1) Recently a Journalism Intern waxed poetic how the bottom line is serving the client reader. On the first day of a permanent job, that intern learns that the most important ‘client’ is the boss. In short, thou shalt report on what you are assigned, and heaven help the employee who thinks otherwise.


2) While the above Coyne quote applies to the political scene, I doubt whether one will find a parallel quote for the major institution of the Judiciary. Legal columnist Cindy Blatchford writes only on those legal cases which ‘bleed’. Business columnist James Bagnall comes closer with his analysis of the Nortel debacle concluding, as he publicly did before the judgement was delivered confirming his observations, that the crown was grandstanding. The number of Nortel people affected appeared to justify his assignment.


3) But what of those considerations based on a single individual case such as the Employee’s Case(Canada) in which the course of justice currently for 34 million Canadians is being perverted?


4) Currently a boycott by Canada’s politicians and media (even the late Peter Worthington, founder of the Toronto Sun And Ottawa Sun with an amazing career as a soldier and journalist for which he was known as a champion of the underdog, would not break this code of silence) has brought into focus the derogatory nature  of some of Canada’s major institutions. Should the  Employee’s Case break internationally, the institution of the Canadian media would be severely embarrassed.


5) History has shown that the judiciary will oblige whoever is in power and such as protests by the judiciary recently in Pakistan are an exception. Normally, any time a judge speaks out against judicial excesses, he is bumped from his job. ‘Legal Billable time bullshit’ is the only principal the judiciary is expected to extoll. Nazi Germany is a case in point. For example, judges routinely followed the nation’s will to order one ethnic goup to wear yellow stars. Today, Canada’s employee’s wear an invisible yellow star as exemplified by this writer in 28 years of  pointless litigation without positive media coverage.


6) To be sure, a challenge to the judiciary such as that mounted by the above Nortel example, is difficult for the media in that judges may not comment on legal cases; one and at the same time a strength and a weakness. Hence one such TV interview with SCofC Chief Justice Beverly MacLachlin consisted of asking (in essence) ‘How are the kids?’.


7) With that in mind, the media is remiss in not raising questions as to the conduct of legalities in Canada, the  Employee’s Case being a prime case in point as it has arguably reduced Canada to Third World status and is now in the process of leaving Canada as ‘a failed state’ as it relates to the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ detailed below.


8) After over 30 judges and innumerable appeals, the B.C. Supreme Court lost patience and issued the ‘MacKenzie Creed’; an Order without a docket number which, among other things, banned this litigant from the courts for ‘reasons best known to the judge’ (the origin of the epithet ‘The Outlawed Canadian’). To expel anyone from the Justice System is a cataclysmic action without equal, particularly as she did not take argument or quote any laws for this action. On April 30-2013, the B.C. Supreme Court Registrar rejected the filing of the latest action by me quoting this Order. I have asked Chief Justice R. Bauman to either confirm or reject this action for, as it stands, the Registry Department has usurped the course of justice in Canada. Why have judges at all under these circumstances as the Prime Minister would be quite within his rights to dismiss all the judges and enable the judicial bureaucracies with the necessary powers to run the country?


9) A second action is also being hamstrung at the B.C. Appeal Court under Chief Justice Lance Finch who never responds to his legal mail on this issue prompting my request for his removal. Initially, an un-named Appeal  Court clerk rejected CA038538 designed to challenge the MacKenzie Creed for reasons best known to himself.

As there was no response from Finch, I took the matter to the Federal Court of Canada which turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. The B.C. Attorney General filled the void to defend the judge (a conflict of interest?) in two illicit hearings; illicit because I was given no notice as to hearing dates with place and time. Vancouver Pronothotary (it was supposed to be held before an Ottawa judge)  Roger Lafreniére’s carte blanche judgment in dismissing  the action was a one-liner in that ‘I had not supported my case’.


10) Currently, the B.C. Appeal Court refuses to register an appeal with fee paid on the pay-out of a surety (a specious matter if there ever was one) on the fact that I had no representation in court. The MacKenzie Creed was not conditional to the defendants who took it upon themselves to rob  this piggy bank paid into by me for expenses they incurred relating to CA038538 which, as noted above, was never held. Normally, a judge apportions funds according to outcomes but not, apparently, in this matter which was held ‘under 5 minutes’ in which the judge disposed of my protests to the defendants on this basis. Which arguments he saw is in question as I could not attend for reasons noted above.


