BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com (29 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems. It's 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 P.M. Stephen Harper to fire his incompetent Justice Minister 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. I feel like Ralph Nader in 1961 trying to convince the public of dangerous cars (Unsafe at any speed). Who knows, maybe recalling judges and chief judges may become standard fare in the future just like automobiles. To be sure, the current system is not working.


'Hicks, Morley Caper' d. Defense counsel, rather than file a defense, filesa new motion in tandem with themselves as the plaintiff and seek to squash the original motion in their pre-hearing.  Definitely a good game if you can get away with it  which depends on the timely or untimely - depending on your perspective - death of the plaintiff so that the Order quashing the first action goes unchallenged. That way the judicial record remains in its pristine condition and everyone is happy...except the victim and he isn't complaining. 'No man; no problem' Joseph Stalin

N.B. In future, to save Hicks, Morley et al, the time and legal billable expense (for which I am dunned), I will include my newsletters in all future factums.


Let me explain it one more time...in the beginning...

1) The judiciary has been up to its armpits in this case ever since the original B.C. government conspiracy in which the judiciary was hi-jacked with a fixed arbitration to sanction a sweetheart deal between Union and Employer.

2) By changing lawyer, I was able to appeal the matter to court and win access as BILL 35 was imposed by government (not a consentual agreement between Union and Employer). The  arbitration was quashed as no causal connection was shown between the need to lay-off a teacher and myself as the target. Quashing the arbitration, it is submitted here, saved the legal ass of the Employer lawyer for counseling fraud and school board personnel for perjury.

3) When the Employer did not return employment as recommended by the court, the court ordered the matter back before the same arbitrator whom had been condemned as being 'patently unreasonable'. Secret meeting memos were returned to the Employer and Union 'because the court did not use them'. Those memos, it is submitted here, revealed the whole conspiracy which now the court is committed to by seeking to cover them up.

4) Nothing happened, so in 1995 I went to court requesting that the should be returned to employment as recommended by the court be changed to must based on the Employer's failure to return to litigation. The judge did nothing leaving me in limbo; a state of affairs which continues to the present day due to systematic judicial abuse in over 8 courts and over 30 judges including the Supreme Court of Canada as the Justice System viewed with abhorrence - as well they might - what would happen if the judicial cover-up were ever revealed and their perfidy along with that of the B.C. government was exposed.

5) That judicial cover-up came with a price...the sacrifice of the Canadian Judicial System.

6) Canada reverted to Third World status in 2004 when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear this issue under the 'ultimate remedy' provisions of the collective bargaining process without  which the Labour Code has no meaning. My legal advisor's reaction was: 'You have exhausted all remedy under the law'.

7) There were many other 'judicial malfunctions'  but the key ones latterly relate to the 'MacKenzie Creed' (2010 - no docket number) and the more recent 'Cullen Creed' (July 23, 2013)

8) By dropping a duly laid case by me in 2010 in the B.C. Appeal Court seeking compensation for 'reasons best known to a judge', it was hoped that I would be forestalled in approaching once again the Supreme Court of Canada which in turn would be severely embarrassed in this juxtaposition of cases. The hope here was that the Judges undocumented Order would drop below the Judicial Register when the case I laid was discontinued 'due to lack of pursuit by  me' as the MacKenzie Creed would not be recorded.

9) Contesting the 'MacKenzie Creed' itself to B.C. Supreme Appeal Court sent the conspirators into a tizzy so with a spurious 'surety bill' ($10,000 payment to ensure the progress in court) delivered after the due date, the conspirators felt safe. Unfortunately for them, I discovered the scam and paid the money before the due date.

10) As there was no response to my case (Chief Justice Lance Finch never responds and the B.C. Attorney General never investigates), I turned to the Federal Court.

11) Two ad hoc hearings were heard without notice to the litigants; the first before a Vancouver Prothonotary (it was supposed to be held before a judge in Ottawa) and ratified by an Ottawa judge who also did not take argument nor give notice of a hearing. They dismissed the argument for lack of evidence.

