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


Quotes: 1) ‘Justice is a certain rectitude of mind whereby a man does what he ought to do in circumstances confronting him. Thomas Aquinas  2) ‘Justice, not as vindication, or as revenge, or as material compensation, but an idea in itself. Jessica Bryce Courtenay  3) ‘…justice is best served when good men seek constantly to challenge the law, to ensure that it leads to a just and fair outcome.’ Ibid  4) ‘Governments are not prone to censure their own instrumentalities’ Ibid

5) ‘We are responsible for the administration of the laws of the land, but we seldom question whether the laws of the land are responsible.’ Ibid   6) ‘But Mom used to say that lawyers are generally overrated, and judges are lawyers who even bore other lawyers.’ The Harbinger Mark Graham  7) ‘You think you’re the only person in this town who has a judge in his back pocket?’ Consent to Kill  Vince Flynn


REFERENCE: Rebuttal to ‘MOTION RECORD OF THE DEFENDANTS’ & ‘AUTHORITIES OF THE DEFENDANTS’ for FEDERAL COURT #T-1386-11 (Ottawa) – SEE web ‘Federal Court’ p.6 for a 4 page response from this plaintiff which should be of interest to all Canadian lawyers.


MESSAGE: For followers of this 25 year unresolved labour matter in which no compensation has been paid and yet has been before over 30 judges including three inconclusive trips to the Supreme Court of Canada, you are aware of a legal matter of systematic judicial abuse on a level never found before in any judicial system


     The current phase focusing on interim compensation (deferred salary owing to this plaintiff despite legal outcomes) was to be the focus of S106159 filed in Vancouver Court in 2010. The rationale behind this approach was that as the courts would only recognize the Employer and the Union in requesting a settlement, this plaintiff was prepared to accept interim compensation while that solution was found. It was a good resolution for all concerned as it was a non-cost option for the Union and would put pressure on the Employer to bargain directly with this plaintiff for a final solution. The key is that there would not necessarily be any enquiry as to the propriety of the lay-off which would reveal the perfidy of all the above players in this ‘sweetheart deal’.


     The roof blew off and the conspirators panicked and have risked the Canadian Justice System in order to block any attempt by the plaintiff to enter a court of law on this action or any other possible legal action to gain any compensation.


     A little history here is necessary to explain this latter action now imperiling the Justice System of Canada. In 1986 when Justice Mary Southin quashed the arbitration favouring the Employer ruling, as she did, that he had been ‘patently unreasonable’, she recommended that employment be returned to this teacher. The School Board declined so she ordered a new arbitration which was never held. Why not? Every judge assigned to this case would be told, I submit, that should there be a re-hearing, the plaintiff would have access to all meeting notes which she demanded from the Employer and Union. She was understandably shocked, no doubt, to see that my assertion that the B.C. government had been hi-jacked and the judiciary co-opted was indeed the case. Rather than calling for a public enquiry, as she should have done, she sought to cover up the conspiracy by returning the documents to the Employer and the Union claiming that she had made no use of them. In short, the court  placed themselves into a position to be blackmailed for the next 25 years by the Employer and Union.


     Enter Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie of the B.C. Supreme Court appointed in 2010. By knocking S106159 off the docket in a private hearing without a number (no respondents present); the hope was that both S106159 and her Order would disappear down the proverbial black hole without any extant judicial record.


     As this plaintiff was barred from any access to the courts (even to reclaim a $10,000 surety paid in all good faith to challenge this decision) only a challenge to her action under CA038538 remained. What to do now? Enter an un-named court clerk with no official court standing to roll up the legal books for reasons best known to himself and send them back to the courier. That’s a perversion of law without equal as it makes the entire court structure redundant. Hence the charge in Federal Court against Justice MacKenzie plus court clerk T-1386-11 (Ottawa) is now the single most important case in the history of Canadian Jurisprudence.    




FROM: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com SEE ‘FEDERAL COURT’





Quotes: 1) 'The law's a farce, sonnyboy. You can plant evidence and suborn witnesses and make sweetheart deals with the prosecution. The only laws we're really interested in making stick are the laws of contract - because if commerce doesn't work we're eating tree bark instead of bread.' Cassidy Morris West

2) 'What needs we fear it, for who can call us to account?'  Lady MacBeth

3) ‘Whistle-blowers were regularly fired from their jobs.’  Straight  Dick Francis

4) ‘You can’t sack him without paying compensation’ Ibid


     Within the above four quotes lies the genesis of this 25 year unresolved labour matter before over 30 judges including three inconsequential trips to the Supreme Court of Canada which has been marked by systematic judicial abuse to a degree never before encountered, this writer submits, in any Justice System.