11) Recently, an action was lodged in Ontario’s Superior Court (Maranger Decision Nov. 01-12 #12-54944) which is under appeal in Ottawa Divisional Court  (DC-12-1872) solely on the question of the MacKenzie Creed as Maranger made no mention of this central challenge to the court in his decision. That Appeal is unchallenged. He bought into the Employer’s old saw – as have other judges - that Mr. Callow is merely re-litigating matters which have already been decided. ‘Which matters?’ I asked in rebuttal, ‘I still have no legal answer from which compensation (includes pension rights) may flow which any number of judges claim I have a right to both in terms of a legal judgment and those funds.’


12) Why has the Justice Sytem acted unconscionably in this matter of systematic judicial abuse? This feature I submit may be traced back to Justice Mary Southin’s recommendation as opposed to a judicial Order demanding that employment be returned to this senior teacher. The Employer was able to blackmail – for reasons noted in other accounts – the courts into acting as an agent on their behalf so that ‘what they could not gain through the front door, they achieved through the back door’ and, in so doing, changed the nature of a written contract forever let alone the Collective Bargaining rules; again in ways noted elsewhere on my blog.


13) The real excess of ‘entitlement’ in the judiciary as exemplified by this case, is that a cabal of judges in combination with their registries are able to undermine the course of justice in Canada. That feature has been so regularized that when the judiciary has been exposed – as I submit is the case here – there is no institution able to deal with such a debacle. That’s how the Hitlers of this world take over.


14) Even if a media challenge is ineffective, it must be made if that institution is not to go the way of the judicial order and the politicians; two groups I have found to be ‘more useless than tits on a bull’ in calling Canada’s judiciary to account in this precedent-setting case.


15) International interests are still encouraged to write the ‘pulitzer prize story of 21st century Canada’. (What’s the point of buying a Canadian newspaper if it does not tell the news?)


‘The Outlawed Canadian’


cc  SCofC Hon. R. Wagner





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

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



QUOTE: Headline Story O.C. May 30-13  P.M.`s Security Head Feels Threatened

`…(Legal Counsel) Mantas has informed the consultant that (RCMP Officer) Saccomani “does not intend to provide a written response to the unfair, slanted and biased allegations directed at him.In the context of how this investigation has arisen, he remains concerned that this process is part of an ongoing attempt to manufacture a case that does not exist.”

R. Welcome to the club, brother. I have no way of knowing whether the accusations are true, but a sharp comparison between the way the O.C. handle this kind of topic in 2013 and the B.C. media handled it in 1985 (see web: Red Neck Media) is noted. In 1985, the headline would have read: ‘Security Chief fails to respond to competency check… Prime Minister imperiled….’



1) Editorials in the rabid Ottawa Sun and the moderate O.C. on Treasury Board’s Tony Clements’ ‘fire the bad civil servant apples’(former ON Harris government supporter in 1990’s; an admitted disaster for the province with its far right thinking.) appeared in those respective newpapers on the above date. ‘Up the Revolution’ was the theme of the Sun whose own unionized staff are at great odds to the columnists = toxic work place while the O.C., well aware of the Employee’s Case, cautions against excesses. They are both wrong.


2) As the Harris government found in the 1990’s and the above story implies, the costs of evaluating employees with an eye to removing them is highly counter-productive. The only winners are the legal fraternity and even here, the unresolved Employee’s Case has run amok to such a degree and extent in the past 28 years, that it is now anarchy in the Canadian courtroom for anyone, particularly employees.


3) SEE ORIGINS on the web site for the 1978 dismissal of a senior West Vancouver High School Teacher for ‘incompetence’. According to one Union representative I spoke to, the teachers selected one arbitrator and the employer selected another leaving it to the government to select the third (an old fuddy duddy Superintendent in retirement). The conclusion was pre-ordained according to him: two to one. This was the same High School that I was laid off from in 1985. The principal, Jim Carter, in 1978, had moved up to being Deputy Minister of Education in 1985. The Superintendent, Ed Carlin, was active in both cases. He was let go in 1986 and never again served in the public education field. Presumably, BILL 35 limited the arbitration to one arbitrator because the government couldn’t line up three crooks at short notice. (He was later ruled ‘patently unreasonable’ when the arbitration favouring the Employer was quashed by the courts. He had converted 16 new hires into 16 lay-offs adding yours truly as the seventeenth.) Because the Union had all School Districts sign a ‘consentual agreement’ regarding lay-off after my case, no B.C. teacher other than myself has access to the courts…and that, regrettably, is nothing to brag about. Currently, Ontario teachers are making the same mistake as B.C. teachers regarding the significance of ‘consentual versus imposed’ agreements. Being limited to cozy little arbitrations controlled by management are now the order of the day.