12) The attempted appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was tied up by the Federal Court quoting rule irregularities. Chief Justice Paul Crampton failed to arbitrate that dispute so once again, I was blocked.

13) I then turned to Ontario to contest the 'MacKenzie Creed' in two hearings designed to get, once again, access to the Supreme Court of Canada.

14) That last access is being hamstrung by Registrar Roger Bilodeau who, I submit, has usurped the judicial function of the judges of Canada by giving a judicial finding in the guise of an administrative rule. The Minister of Justice, Peter MacKay, has failed to investigate leading Canada into judicial collapse.

15) Then along came the 'Cullen Creed' in 2013 (another B.C. Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice)doing the unthinkable; namely, denying me 'total' access to the courts for 'reasons best known to himself'. That action smashes the court structure in its entirety.

16) The current case on April 10-2014 #13-59060 filed by the Employer is a bid to shut down my case completely by asking the court to state that the Employer is to be freed from any financial obligations thus robbing me of any substance to raise a court case: no money appeal = no court case. He also wants #13-58607 laid previously to #13-59060 to be blocked from a scheduled May 15 hearing date.

17) That fraudulent request above cannot be met as Ontario courts have no jurisdiction (as Justice McKinnon repeatedly stated) to intervene in B.C. events.

18) Should the conspirators succeed in this latter stage of shutting me down completely, they will have created the biggest constitutional crisis in Canadian   Jurisprudence: May a litigant be denied outright access to any Canadian court?

19) The only way this latest caper can work is for my imminent demise.

-  o  -

THIS passes for humour???

APRIL 07-2014  A) April Fools? Someone has taken my newsletters and posted them to the internet site of Hicks, Morley (for the Employer). Imagine this discussion among senior partners: 'What's this? Egad, accusations that the venerable firm of HM is buying judges??? What has our  young Charles gone and done now! This will never do with our corporate clients...then, maybe again, it could be a bonanza for us! At any rate, leak it that Charley should be brushing up on his resumé. As for assassinations; that has all the earmarks of a cottage industry. Besides, eh wot, the world could only be a better place if at least half our clients were exterminated....





Justice McKinnon Hearing Apr.10-2014 #13-59060 Ottawa Superior Court

1) Justice McKinnon reminds me of TV's 'Judge Judy' whom has probably taken too many gavel hits to the head. Consider this; '...I like watching Judge Judy while I make dinner. The yelling (hers) and outbursts (the litigants) on the show cut out the yelling (mine) and outbursts (the kids) in my kitchen. Judy sits up high and gets to rain down the heavy gavel, making her word the last one. She wears her omnipotence with the same flourish she wears her judicial robes... But I can't help but hear an oft repeated refrain from the no-nonsense judge on my television: "If it doesn't make any sense, it's a lie." '

2) He's condescending: 'Mr. Callow, you are an intelligent man.' My rejoinder: 'May I return the accolade; you are an intelligent man.'  He looked confused.

3) He doesn't listen well, oftentimes speaking over me with this tired refrain: "Ontario courts are NOT the place for your issue. You might just as well have presented yourself in Texas or Louisiana." Try explaining to him that I was the Defendant, for Christ's sake,  and not the plaintiff in this hearing would just have been a waste of time as he should have been reprimanding the Employer's lawyer...and that would never do....

4) The courts are very busy and we do not have time to waste nor do the lawyers with frivolous actions. News to me for if any junior lawyer denied the role of billable time exercises, a senior partner would be quick to put him out on his ear. 'Say it, do it, preach it, shout it, but never, absolutely never, believe your own bullshit.' The Templar Legacy  Steve Berry

'The one great principle of the law is to make business for itself' Charles Dickens

5) I specifically requested from new Ontario A.G. Madeleine Meilleur to see to the appointment of her top judge in Ottawa. MacKinnon appeared to be her answer.

