WHAT TO DO WITH A TYRANNICAL REGISTRAR? –
LETTER TO SUPREME COURT OF CANADA’S REGISTRAR,
ROGER BILODEAU Q.C. cc SCofC Hon. R. Wagner
BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ www.employeescasecanada.com (28 year unresolved legal case)
CANADA’S ‘WATERGATE’ in search of a pulitzer prize seeking columnist
encl. REPLY 25A to Ottawa Divisional Court (Appeal) #DC-12-1872 focusing entirely on the ‘MacKenzie Creed’
A PEJORATIVE ACCOUNT
1) Normally the courts and not the respective Registries are the final arbitrator of judicial decisions. The 28 year history of the Employee’s Case shows that no longer is this the case in Canada.
2) The central question to be asked is what is to be gained by a Registry obviating a hearing before a court duly invested by legislation to enact decisions? The answer submitted here is that should a court not be presented with an issue, the implication is that the onus is on a litigant to demonstrate why not. This way the judicial record – so important in precedent law on which our courts heavily depend – is retained in a pristine condition or so it is hoped.
3) The failure of the above premise is reflected in the oft quoted Judge Estey remark (St. Anne Nackawic): ‘What must be avoided at all costs is a deprivation of justice under the law.’ Without a resolution in the Employee’s Case, no compensation may flow (which includes pension rights); a negation of the law of ‘ultimate remedy’.
4) The unresolved 28 year Employee’s Case has reduced Canada to Third World status as this writer submits that a cabal of judges and court registries have sacrificed the rule of law in Canada to such a degree and extent, that 21st century Canadian jurisprudence places us on a parallel with such as China where the public claim is that there is no rule of law
5) The refusal of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004 to hear this lead labour issue under the terms of ‘ultimate remedy’; a mainstay of the collective bargaining rules, is at the root of this 21st century court turning point which left this litigant in a permanent state of limbo; a negation of ‘no process without judgment’.
6) Included in the above action was an assertion of an original government conspiracy to which a ‘conspiracy of the judicial process’ was added. I liken that to asking the fox who is charged with guarding the chickens to make recommendations explaining why so many chickens are disappearing…’No problem here boss, but you could send more chickens!’
7) In the original conspiracy, it is alleged that the B.C. Government was hi-jacked (BILL 35, an imposed action), the Judiciary was co-opted (gerrymandered government arbitrator who was later ruled ‘patently unreasonable’ when his arbitration favouring the Employer was quashed by the court) to sanction a ‘sweetheart deal’ between Employer and Union.
8) Due to the failure of Justice Southin to take decisive action as detailed elsewhere on my web, the Employer was able to exploit that weakness in achieving through the back door what they could not get through the front door. The cost to date? The entire Canadian Judiciary added to which is Parliament’s failure to curb these excesses by invoking the ‘peace, order, and good government’ section of the constitution.
9) Since 2004, the courts have added significantly to their transgressions; either through corrupted court decisions or registry actions. The ‘MacKenzie Creed’ of 2010 (included here) is at the center of the current predicament and is the focus of this account.
10) In 2010, It would appear that the laying of S106159 asking for ‘interim salary’ (I should have been collecting salary all along but the Employer illicitly curtailed it in 1985 before the arbitration commenced.) leaving it up to the Employer, Union and court to resolve this legally outstanding case. That action shook the B.C. Supreme Court to the core as another appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada would bring their earlier failure in 2004 into focus…and that would never do.
11) The answer was the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ in which Associate Deputy Anne MacKenzie, on her own recognizance in an undocumented Order, without taking legal argument nor quoting pertinent rules or law, dropped S106159 from the docket for reasons best known to herself. Again, for reasons best known to herself, she ruled this litigant from access to the court and gave permission to the court registry to reject any of my submissions on this matter. As her Order was undocumented, the hope was that the judicial register would merely show that S106159 did not proceed implying the fault lay with the litigant for laying it and not following through. The B.C. Supreme Court Registry quoted the MacKenzie Creed in rejecting my submission in April 2013 bringing into question as to how a judge may bestow powers on to the Registry which do not belong to them. Just one more notch in this conspiracy game. That Creed has created ‘The Outlawed Canadian’.
12) The conspiracy was elevated when the Appeal Court of the B.C. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by me (CA038538) at the counter by an un-named clerk telling the courier to take back this action because it was unacceptable. My appeal to Chief Justice Lance Finch to adjudicate this matter went unanswered (the Appeal Court functions according to a different set of rules). His repeated failure to respond to any correspondence in this matter is why I asked the Prime Minister to take those steps to remove him from Office. (normally, that topic should be a provincial matter but the province was badly compromised by the intervention of the B.C. Attorney General’s Office in a sleazy handling of this topic at the Federal Court level which will be detailed further in this account.
