter to the Editor 

ATTN: Kate Heartfield Editorial page Editor

Ottawa Citizen via e-mail


FROM: Roger Callow  'The Outlawed Canadian'

fax: 613-521-1739


REFERENCE: 'Life After Leaving The Bench'  Ottawa Citizen Mar. 19-14 D4

QUOTE: '...The downside is the ability to appeal a finding is more restrictive....'



1) As the target of an alleged government conspiracy in which the B.C. government was hi-jacked with the 'imposed' BILL 35 in 1985 (similar in concept to Ontario's 'imposed' BILL 115 in 2113), and the judiciary was co-opted in an unresolved 29 year labour case leaving this targeted plaintiff in limbo, the dispute resolution outlined in the article above would appear to be ideal. No compensation has been paid (includes pension rights) which flies in the face of such laws as habeas corpus, ultimate remedy under the collective bargaining rules, there can be no process without judgment.


2) The difficulty is not the lack of expertise by those judges appointed to this case, rather it is the 'expertise' of a number of chief justices who make these judicial appointments. This case has been before 8 different court systems and over 30 judges and still no hearing has been called to determine the efficacy of the original teacher lay-off and whether fraud has been enacted. Without that finding, no compensation may proceed.


3) The intervention of the court in labour matters is determined by such conditions as whether a case exists under an imposed government agreement which is the case here and whether fraud exists; an allegation by this target which has been obviated for 29 years by the courts as I may not get into a court of law to hear the main event. Unfortunately Parliament and the media are not interested in this legal matter of which precedent now negatively affects 35 million Canadians.


4) Under these circumstances, would I subscribe to Ontario's 'Dispute Resolution'? Absolutely not, as a $1 settlement could be made at my expense in order to save the 'Judicial Record' of the Justice System in this case from ruination on a level never before experienced in Canada.


5) Currently I will be in Ontario Superior Court on April 10-2014 at 10.00 AM to face up to the infamous 'Cullen Creed'; the action of a judge who, on his own recognizance, without holding a hearing, without taking legal argument nor giving reasons, would ban this litigant from the courtroom; a first in any western democratic country.


6) Of particular interest here is that I am not opposing this pernicious judicial action. Rather I am accepting this conclusion as evidence of the court's abandonment of this 29 year legal case as a means of now collecting back salary which belongs to this plaintiff apart from judicial outcomes. (I should never have been deprived of salary until a solution was found.)


7) I am not a coward. I will be in court on April 10 to face these conspirators. Will the media be there as well?


Yours truly,



Roger Callow 'The Outlawed Canadian'



March 26 -2014




Letter to the Editor 

ATTN: Kate Heartfield Editorial page Editor

Ottawa Citizen via e-mail


FROM: Roger Callow  fax: 613-521-1739


TOPIC: Inquest into the tragic welding accident and student death in an Ottawa area high school 3 years ago



1) As a former 20 year Supply Teacher covering all disciplines (including Design & Technology) in most of Ottawa's  high schools and intermediate schools; these observations follow.

2) With a D&T qualification, I was permitted to have 'power on'. Indeed regulations would demand every teacher who uses a light socket to be so qualified. Of course they are not.

3) My background included working in a family wholesale industrial company calling on machine shops, mines and saw mills as well as other manufacturing operations in the 1960's. Along with my high school 'shop classes' (only for boys in the 1950's), I gained considerable training suited to covering D&T classes.

4) First of all, safety is paramount. No teacher of welding permitted a Supply Teacher' to use that equipment although I was qualified.

5) Am I surprised that the accident noted above happened? No. Working around machinery is risky at the best of times. The safety  aim here is to accept that accidents will happen. What the teacher tries to do is limit the number and the severity. Much the same approach is used with school athletic teams.

6) One bureaucrat pronounced that the particular project leading to this fatal injury was not 'on the curriculum' no doubt foretelling a court room devoted to laying blame and hence, financial repercussions. From the account of the teacher, I do not believe keeping him from the classroom for the past three years was a responsible School Board position.

7) At one time, schools run on the 1830's Edgerton Ryerson model of teaching the 3 R's, programmed pretty well everything. That is not the situation today in our schools.

8) For example, on a snowy day, I would go 'off the curriculum' by warning (non-driving)students to wait for an automobile to come to a full stop before crossing; something they would not be inclined to think about. Another topic, off the curriculum, was to advise girls to always report rape matters to the hospital where they can receive advice on how to proceed. Some rape victims forever turn against males in later years due to unresolved early year experiences.

