MAY  2012




BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com


1) I know that in law things like guilt and innocence don’t really matter. It’s what you can prove.’ The Fifth Witness Michael Connelly

2) ‘With almost any court hearing, the most important information and actions are not what ends up on the record.’ Ibid

3) ‘Trust is the most important thing a lawyer (or judge RC)has.

The Associate  John Grisham

4) ‘But because we were the biggest (institution), we could never, ever afford to lose a battle.’ True Blue  David Baldacci

5) ‘Nothing exists long when its time is past’ Hondo 

6) ‘We have come a long way since the Stone Age, but we haven’t brought our brains with us.’ The Science of Murphy’s Law  Richard Robinson


TOPIC: How Canada’s Judiciary reduced Canada to Third World status over a 28 year unresolved rinky dink labour case through systematic judicial abuse. No compensation (includes pension) has been paid.


Major points of interest:

1) An oft quoted legal phrase is that of Justice Estey (St. Anne-Nackawic):

‘What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.’ It is primarily a warning to judges not to permit legalities to usurp the true course of justice.

2) The above might be summarized as not ‘running a court within a court’ or, in the context of the Employee’s Case (EC), being party to a conspiracy involving the B.C. Government, the judiciary, an employer (West Vancouver School Board, a union (B.C. Teachers) to deprive senior teacher, Roger Callow of his livelihood in an illicit lay-off in June of 1985.

3) The conspirators depended heavily on a compliant anti-employee media to pull off a stunt without equal in the annals of Canadian history.

4) After over 30 judges including 3 inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC): a) `universality of Unions`  b) `ultimate remedy`

c) `usurped  judicial authority`; the legality of this lay-off has not been tested in law so that no compensation may flow.

5) An aberrant B.C. Labour Board Decision (B117/2002 Laura Parkinson Decision) supported up to the SCofC level (not heard) granted the Union request to be the sole arbiter of the compensation rights of its clients (in essence, a sanction of the ‘sweetheart deal’). That flies in the face of the Collective Bargaining Code and the law in general. No Canadian employee will hold Union membership nor contribute to a pension fund under these circumstances in which an employer may blackmail a dismissed employee with these words…’If you do not sign a quick-deed for $1 for all claims, you will not have access to your pension’.

6) Currently, this plaintiff is barred from any court to resolve this matter due to an unsolicited prohibitive un-numbered Order in 2010 by neophyte Associate Chief Justice (B.C. Supreme Court) Anne MacKenzie who, on her own recognizance, without taking legal argument nor quoting relevant laws, dropped S102159 (Van. Registry) from the docket and, again, for reasons best known to herself, banned this plaintiff from all access to the courts to resolve this matter. (SEE web for details). To bar any individual from a court of law flies in the face of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

7) In an ‘illicit hearing’ without the presence of legal counsel for either party, Vancouver Federal Court prothonotary, Roger Lefrenieré, (T1386-11) wrote a disingenuous defense of MacKenzie’s action without any definition of what her action entailed. (SEE web for that account and my rebuttal). No mention of perhaps an even more egregious action is made in his account where the CA038538 legal books contesting her trangression of authority were returned by an un-named court official for reasons best known to himself thus supplanting a judicial decision with an administrative one.

8) As there is no appeal to actions of a court administrator, a letter was sent to Chief Justice Lance Finch (B.C. Supreme Appeal Court) to approve or deny this action. There was no response.

9) Two question arise at this point. Why did MacKenzie usurp the role of the court in S102195 in an apparently redundant fashion? Secondly, why didn’t the Federal Court duck out of the appeal to her action?

Response: a) The conspirators could not risk any hearing in which the concealed employer and union meeting notes given to the court as requested by Justice Mary Southin (ret. 2004) in 1986 could be revealed which could raise questions as to why she did not act on this government conspiracy.

b) The Vancouver court required validation to drop CA038538 which this  plaintiff may not contest as he is barred from any court by her Order.

c) In this process, administrative decisions have been sanctioned in supplanting judicial decisions so that Canadian justice is no more. Organized crime, for example, may by-pass the courts with impunity merely by buying off court administrators.