6) On a philosophical level the difference between the Judge Judy's of the bench with their 'rule of law' in which they see every entity as the mere sum of its parts, the other perspective is one in which any entity is seen as more than the sum of its parts; which is justice. The eminent Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic) expressed this relationship thus: 'What must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.' That's the kind of judge I needed. That's the kind of justice I didn't get. In short, this trial showed that there should be an immediate testing of all judges to ensure the average I.Q. at least reaches 100 and not merely add up to a collective 100.


The conspiracy

7) I charged Hicks, Morley et al for  the Employer with seeking to undermine the course of justice and to inveigle the court into sanctioning a fraudulent action. I requested $30,000 maintenance fees (for 'legal tomfoolery' in answer to the puzzled judge).

8) By laying a second action as opposed to responding to an initial action laid by me as the plaintiff, they usurped the law (parallel actions which are a judicial 'no-no' but try to explain that to the myopic Upper Canada Law Courts which seem to be only there to thump judges and lawyers who step beyond the 'legal line' in attacking their own system.)

9) From there, Hicks, Morley sought to have the court cancel the initial hearing which is where the fraud comes in, the reasons not withstanding.

10) The central unasked question by Judge MacKinnon to Hicks, Morley was why they did not enter their factum as a defense of the original action to which I had no objection. (Besides, it would save the court's 'valuable time' which MacKinnon so prized.)

11) However, Hicks, Morley's request for a 'frivolous and vexatious' labeling would not halt the main event (#13-58607 laid prior to #13-59060) scheduled for May 15,2000 as the onus would merely be placed on me to make a prima facie case.

12) Knowing this, Hicks, Morley next requested MacKinnon to cancel the May 15th meeting, a pointless action as I pointed out in court as it would merely force me to go through the useless process of laying the action again.

13) Knowing this, Hicks, Morley said that I have a right to contest a 'frivolous' labeling which should be done without referencing this case and that the registrar should be ordered to reject any materials filed against the Employer...a hollow recognition for 'vexatious' clients to rob them of the horse leaving the cart.

14) Again, knowing this, Hicks, Morley asked the judge to deny me any compensation for my lay-off against the Employer for reasons best known to themselves.

15) Removal of the compensation claim in this unresolved legal case would rob me of the raison d'être by which I could launch any case against the Employer to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities under the collective bargaining rules. That was the point. There is no judicial ruling as to the propriety of the initial lay-off nor was I asking for one as the Ontario courts are not competent in granting such a motion.

15) Therein lies the fraud.  MacKinnon was asked to adjudicate a legal matter in another province for which - in his own terms - he would not contemplate. To do so would be 'sucking and blowing' at the same time by the court.

16) All the above was pointed out to the 'intelligent' judge along with Point #3 in my oral speech which caused him to visibly blanche:

(3) As this is now a constitutional question (under Rule #109); I will appeal any court decision which would derail the May 15-2014 hearing on issues not before the court of #13-59060 on Thursday, April 10-2014. The terms of reference would be revised from 'judicial bias' to 'judicial malfeasance'


 General Response #13-59060  APRIL 10-2014  Ottawa Superior Court

Points (1) - (3) were part of the opening argument in court on April 10-2014

(1) I have no problem accepting the Employer's factum as a defense to #13-58607 H.D. May 15-2014

(2) I have every problem with Hicks, Morley filing a separate action - as opposed to a defense - in a bid to pre-empt the hearing on May 15-2014.

(3) In #13-59060, I submit that Hicks, Morley is seeking to inveigle the court into committing a most egregious act; namely to cancel #13-58607 on May 15-2014.


17) It was noted that should the court permit Hicks, Morley to get away with this stunt, every Defense lawyer in the land would file a separate action in order to derail the main action. There would be bedlam. PLACARD: EMPLOYER TAIL WAGS JUDICIAL DOG

18) After 29 years, the Employer for a first time admitted that their stand was that they did not owe any compensation to this employee in their abandonment of this long outstanding issue. That is for a court to decide; not the Employer. Knowing this, HM made McKinnon their man in the court. (It may sound irrelevant or irreverent as the case may be, but I have had so many 'Macs' judging this case across Canada that I can't help but wonder whatever do those clans put in their porridge?)