13) Currently there are three Appeals extant focusing on the MacKenzie Creed plus five approaches to the Supreme Court of Canada.
a) The MacKenzie Creed is the sole focus of the appeal in Ottawa’s Divisional Court (DC-12-1872). The lower Superior Court (Maranger Decision -12-54944) made no mention of this Creed although the Employer included in his factum a reference to this document imputing an explanation which is not apparent in that document. My appeal to the court to address the MacKenzie Creed as well as requesting the court to ask this question of the Employer: ‘Is the Employer obliged to pay this back pay as interim compensation and, if so, when?’ That central question was ignored by Maranger. However, the Appeal is stripped down to only the MacKenzie Creed. If this 3-person court does not expunge it; Canada officially becomes a ‘failed state’.
b) The Registry (April 30-2013) of the B.C. Supreme Court refused to assign a docket number to my case of ‘abandonment by the Employer’ citing the MacKenzie Creed. The problem here is what if the Employer had wished to counter my arguments as they did in Ottawa in the Maranger Decision? (A cynic would suggest that the Employer was contacted behind the scene on this level.) No matter, the Registry is seen to usurp the course of justice with this action and, in so doing, undermines the power of the judges in an unconscionable manner. Chief Justice Robert Bauman has been asked to adjudicate this questionable action: i.e. does he condone it or condemn it?
c) A third action has been lodged with the Appeal Court of the B.C. Supreme Court. In that action, the defendant Employer and Union accessed surety funds paid into the court (a most specious hearing under Appeal Court’s K.C. MacKenzie – no relation to A. MacKenzie leaving this writer wondering in other accounts as to whatever is put into the porridge of the MacKenzie clan?). Normally, these funds would be distributed according to the outcome of a court decision in order to apportion blame. As CA038538 was not held due to court machinations, the judge had no right to dispose of this matter ‘under 5 minutes’ discounting arguments presented on my behalf (due to the MacKenzie Creed, I had no standing in court). The proper way for the two defendants to acquire their costs would be in open court where I would be assigned status. In short, the MacKenzie Creed was not conditional on those who would lay actions against me. That is how this Creed permitted the court to desert its judicial independence and be a mere agent of the defendants.
d) The last five appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada were rejected by the Registrar over an interpretation of Rule 40. It would seem here that the Registrar and his acolytes at different times have added the ad hoc ‘3 judge’ qualification to this rule which is not in the stated rule. The SCofC, in telephoning the various courts, is told by unidentified clerks that of course there are means by which Mr. Callow may still appeal his concerns in their court. And of course I am filibustered as seen above in the B.C. courts. Developments in Ontario do not promise much better. The worst of these has to be the Federal Court of Canada which is included here as an addendum.
14) The B.C. Attorney General filled the void in the challenge to Federal Court made by me as the Employer and Union Defendants mounted no reply. (The Ontario Attorney General is not represented in DC-12-1872 and as the defendant Employer has mounted no reply, the action is undefended in Divisional Court.) Two secret hearings were held without my knowledge (T-13-8611). In the first, Vancouver Prothonotary, Roger Lefreniére (the matter should have been held in Ottawa before a judge) ruled that my accusations were unfounded (no reasons given) in dismissing the matter. An Ottawa judge quickly sanctioned his decision in another secret hearing presuming, as he did, that Rule 51 should apply. The Appeal (documents included here) was refused by yet another judge who said that I had not quoted the pertinent rule for an Appeal. Considering that I had included a plethora of rules, I asked ‘which one’? “See a lawyer“, I was told. ‘He wants to know, too’ I shot back. Harper’s newly appointed Chief Justice in 2009 (see enclosed letter) refused to comment .
15) The central question in the above is what do I gain by pursuing this matter; particularly as it relates to the expunging of the MacKenzie Creed? The broader answer lies in what do 34 million Canadians gain by my success in this endeavor?
16) The above account illustrates why the MacKenzie Creed cannot stand because it must not stand if the justice system of Canada is to have any credibility. While Parliament has failed to stand up to the egregious actions of the judges and court registries in this matter, it falls to ‘we, the people’ to extract justice in the absence of that void left by those two institutions.
17) The Canadian Press boycott on this national story is unconscionable and inexcusable.
‘The Outlawed Canadian’ (Roger Callow)