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.
2) A number of submissions are on file with the SCofC, the last one dated from April 2014 is included here. See APPENDIX 1 detailing the problem of addressing SCofC's Roger Bilodeau's 'litmus test'.
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. Order.
4) The second matter relates to costs which McKinnon j. awarded to the tune of $10,000 to the Plaintiff as opposed to assigning $30,000 'maintenance fees' ('legal tomfoolery' in answer to the judge's question) to this defendant. It should be noted here that I had no objection to the plaintiff's materials if they had been properly filed for #13-58607 as I submitted would be the proper course. 'What if every Defense lawyer filed a separate action in order to derail a main action?' I asked in court. 'There would be bedlam.'
5) The third matter relates to the unsuccessful bid by the Plaintiff Employer to quash any obligation to pay any compensation in this issue where no compensation has been paid contrary to the collective bargaining rules. In this, they asserted that they wanted all claims discussed.
6) Such an inclusion as the above would require the presence of the Union as they represent all my interests; at least in B.C. Neither the Employer nor McKinnon j. saw fit to question why the Union was not included here for that purpose.
7) That last point was going to force a major shift in my argument for #13-58607 scheduled for May 15 but now due to 'cowboying', that hearing was cancelled so that I must now introduce naming the Union as a Party along with the Employer for this Appeal court challenge.
8) A note here regarding internet material taken from my blog site is pertinent. Originally, it was the Employer whom introduced selected items from that site; the recent #13-59060 being most replete in that regard. As no justice has seen fit to speak out on the validity of such material, I have no compunction in including such material here.
9) Indeed, the court declarations defining this case always smack of having been pre-written as they do not reflect court proceedings as reflected in the transcripts. Of course those court judgments are the only materials registered for the Judicial Record which, it would appear, are designed to fool a gullible media should they choose to nose around (e.g. Ottawa Citizen April 26-2014 A1). In short, they read like the 'S.S. Titanic as a sailing adventure' with no mention of any ice-bergs. In brief, there is no mention that without a final decision, no compensation under the collective bargaining rules may be paid in this unresolved case. That's how the Canadian Justice System imploded and McKinnon j.'s Order is no exception in that process of systematic judicial abuse.
10) Hence I submit the two submissions of RIGHT TO REPLY (APP. 4) to the Ottawa Citizen's April 26-2014 Page 1 are far closer to the truth quoting, as the article does, the bravado comments of the judge to the effect that I am treating the justice system as some sort of smorgasbord. The flip side of that opinion is that, as the targeted individual, my unresolved case is being continually 'smorgasborded' to obviate any attempt on my part to obtain a final decision. In brief, there can be 'no process without judgment' except, it would now appear, in Canada. I call that anarchy.
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.
12) No Book of Authorities is included here as no case is remotely similar to the circumstances of this case. Hence the Book of Authorities included by the Plaintiff is little more than 'a legal billable time exercise'. The only pertinent phrase is this one from Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic): 'What must be avoided at all costs, is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.' Clearly, he must have had this type of case in mind.
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.
14) To reverse the order of payments allotted by McKinnon j. as noted in 4) above from the plaintiff to this defendant.
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) There is no need under the above conditions to hold a hearing as any further information may be conducted on a 'party by party' written base. Besides, I have had a 'bellyfull' of Ontario courts.
SCofC Hon. R. Wagner