4) Make no mistake, the Old Boy’s Club love what I am doing by showing the Professional Teachers of Canada in general and the B.C. Teachers in particular as wimps and to be treated accordingly. A B.C. wildcat strike by teachers in 2005 was smashed by the courts heavily fining the teachers while in Ontario, the Liberal McGuinty government smashed the collective bargaining agreement. Now any Ontario government may impose anything they like on the teachers such as converting their pension plan or deciding on one salary for all teachers. The Union leaders across Canada have been caught napping and no doubt are discouraging teachers from supporting this one labour case being fought on behalf of all Canadian employees – both union and non-union.


5) As to reports on employees, consider the following from my experiences with such in the teaching profession.


(i) Like Hollywood films, you are only as good as your last report. Earlier favourable teaching reports in the 1978 case mentioned above were ignored in the arbitration.


(ii) Teachers require 3 ‘less than satisfactory’ reports over a two year period to be considered for dismissal. Hence, it is NOT advisable to sit around like the 1978 teacher waiting to have ‘his day in court’. Success is making sure that the other fellow has his day in court.


(iii) The problem with the professional report written on my performance in 1985 by Principal John Williams was that there were two simultaneous reports on the same situation – one positive and one negative. The point is that he changed the report at the ‘behest’ of the Superintendent…and I caught him. Normally, he would have been fired for fraud which would have brought into question Carter’s earlier role in this school as well as posed a challenge to the Union seeking to retain administrators in their ranks which accounted for 20% of their funding (the two were separated by legislation in 1988). Hence was born the ‘sweetheart deal’ in which the courts have repeatedly sought to deprive me of access to the courts to reveal this perfidy. The Canadian court system has collapsed in that endeavor due to systematic injustice.


(iv) The Superintendent privately offered to withdraw William’s report which I refused for that was my insurance policy should they run an incompetency charge. By showing that one Report was fraudulently created, any other accusations would be superfluous. That’s why BILL 35 was created…to hide a dismissal behind a lay-off so that today, any employer may escape his fiduciary responsibilities with this line: ‘If you do not accept $1 in severance pay, you will not be able to collect your pension’. The Maranger Decision (Ottawa Superior Court #12-54944 Nov. 01-2012) was designed to test that deleterious position. He failed miserably which explains the current appeal to the Divisional Court #DC-12-1872).


(v) Am I suggesting the elimination of all teacher testing? No. The system has its place in the first two years of a teacher’s career when they are seeking a permanent certificate. While the system decrees a Report every 3 years, these are not normally given as they are time-wasting exercises, particularly for busy principals. Mind, you, there are always the bully boy administrators who love this power. The problem in the Employee’s Case in this regard for lay-off purposes was that I was being stacked against teachers who did not have a professional report. ‘There weren’t any complaints against them’ was the principal’s answer (I was in a race against myself); an answer too easily created on the spot in a courtroom. But the whole point, as everyone knew, was that lay-off for economic reasons  - as the judge later pointed out – does not relate to the question of  competence of an employee which is dealt with elsewhere in the School Act. Bill 35 did not supplant any part of that act. In short, I was the target of a witchhunt similar to the RCMP officer above and was, unlike that officer, pilloried in the media on that account. While the judge stated that the Employer apparently used this legislation for the wrong purpose, she knew from secret memos from the Union and Employer that this was the very purpose Bill 35 had been created. Re-ordering an arbitration before this same arbitrator when the Employer failed to return employment as recommended by the court was the first step in a long series of judicial backtracking which has led to the collapse of the Canadian judiciary. No-one will trust to a Canadian judge in 21st century Canada.


(vi) The key to evaluations is that the supervisor is ‘charged’ with the task which does not necessarily refer to whether he is ‘competent’ to act in that regard. For example, recently the Federal Food Industry made some badly needed reforms only to cut the number of qualified inspectors. Now here’s the interesting part. The number of unqualified managers (read that as Tory hacks) was increased hence these unqualified people sit in judgment on qualified people…go figure. In the Employee’s Case, Williams was asked by the Board’s lawyer how he could judge a teacher of French if he did not speak a word of that language? No problem, he brightly responded as he could still tell whether or not a lesson in the intransitive verb had been successfully taught. Needless to say, there was not a mouth in the hearing room not left agape on that one. So, er, the instructions were in English, prompted the lawyer who was feeling desperate? Not at all, he chirped leaving the lawyer with Plan B; namely pointing out that the legislation covering such duties merely insisted that the supervisor is ‘charged’ with the task (competence be damned).


(vii) In conclusion, we live in a land of anarchy where no-one may trust to a supervisor to ‘weed out the bad apples’ to coin a phrase from Clement for he is the ultimate ‘bad apple’. I do not excuse either of the two newspapers mentioned above for collaborating with their silence in the lead civil case of 21st century Canada. Canadians at large deserve better.


cc  Andrew Coyne  Postmedia columnist/CBC panelist