10) In a matter of `judicial theft`, ìt should be noted that a specious `surety of costs` for $10,000 paid by this plaintiff to guarantee the hearing of CA038538 will not be returned due to the fact that this party can not make any claim in a court of law.

11) In a second ‘illicit’ hearing without legal argument taken, a Federal Court Judge ‘rubber-stamped’ Lafrenieré’s decision.

12) A Federal Court appeal was frustrated by yet again another judge who complained that the proper rules had not been followed in filling out the forms without being specific as to which one(s). (NB A thorough quoting of applicable rules were quoted by this petitioner)

13) The failure of 14 large Ottawa legal firms (see web for list) including the University of Ottawa Law Department to provide pro bono support on this issue of utmost importance before the Federal Court speaks volumes about the inability of Canada`s legal fraternity to protect the law in Canada.

14) The third appeal to the SCofC was rejected on filing in yet another administrative decision quoting Rule 51 (incompletely)  which notes that the SCofC deals with appeals from the final court of a lower court. In fact Rule 51 states - in its entirety - that there are exceptions to this rule.

15) The law may not be an ass but over 30 judges have managed to make it into a reasonable facsimile thereof which, due to precedent law, impairs the actions of all judges in Canada; the very thing against which Estey warned.

16) The point above is that a panel of judges, not a court clerk, should have delivered the appropriate decision on this level.

17) 9 individual SCofC judges were made cognizant of the above transgressions by this court. There was no response.

18) To bar a person from access to our courts ( a first in Canadian jurisprudence) is in direct violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as there is no exclusionary role of this Act which applies to all Canadians.

19) Hence, if one is to be barred from court, it must be under a very high standard of law. Clearly the actions of Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie do not meet that standard.

20) Regrettably, an appeal to the Human Rights Commission of Canada was still-born as their list of prescribed jurisdictions is used in an exclusionary fashion. ‘What to do with a tyrannical judge’ is obviously not in that list.

21) For reasons best known to itself, Parliament and the Prime Minister`s Office would duck an issue negatively affecting 34 million Canadians thus completing the trip descending to Third World status in which Canada has sacrificed its infrastructure.

22) Only a future Prime Minister is in a position of reversing Canada’s Third World status in which currently a written contract is not worth the paper on which it is printed. In short, Canada has sacrificed its infrastructure.

23) Anti-Judge Day (every July 1 – Canada`s Birthday) should be picked up by such organizations as the `Occupy Now` group. Get your placards and slogans (SEE web). Do not accept judicial awards (and return those already assigned). Do not ask judges to speak at public events. Shun their social causes.


BACKGROUND  THEME The sacrifice of the credibility of the B.C. government, the judiciary, an employer (West Vancouver School District), a Union (B.C. Teachers) plus the complicity of the Canadian media reflects the anti-employee bias of all those bureaucracies in their bid to shoot a whistleblower.


A) In 1985, the B.C. Government passed BILL 35 ostensibly to deal with the matter of teacher lay-off which was not a problem. The sole target was whistleblower, former West Vancouver senior teacher, Roger Callow. This ‘ultra vires’ Bill was only used against Callow and then withdrawn in the 1990’s before this case was resolved (banana republic stunt).

B) BILL 35 became operant on July 1, 1985. Callow was ‘purportedly’ laid off on June 26, 1985 by a (fraudulent) Superintendent’s letter.

C) The arbitration in support of the School District by government-appointed arbitrator, Louis Lindholm, did not survive judicial review with the arbitration being quashed and Lindholm being ruled ‘patently unreasonable’. He had converted 16 new hires into 16 lay-offs stating that Callow was the necessary 17th knowing full well that Callow was the only lay-off even though the conditions of that particular lay-off were highly suspect according to Justice Mary Southin.