19) In 1995, I went before B.C. Supreme Court's Justice A. Spencer, with a request to change the 'should' return employment to this teacher to 'must' return employment based on the Employer's  abandonment of this issue in not going back to arbitration as so ordered by the court.

20) If Spencer had asked the Employer their position - which he didn't - he would have had no other choice other than to direct the matter back to arbitration as per the earlier court's request or return me to employment due to the abandonment of the compensation issue by the Employer. He chose to do nothing creating the next 19 years of legal obfuscation - including the Supreme Court of Canada on more than one occasion - in a matter described here as systematic judicial abuse. 'This case was not to see the light of a court hearing'

21) That charge extends over 8 Canadian courts including 6 chief justices, Attorney Generals in B.C. and Ontario culminating in an unanswered appeal to Federal Justice Minister Peter MacKay.

22) Canada sank to third world status with the failure of the Supreme Court of Canada to hear this matter under the 'ultimate remedy label' in 2004 where no compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. The back of the collective bargaining process was broken.

23) The subsequent matters regarding the 'MacKenzie Creed' (2010) and 'Cullen Creed' (2013) have exacerbated matters to a level and degree which has smashed the Canadian Justice System. SEE web for further details.

24) When asked for a prima facie account of the Cullen Creed, the current Creed before the court, MacKinnon read it out and stated that it was clear in its intent. 'What's missing?' I asked. He didn't know. Unlike the MacKenzie Creed which is currently 'in transit' at the Supreme  Court of Canada, the Cullen Creed does not include the all important 'with permission of a judge' for me to proceed in any court (which I have always requested after the first 'frivolous and vexatious' charge in B.C.)

25) As such, while I rejected the MacKenzie Creed (death by a thousand legal cuts); I was prepared to accept the more egregious Cullen Creed as proof positive that the Justice System had abandoned this case so that now compensation for back salary - which existed apart from judicial findings -  could now be applied. That was the thrust of #13-58607 for May 15-2014.

26) As it was clear that no court was available to me in B.C. and A.G. Susanne Anton was ducking out leaving this dirty biscuit in the lap of Justice Minister Peter MacKay, I believed that the Ontario courts had the power to act under the powers of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice.

27) While MacKinnon was adamant against seeing this case heard in Ontario, I asked where then should this case be heard? The Supreme Court of Canada? If so, how do I get there when every roadblock from judges and registries combined thwart me in that attempt? "I don't give free legal advice", was his prompt rejoinder. (I'm not so sure I would even pay him for his opinion if that was his point.)

28) Should Justice MacKinnon cross his Rubicon by canceling the debt of the employer, I submit that the end of the road has been reached for the Canadian Judiciary and it will remain there as long as Justice MacKinnon sits on the bench and the matter remains unresolved.

29) Of course, I will appeal and 'waste more valuable court time' in Justice MacKinnon's world, a world where he does not see himself as the instigator of the problem creating more 'wasted' court time.

30) I am not sure any more physical presences are required in court proceedings while this case continues through the Ontario legal labyrinth on yet another path to the Supreme Court of Canada.

31) On that level, the Appeal will be solely on the Cullen Creed without reference to any remuneration hence the Employer need not provide a defense.

     '...It's true, it's often the citizens that bring up these challenges. It's just pathetic that the court doesn't recognize that the citizens who are grieved by these constitutional breaches shouldn't have to be the ones to pay to fix the constitutional breaches.' (my bold print) APRIL 06-14 newsletter

32) I require a benefactor; perhaps a retired judge or legal counsel who believes in justice under the law. In this I am not asking for money or legal assistance as I am quite capable to handle the appeals. What I need is for someone of recognized stature to break the media silence (much like the retired judge who publicized the pedophile problem in Prescott-Russell in the 1990's which had been ignored by the media). It had been my hope that the professional teachers of Canada could have produced the necessary publicity which would have given the columnists,reporters and TV commentators the necessary impetus to approach their respective editors to break this boycott. 35 million Canadians are negatively affected. Surely they deserve better from the bureaucracies. PLACARD: BUREAUCRACIES SPEAK ONLY TO OTHER BUREAUCRACIES...IF AT ALL