     In 1985, former West Vancouver, senior B.C. high school teacher, Roger Callow was ostensibly laid off from his teaching position; ‘ostensibly’ because the matter of the legitimacy of his lay-off has never been tested in law. As a result, the employer apparently has voided their fiduciary responsibilities by hiding a dismissal behind a lay-off thus perverting the Collective Bargaining Rules; a mainstay in employer-employee relations. No compensation has been paid

     This writer is the only one of the respondents extant from the original arbitration held in 1986 favouring the Employer which was later quashed by the courts stating, as Justice Mary Southin did, that the arbitrator had been ‘patently  unreasonable’.  From that experience this writer claims that he was the target of the B.C. government which was hi-jacked (Bill 35) and the judiciary which was co-opted to support an Employer-Union sweetheart deal.’

     The current appeal to the Federal Court is yet one more attempt by the plaintiff to seek justice under the law before he turns to Parliament to’ interfere’ with the Canadian Justice System on behalf of 34 Canadians whose interests are negatively affected to a marked degree by this case euphemistically referred to as www.employeescasecanada.com with the targeted individual labeled as ‘The Outlawed Canadian’.

     In 2010, the plaintiff laid S106159 focusing on the payment of interim compensation until the courts found a resolution with the only two they would recognize in this case; the Employer and the Union who resisted any resolution. In short, deferred salary in terms of 25 years of back salary plus interest appropriately compounded belonged to the plaintiff no matter judicial outcomes. Permission of the court to proceed was included due to an earlier prohibitive clause which forbade the plaintiff to appeal directly to the court for a solution.

     Enter B.C. Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice, Anne MacKenzie, who, on her own authority, without quoting relevant laws or taking argument from any of the respondents and without giving reasons, dropped S106159 and forbade the plaintiff any future access to the courts on this topic. The only access available was a challenge to this decision – CA038538 – which was aborted by an un-named court official. That action remains unsanctioned (and hence ‘outside the law’) by Chief Justice of the Appeal Court of the Supreme Court of B.C., Lance G. Finch and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of B.C., Robert J. Baumann.

     Accordingly, the plaintiff remains in a state of limbo which explains his appeal to another court structure outside of British Columbia. The Defense in this matter is represented by the B.C. Attorney General, the very body who could be expected to investigate the Vancouver Court on this level.

    What alarmed these conspirators, as they will be labeled here, was the fact that S106159 laid the blame for the current impasse at the door of the Supreme Court of Canada. Generally, this court does not hear 85% of civil submissions and does not give reasons for their refusal. As such it is considered a burial ground by many in the business. The client in those cases is therefore left with a lower court decision. That is the unique feature of the Employee’s Case; there is no lower court decision due to the arbitration being quashed. Hence ‘no legal answer’ was made into ‘a legal




answer’; an anomaly inconsistent with the basic philosophy of a Justice System. That happened on not one but two occasions: the ‘universality of Unions question’ (does a Union control all aspects of a client’s interest including compensation which in turn includes pension rights? The de facto court answer is in the affirmative); and the second appeal under ‘ultimate remedy’ (the keynote to the collective bargaining rules and, to a large measure, civil law in general. The de facto court answer here is to suggest a written contract in Canada no longer has any value.)

     The path to that other place must be paved with jurisdictional excuses in this long drawn out legal matter which could – in school yard terms – have been settled inside of 15 minutes and, it might be added, with considerably more fairness. In seeking to avoid action the judges assigned in this case have, at a great disadvantage to the Justice System, spawned a monster which must be resolved by Parliament if the Federal Court fails to resolve this problem. In short, the Justice System created this mess; they are being given a last opportunity by the plaintiff to resolve the matter without Parliamentary intervention. 'Something has to be terribly, terribly wrong with the courts to use the 'notwithstanding clause' - Opp. Leader Stephen Harper now P.M. FEBRUARY 2006

     To that end the Federal Court must make a choice; either sacrifice Judge MacKenzie or sacrifice the Justice System. The two events are mutually exclusive. It matters not which jurisdictional reason this court gives should they wish to obviate their responsibilities in this matter as the public will only see that MacKenzie’s action of ‘usurping’ the law has destroyed the Canadian Justice System for reasons outlined above. Further, ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ label becomes a definitive condition for such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which must be amended to read…This document applies to all Canadian citizens except former West Vancouver teacher, Roger Callow; a ludicrous proposition to be sure but that is the ramifications of the Defense argument as they claim jurisdictional reasons excuse them from making any case justifying MacKenzie’s action. Canada and 34 million Canadians will be the poorer for that outcome.