9) In the 1990's, Ottawa had a film board from which teachers would loan films. The National Film Board was also available for the purpose. Outside films were used 'with the permission of the principal'. No longer, as films are regularly taken from the internet such as prize-winning NOVA. Some films shown are less than exemplary. Again, 'not on the curriculum'.

10) The general rule of thumb regarding shop safety  relates to 'line of sight' for the supervisor. I always inspected a shop before the class entered locating such things as the emergency stop button, medical resources and fire extinguisher location. I noted any hazards such as improperly stored equipment. While studying the power equipment, nonetheless, the source for most accidents is a 'hand chisel'. Many large shops do not have a direct line of sight which seems to have been a factor in this case.

11) In one such divided shop, I was working with the students on one side, when I heard the cutting torch operating in the second room by a late-arriving student who had slipped in a back door. 'It's alright,' he claimed after I threw the power switch, 'the teacher knows what I am doing'. The switch stayed off.

12) Another drawback to supervision is when the teacher, being the only one to operate the table saw, will of necessity have his attention focused on the machine and not on the students.

13) In general high school students in shop courses tend to be more 'fluid' in terms of following directions. In the academic classroom, it is possible to be more flexible with such students. Not so in the shop. Generally, the teacher will keep an eye out for 'accident prone' students although anyone can have an accident.

14) Almost all school administrations and teachers take their responsibilities seriously. That aspect of teaching is hardly mentioned any longer and yet warrants the higher pay-check that they receive.

15) In the 1990's, I saw many of the vocational programs disappear from the curriculum, primarily because safety limited class size to 20 when economics demanded classes of 30.

a) Cooking - The first to go and yet a vital ingredient in any student's life. I was never permitted to have ovens on as the kitchen can be a very dangerous place.

b) Textiles - Granted that no-one makes their own clothing. As one who can operate a sewing machine, I enjoyed seeing students - who didn't get much academic success - get satisfaction from a task well done.

c) Welding at the elementary school - Dropped due to cost. Our older son, a school drop-out, won his only school prize in a #7 welding project. Today, he has others to do the work but he is proficient in all aspects of his property maintenance company machinery...'and if I don't know', he adds, 'I know someone who does.'

d) I was at the beginning of the internet revolution with its 'floppy discs' and have witnessed its development through the schools. At first, the computers were assigned to the 'business departments'; now they fall to D&T

e) Some of these programs are impressive. For example, students race their 'CO2 wooden cars' they create from internet research. One advanced teacher had replicated the modern industrial scene whereby the worker only sets up a project  inside an enclosed machine and programs in the action to be taken.

f) I'm sorry for the family who lost their child to a 'misadventure'. I am also sorry for the draconian action taken by the Catholic School Board against what I perceive as a responsible teacher doing his best. I would trust him with my children.


Yours truly,


Roger Callow


March 26-2014

TO: Hon. Madeleine Meilleur

Attorney General for Ontario

by fax only: 613-744-0889                      6 pages including this one


FROM: Roger Callow  aka   'The Outlawed Canadian'

PHONE/FAX  613-521-1739


encl. NEWSLETTERS   a) APRIL 01-2014   b)APRIL 06-2014




1) Forgive me for withholding my applause to your new appointment to the Ontario Attorney General's Office considering the failure of your predecessor.


2) As the target of a 29 year government conspiracy originating in British Columbia and supported by systematic judicial abuse in an unresolved labour matter in which no compensation has been paid (includes pension rights), this case has been before 8 different court systems in Canada.


3) Your predecessor and Ottawa Chief Justice Charles Hackland were kept fully apprised of events as they proceeded on #12-54944 (Ottawa Superior Court) and #DT12-1872 (Ottawa Divisional Court) which has now been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.


4) While the matter of costs was settled in #12-54944, the matter of costs in #DT12-1872 has been appealed to Divisional Court at Osgoode Hall. Could you investigate and find out why there is no progress on this matter?


5) I am not asking for any favours. With that much said, I note that all the judges through the different courts described above could best be euphemistically labeled as having 'graduated at the bottom of their law class'. Indeed, one Divisional Court  judge managed to fall asleep in this short hearing which I so aptly pointed out in court.


6) The reason that I request a judge of established reputation is due to the constitutional question at stake which threatens the entire judicial process; namely, may a judge rule a plaintiff in an unresolved legal matter to be barred from court. That Order was created on his own recognizance, without taking legal argument nor quoting specific laws. Granted the Order was made in B.C. leaving me with the only option of appealing in Ontario under the judicial terms of the court's 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice'. This matter has the potential of becoming another Supreme Court of Canada challenge if you follow in the steps of your predecessor. Hearing Dates in Ottawa Superior Court are April 10-2014 (13-59060) and May 15-2014 (13-58607)


Yours truly,



Roger Callow