'...Because in Canada, as we have discovered so often as of late, we have very little means of holding people in power to account. The culture of enablement is itself enabled, by the institutions its inhabitants have designed for themselves.' Ottawa Citizen May 18-2013 A4 Andrew Coyne

33) Perhaps a final word can go to a 20 year union steward for CUPE

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

34) The final word goes to Julie Macfarlane, a law professor at the University of Windsor:

'...That's changed completely...Now, the unrepresented litigant is frequently smarter than the represented litigant and his lawyer combined. The idea that all these people are deranged is over....Many of the self-represented litigants Macfarlane interviewed have lost faith in the justice system. "People are really angry," she says. "What is it exactly we are offering people when we say access to justice? If we continue to use it as a mantra without really delivering on it, and we don't listen to what people are saying, I don't know where this is going but down...”

35) The final, final word goes to Postmedia's Cindy Blatchford: 'Oh, one last thing: The Justice system was never over-interested in the rights of criminals. it was interested in protecting the rights of those accused of crime. I would have thought the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister knew the difference.'

36) As an afterthought, perhaps U.S. President Obama should wade into this issue as he has the U.S. foreign investment vote at heart. Leaving a vacuum in this regard could only lead to such as Vladimir Putin of Russia having a few choice words on Canadian Justice. Better yet, Canada was there for South Africa in the early 1960's battle against apartheid...maybe now is the time to return the favour.


MAY 11-2014

QUOTE: 1) '...If you'd handled this the right way...Instead, you're out there cowboying my case and I'm going to stop it before you fuck things up.' Nine Dragons  Michael Connelly

2) 'The trial was a spectacle, a farce, a ridiculous way to search for the truth. But as I learned, the truth was not important. Perhaps in another era, a trial was an exercise in the presentation of facts, the search for truth, and the finding of justice. Now a trial is a contest in which one side will win and the other side will lose. Each side expects the other to bend the rules or to cheat, so neither plays fair. The truth is lost in the melee.  The Racketeer   John Grisham  ...too bad Grisham falls short of judicial cupidity in this process


RIGHT TO REPLY (1) Apr. 28-2014 followed on publication of an Ottawa Citizen article (A1) regarding the outcome of a April 10-2014  Superior Court Hearing (Ottawa) for #13-59060

RIGHT TO REPLY (2) May 11-2014 regarding details omitted in Reply 1 as noted due to limited space regarding a 'wacky judgment' being referred to the Canadian Council of Judges by this writer, is made here.


1) Rather than accusing me as the Defendant as being ethical, Justice Colin McKinnon (j.M) referred to me as being intelligent. Let's see how far.


2) As a generalization, paralegal bodies such as the Upper Canada Law Society and the Canadian Council of Judges are more useless than 'tits on a bull'. A 'Bre-X' Defense  lawyer is learning that message the hard way with the former body while the implosion of the latter is evidenced by the 'Justice Lori Douglas and the nude photos' debacle'. These paralegal bodies appear to justify themselves by punishing errant judges and lawyers they deem to be challenging the system and to 'blow off' all other claimants.


3) I submitted in court that the Employer as plaintiff acted fraudulently by submitting #13-59060 with the sole intention of de-railing #13-58607 laid earlier by me and scheduled to be heard May 15, that is, until j.M 'cowboyed'  the hearing out from under me so that it would not be heard. For that transgression, j.M. should be suspended from the bench for pre-empting my case for May 15. The puzzling part is why the Employer chose this route as all his arguments could have been encompassed by #13-58607 without compromising the justice system. That is why I  asked for $30,000 maintenance. ('legal tomfoolery' in answer to j.M.'s enquiry.)