D) Southin had ordered the matter back to arbitration (before the same arbitrator!) when the School District failed to return employment as she recommended (not ordered). She did not order salary continuation which is the root cause as to why this case remains open 28 years later.

E) The School Board appealed on the grounds (earlier defeated by Southin) that BILL 35 was a ‘consentual’ agreement between Union and Government and therefore immune to court oversight as opposed to an ‘imposed’ agreement in which the court did have a role.

F) It is a ridiculous argument regarding consentual agreement set forth by the employer but they had a good reason as to why they could win on this level although by scurrilous means.

G) The key to the vulnerability of Southin’s Decision and why Canada’s judiciary were prepared to sacrifice the entire judicial system with ‘systematic injustice’, is that she demanded all memos on Callow’s dismissal from both the employer and the union.

H) Her claim that ‘nothing was adduced in evidence that the School Trustees intended to lay off a teacher in June of 1985 was belied by a School Board meeting on June 26,1985 in which they authorized the lay-off of Callow. The motion stated carried without listing the voting pattern. In 2004, under the freedom of access regulations, this plaintiff acquired the voting pattern which saw only two – Chairperson Margo Furk and (successor) Mike Smith out of 5 trustees voting in favour. No trustee took the stand to testify as to lay-off figures; a highly unusual ommission under the circumstances.

I) I submit that Southin was more than a little shocked at the duplicity of the interests aligned against the petitioner and the (alleged) perjury by some School Board personnel in the arbitration.

J) Her response was to return these memos to the employer and union without comment thus placing her in a position to be blackmailed which is exactly what the employer did by making an (unsuccessful) appeal on the fatuous point regarding Bill 35 being a consentual agreement.

K) The Appeal Court could not very well slap Southin down in public so they supported a re-arbitration (never held) with a not so subtle invitation to legal counsel to ‘settle out of court’. The courts could not now have revealed what Justice Southin knew and concealed without blowing off the lid of this government conspiracy.

L) Every subsequent court to date has reinforced that position giving the Union carte blanche to deny any further arbitration (which included refusal for the petitioner to conduct this matter at his own expense). B.C. Labour Board’s Laura Parkinson Decision B117-2002 reinforced that position thus putting an end to the Labour Movement in Canada. This was the very thing that Justice Estey warned against regarding the credibility of the justice system.

M) The original conspiracy envisaged out-waiting this plaintiff until his death (a not uncommon manouvre in controversial cases).

N) The actions of B.C. Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie in 2010 changed all that when she curtailed this petitioner’s access to the courts creating the constitutional crisis which will pervade 21st century Canada.

In short, law in Canada has no meaning until her action is examined. She should be suspended until that answer is in.


May 20-2012


Letter to the Editor – Epoch News

Ottawa by FAX: 613-820-8107


FROM: Roger Callow

Ottawa PHONE/FAX: 613-521-1739


Dear Editor,

     Reference is made to your OPINION article (p.7 May 18-24 edition) entitled ‘The challenges facing organized labour’ with the sub-heading ‘It is vital also that the labour movement intensify efforts to organize the unorganized’.

     Without dealing with how the ‘sweetheart deal’ between Employer and Union can work to the detriment of individual Union clients in Canada, this article is deficient in the extreme.

     B.C. Labour Board Laura Parkinson Decision B117/2002 gives the Union full control over a client’s interests including compensation which in turn includes pension rights as the courts will only recognize the Union’s interests which are not always identical to that of the client in some challenges. In short, what potential client will join a Union under this possible scenario:an employer with the support of a Union tells a client in an illicit lay-off that should he or she not sign a ‘quickdeed’  for  $1 for all compensation claims, then he will not be able to collect his pension.

     The precedent setting unresolved case in this matter of 28 years continuous duration is detailed on the internet at www.employeescasecanada.com  SEE MAY-2012 & JUNE-2012 for a synopsis of pertinent details.


Yours truly,