     The authority for the Federal Court to act is under their extraordinary powers bestowed on them by Parliament to deal with problems not normally associated with extant laws. In short, Parliament does not wish to be delivered of a ‘dirty biscuit’ particularly one of the judiciary’s own making. It might be argued here that the bureaucracy is inadequate to deal with the question of ‘what to do with a tyrannical king’ or in this case ‘tyrannical judge’ and hence special powers must be referred. It is this collective responsibility which is being appealed to here for ‘just following orders’ (or in this case, just following jurisdictions) is not justice in the over-all form. To quote an oftentimes used phrase by Justice Estey (St. Anne-Nacawic) ‘What must be avoided at all cost, is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law.’


How long can the Canadian media maintain their boycott on this national story and still retain their credibility?       




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


QUOTES: 1) ‘Whistle-blowers were regularly fired from their jobs.’  2) ‘You can’t sack him without paying compensation’ Straight  Dick Francis



Dear Steve,

     Did you know that now it is not only the Pope who is in the excommunication business? That’s right. B.C. Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice  Anne MacKenzie has shown us the way into this haloed field.

     If a police officer fires his gun while performing his duty, he or she is placed on desk duty until the matter is investigated. Where is the equivalent action for a judge who has shot a proverbial hole in the foot of the Justice System? The recently appointed MacKenzie is still in office. Indeed, don’t stop there as your investigation should include her immediate superior, Chief Justice Robert K. Baumann, an un-named Vancouver court official and, last and least, K.C.MacKenzie of the Appeal Court division of the Supreme Court.

     Now this whole mess is in front of the Federal Court (#T1386-11 Ottawa Registry)  This is definitely one case the authorities should not want to win. Think of it. Organized crime, or for that matter any powerful influence, may have ‘pesky’ actions laid against them merely dropped down some legal black hole. University law classes would have to re-orient themselves to teaching the ‘black hole theory of the Canadian legal universe’ as already the Employee’s Case is marking a whole new direction in 21st century  Canadian law. The famous Justice Estey (St. Anne Nackawic) remark ‘…what must be avoided at all costs is a fundamental deprivation of justice under the law’ will become nothing more than a postscript in Canada’s law courts.

     But wait, help is on the way and here is where you come in. The Federal Court should appoint their top man or woman to this hearing – not by title but by reputation. To date, this plaintiff has encountered over 30 bozos (including Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada on 3 occasions; herself a product of the Vancouver Court System) usually labeled ‘the kid’ or ‘junior’ or some ‘has-been’ justice who has to reach into his pocket for the printed message placed there for him to read (don’t laugh, it has happened more than once). In short, it may be possible to wind up this entire case with the appropriate appointment.

     In the event that this hearing in Federal Court to lay an injunction against the good justice in B.C. turns out to be another cock-up, then Parliament will be given 15 days to take action (peace, order, and good government)

     Further, this case is a major impediment to the launching of your ‘crime bill’. How, in all good conscience, it may be asked, can the government deal with crime in the streets when they have shown a distinct inability to deal with crime behind the bench? PLACARD: TORY CRIME BILL…IS A CRIME. It would seem to this observer that rather than checking extant legislation to see if it cannot be tweaked, Parliament does what it is best at…create a whole new set of laws to add to the confusion. So far it would appear that you are pissing up the wind against a bureaucracy who does not want to co-operate…hey, I’ve been there, still doing that. An analysis of the crime scene would show that a handful of people are responsible for 2/3 of the crime. Eliminate the revolving door justice system for those persistent offenders by forcing any parolee who abuses his privileges to be returned to fulfill his/her full sentence.

     Even here there are no guarantees. Recently deceased child killer, Clifford Olsen, is a case in point. If it had not been the ‘bucks for bodies’, he would have walked according to the prosecuting attorney from one discussion. A friend on the Vancouver police force at the time said that they had Olsen listed in the top ten but not in the top 5. Number one candidate by far was a rapist who had been denied parole and was released only after his full sentence was completed. Inside of one week, he killed a 16 year old female jogger.

     As followers of my blog are aware (including Ottawa Citizen’s columnist Dan Gardner), I am adamant against the use of drugs. However, the ‘war on drugs’ has become counter-productive hence I agree with the SCof C Decision to permit the ‘safe shoot-up’ sight in such cities as Vancouver. Even far right wing TV hosts appear to be backing off from the U.S. model of dealing with the drug problem. Your government should re-think your proposition on this level.

                                                                             Yours,etc. ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ 

P.S. Too bad about no ‘hat trick’ in Ontario politics however anti-Wall street type protesters won’t get a legitimate response from compromised Canadian Union leaders due to their support of the rogue BCTF.