4) Regrettably, j.M is no different from over 30 judges and 8 courts including the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) under the aegis of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin substantiating my charge of systematic judicial abuse which was noted in the Preamble (SCofC) in 2004. The failure to hear this submission under the terms of 'ultimate remedy' reduced Canada to Third World status and froze me in a state of permanent limbo.


5) In response to my legal advisor's question a decade ago regarding my apparent universal condemnation of judges; I responded: 'It's immaterial if 90% of the judges are ethical if the Office of the Chief Justice (6 in this case) appoints the other 10% to your case. Further, those unethical judges set precedents binding all judges.' For example j.M., in permitting the Employer to file a separate action in order to gain unfair advantage perverts the course of justice in a significant way and sets a dangerous precedent.


6) j. M. should be removed from the bench for failing to quash the 'Cullen Creed' (C.C.)(July 23-2013 B.C. Supreme Court) which refuses this writer point blank access to the B.C. Courts for 'reasons best known to a the judge' to proceed which explains why this case was launched in Ontario under the laws of 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice'.


7) Further, j.M. failed to recognize the inclusion of the all-important phrase 'with permission of a judge' which is conspicuous by its absence from the C.C. until I pointed it out to him for without that phrase, the law is anarchy. j.M., under these circumstances, is guilty of 'judicial malfeasance' - a term I used in court - as he has given tacit recognition to this anarchy. The question which needs be asked here is why he would cancel the May 15 hearing thus robbing the presiding justice of his right to adjudicate with 'permission of the judge'? It's called 'sucking and blowing' at the same time'.


8) j. M's own Order reads 'without permission of a judge' (N.B. no distinction is made between the terms  'with' or 'without' as the meaning is the same) which hamstrings this case in the other direction as well as he ruled against any Appeal to his doctrinaire opinion. Hence his Order in an 'empty vessel'.


9) Of considerable interest here was the Employer's declaration - for a first time in 29 years -that they owed no compensation to this employee under the collective bargaining process; a position that they futilely asked the court to condone. j.M. was remiss in not asking them why they did not include the Union for this purpose in their submission as this was the only body that the B.C. courts would recognize to represent my interests. As such, a major revision of #13-58607 laid by me was in order to recognize that Union role; a still-born proposition considering that j.M. 'cowboyed' that hearing slated for May 15 by cancelling it as noted above.


10) Without having the above request by the Employer granted by the court, their perversion of the course of justice by laying #13-59060  makes no legal sense.


11) j.M. , by failing to acquiesce to the Employer's demand to sanction the 'no compensation' request, has, by default, given tacit recognition to the fact that the propriety of the initial lay-off remains untested in law hence compensation is still an open question.


12) The significance of this astounding revelation by the Employer is to re-open this case as it applies also to the Union which is being included in my appeal considering that the May 15 hearing was cancelled by j.M. The Ontario Appeal Court may wish to take argument on this unorthodox matter.


13) The Union deserted this 'sweetheart deal' case many years ago and refused me my right to continue with this case (at my own expense). The courts, in their complicity, agreed with this stand so that I have never had a forum to prove fraud on the part of the Employer and Union.


14) Considering that no Employer offer is on the table the courts, under the law, may directly intervene (and should have done so in 1995 before Justice Spencer when it was clear that the Employer had abandoned this case).


15) The question as to which court is competent to handle this case at this point has this matter justifiably labeled as 'the clusterfuck case'.


16) Only the SCofC which has been the source of the latter stages of this legal debacle would appear - in terms of the failure of government intervention such as the 'notwithstanding clause' or 'peace, order, and good government' provision - to be the only forum left.


17) Canada was reduced to Third World status in 2004 as seen in 4)  when the SCofC refused to hear this matter under the terms of 'ultimate remedy'; a cornerstone of the collective bargaining process, leaving this writer in a permanent state of limbo as no lower court decision exists in the unique conditions of this case; merely a court Order  to return to litigation in order to finalize this case which the Employer and courts ignored.


18) The law is now smashed with the current undertakings under j.M.


19) The ramifications of this latter point are immense. The Union Movement is dead now that the courts have sanctioned the 'sweetheart deal'. Further, a written contract is not worth the paper on which it is written; a truism made by me in 1986 published by the media. That proposition is now a frightening reality 28 years later. Under these circumstances, there is no future for democratic Canada.


cc. PMO

      SCofC Hon. R. Wagner


MAY 16-2014


TO: Donald Bayne esq. legal counsel for 'Diab'

FAX: 613-236-6958


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

FAX: 613-521-1739



1) Similar to my own case, Diab has been 'due processed' as opposed to be given 'due process under the law'.

2) He is fighting a strong Jewish Lobby which, similar to my own case although it doesn't involve Israel, has ready access to the Office of the Chief Justice and the judicial appointment process.

3) As far as I am concerned, Diab was 'marangered'; that is, the answer was in before he stepped into a court of law. I too was marangered by the same judge and also lost on appeal (before a Divisional Court)

4) Currently, I have an appeal of a second issue in Toronto in a bid to get to the Supreme Court of Canada (for a third time) in this unresolved labour case where no compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid.

5) As to your claim that a different answer could be received in B.C.; don't count on it. My case has been before 8 different courts; including the originating province of B.C. The Federal Court was just as bad as the provincial courts in this matter.

6) Should your client be returned to a French jail, his demise would save the government a lot of embarrassment. In 'Uncle Joe' Stalin's words: 'no man; no problem.

7) See  web under RECENT where I draw a distinction between Diab,Harcourt and my own case where no lower court Order exists (quashed arbitration) leaving me in a perpetual state of limbo...the new Canadian way of doing justice. There can be process without judgment; at least in Canada. SEE SCofC  2004 'Preamble'

8) One problem I have that your client does not have is that I do not exist as a legal entity. In hoary old Ireland, a condemned man had to give his own name immediately before execution. Under these circumstances of a 'sweetheart deal'; I would have to say 'West Vancouver Teachers' Association'.


Yours, 'The Outlawed Canadian'





BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com (29 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought ...I feel like Ralph Nader in 1961 trying to convince the public of dangerous cars (Unsafe at any speed). Who knows, maybe recalling judges and chief judges may become standard fare in the future just like automobiles. To be sure, the current system is not working.




APPEAL of #13-59060 OTTAWA SUPERIOR COURT  - May 14-2014

 (APRIL 10-2014 H.D.  MCKINNON j.) to QUEEN'S PARK, ON.


1) This appeal is unique in that the outcome is to be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) no matter what the finding as the SCofC is the only court competent to handle this issue which has been before over 8 courts and over 30 judges and still remains unresolved. Without that legal ruling, compensation - including pension rights - cannot follow.

3) Three matters that this Appeal Court can deal with relate to McKinnon j. 'cowboying' (see RIGHT OF REPLY Part 2 for definition) APP. 4 MAY 11-2014 and how the Plaintiff Employer perverted the course of justice by filing a tandem case rather than a defense to the main motion #13-58607 originally slated for May 15 but now cancelled by McKinnon j.  '...What if every Defense lawyer filed a separate action in order to derail a main action?' I asked in court. 'There would be bedlam.'

11) The source of this judicial cupidity lies at the foot of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Preamble in 2004 (see TAB 4 of accompanying  SCofC private submission as well as TAB 4 RIGHT OF REPLY PART 1) outlines how the challenge made at that time related not so much to the original conspiracy in which the arbitration regarding my lay-off was quashed leaving me in limbo; but to the conspiracy of the judicial process to cover up judicial cupidity involved in that process.

13) Of course it is understood in this quest to settle all issues as requested by the Employer, that both the Union and Employer will include in their factum the secret memo notes on all meetings pertaining to my lay-off which Justice Mary Southam (r. 2004 from B.C. Appeal Court) of the B.C. Supreme Court returned to them in 1986 'because she did not use them'. Therein lies my accusation of fraud as gleaned from other events.


15) Placed in the negative, whatever this court decides, do not do anything which would impede a SCofC challenge in this matter for reasons outlined above. I realize that the Ontario courts take pride in that few cases are appealed to the SCofC, but this is not the time to embellish that record.

16) ...Besides, I have had a 'bellyfull' of Ontario courts.


cc Wynne/Hudak/Horwath        SCofC Hon. R. Wagner

MAY 21-2014


TO: Andrew Duffy - O.C. Senior Reporter

FAX: 613-726-1198  & 726-5858 (both numbers blocked to me)

FROM: 'The Outlawed Canadian' (Roger Callow) www.employeescasecanada.com

FAX: 613-521-1739


REFERENCE: 'Victory over the achievement gap'  O.C. May 21-2014 A6  Andrew Duffy


QUOTE: '...You think it's any different with any other paper anywhere in the world? All papers have an editorial page. Daily news stories that contradict that editorial view don't get published or else they're put in the back with the personals. Stories that polish the editorial viewpoint get good play above the fold on the front page...' Always Time To Die  Elizabeth Lowell



1) Your article on a successful primary school was a breath of fresh air from the turgid Fraser Institute ratings on schools. Too bad your front page article (April 26-2014) on the Employee's Case was not as insightful. Presumably you were under orders but that is no excuse for the O.C. failing to print either of My Right of Reply.

Further, if the O.C. were not going to attend this one hour hearing; then acquiring a transcript copy would have made for a more balanced view.


2) By regurgitating what every other judge has on the judicial record in this case; the central message is lost that this case has redesigned the operation of justice in Canada.


3) In bottom line language, the 'West Vancouver School Board Trustees' Final Solution': 'We are not dismissing you thereby incurring financial repercussions; rather, we are laying you off and if you do not sign a $1 quick claim for all outstanding matters, you will not collect your pension.'


4) The conditions for lay-off entail a different set of laws than those of dismissal. The precedent set from this case is that the Union has sole control over a case; an employee may not sue an employer directly which creates an untenable position for an employee faced with a 'sweetheart deal' (as most lay-offs are.) Unions gain nothing but financial costs no matter which way a hearing goes.


5) In case you're interested, the legal terms applicable here in McKinnon's Order - rules of 'inherent jurisdiction' and 'natural justice' SEE Preamble to SCofC 2004 on web -  are the same as the Supreme Court of Canada which rejected two earlier forms of this case leaving this target in limbo with no compensation paid.


6) As a former high school teacher with advanced qualifications and as a 20 year Supply Teacher locally covering all high schools and all disciplines; I would qualify your young math teacher in your article as doing a good job. He believes in his task and approaches it with enthusiasm as well as imagination. Colleagues of mine in teaching Math have used the game approach successfully; one such teacher even using the bridge card game to familiarize students with the use of numbers. Some innovative math programs have permitted students to be performing in high school what were former university level tasks.


7) Teachers of English have materials which stretch the imagination and can be humorous (although oftentimes lost on teen-agers with their penchant for below the belly jokes). Not so history (my specialty) which texts  are a big enough joke in themselves without adding insult to injury. (Written by 'winners'). What passes for humour, such as John A. MacDonald falling down the Parliamentary stairs dead drunk creates distortion on top of what is already distorted...not recommended.

One History Department Head thought a simulation project in which students would represent various interests before World War I (Russian peasants, for example) had, I submit, no comprehension as to what he was asking of the students. As a personal innovation, I used novels (All Quiet on the Western Front) to extend the notion of 'the history of wars' to include 'the conditions of warfare')


8) Common to all successful students is the feature of parents reading to students at a very early age as a means of peaking their interest and developing their imagination. Hence any kindergarten teacher can reasonably project the academic future of her charges.


9) A concern that I have - seen particularly with private schools - is highballing the learning process to 'make a school look good' which, in the process leaves those unable to keep up with few alternatives such as switching back to the public school

Life is too important to reduce it to a report card mark. A's get loved while 'D's' like TV's Jake Harper in Two and a Half Men get laughed at.


'The Outlawed Canadian'