BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employeescasecanada.com (30 year unresolved legal case) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 8 different court systems and over 30 judges. It's Canada’s Watergate - Pulitzer Prize winning author being sought. The 'find me a court' plea has fallen on deaf ears due to Registry, Ministry & Court obfuscation. 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 as now the Canadian Justice System has been shattered in its entirety by this case. Canada now has 3 legal systems: criminal, civil and political. The current case in Federal Court (T-2360-14) alleges fraud in a 267 page brief on behalf of the Respondent Employer and Union plus the court processes over the past 30 years and requested mediation services available from the Federal Court. Recently, due to Federal Court machinations of declaring the above 'frivolous and vexatious', an action was laid in Quebec Superior Court 550-17-008208-157 . Is French Canadian Justice to go the way of English Canadian Justice? . It would appear that the Respondents misrepresented themselves to this petitioner as to the their authority.





cc.Suzanne Coté / Clément Gascon / Andromache Karakatsanis / Richard Wagner

/ Thomas Albert / Rosalie Abella / Beverley McLachlin / Marshall Rothstein / Michael Moldaver  by Registered Mail


QUOTE: "This decision should spell the beginning of the end for this government's wrong-headed labour relations agenda"...The (SCofC) decision also found that employees can't effectively bargain if there isn't a fair and impartial dispute - resolution mechanism - such as arbitration - to help solve negotiating impasses.

Recent Ottawa Citizen commentary as it regarded Unions dealing with the Federal government.

Response: Surely the above conditions in the macrocosm for employers and unions should apply in the microcosm to individual employees faced with a 'sweetheart deal' augmented by the judiciary in an unresolved 30 year labour lay-off matter where no compensation (includes pension rights) may be paid without a judicial finding. 8 separate courts and over 30 judges (including the SCofC on 2 occasions) have ducked their responsibilities in this matter wherein 'there can be no legal process without judgment ...except it would seem, in Canada thus reducing us to Third World status. It is a cover-up on a massive scale for which there is no solution other than to staunch the bleeding.


1) Other than Chief Justice, B. McLachlin whom I listed as having a conflict of interest (25C since repealed...'I've never seen a 25C form before' opined a SCofC clerk) in a number of thwarted attempts to making a SCofC appeal by Registrar Roger Bilodeau, all the other Justices have been receiving my Newsletters.

2) The Motion in Quebec is quite specific: for the Employer (the Union has a copy as well although they are not named in the Quebec suit) to produce the meeting notes from the West Vancouver School Board in June of 1985 which was attended by government officials and lawyers to discuss the new imposed BILL 35  (School Amendment Act), used only against this senior teacher and recalled in the 1990's before this case was settled (as ordered by the court after the arbitration favouring the School District was quashed with the government-appointed arbitrator ruled 'patently unreasonable').

3) Justice Southin in 1986 ordered all meeting notes to be provided to her and then later returned them 'because she did not use them'. She claimed the School Board had used the BILL 35 for the wrong purpose (to rid itself of a whistleblower) when what she should have done - and the meeting notes would reveal this point - is declare BILL 35 to be clearly ultra vires. Successive courts have sought to bury any hearing which would force these memo notes to be produced in a level of cover-up which has smashed judicial procedure in Canada.

4) For example, 'current demonstrated ability' was undefined in BILL 35 or in law in general although for structural reasons it could not supplant the Education Act.

5) In 1995, I went to B.C. Supreme court (Justice Spencer) for abandonment of this issue by the Employer. My claim was that the should return employment to this employee should be restructured to read must return employment. The judge ruled that I lacked status under the collective bargaining rules; the first time that this notion was introduced by him as obviously the Employer and myself were not arguing that point.SEE letter from Employer dated February 7, 1996 included here

6) Many hearings in B.C. denied this litigant access to the courts based on this 1995 court decision. The B.C. Labour Board repeatedly refused to hold a Section 12 hearing on the question claiming that the Union 'had done nothing wrong' without asking the question whether the Union was to be involved at all.

7) The matter ended up in 1999 in SCofC with Chief Justice Antonio Lamers (d) and Beverley McLachlin on the committee denying this matter of status to be heard under the 'universality of unions' question thus seeking to place me in a permanent state of limbo. That was the beginning of the current imbroglio.

8) The second appeal to the SCofC in 2004 where B. McLachlin was the incumbent Chief Justice under the question of 'ultimate remedy' also rejected a hearing re-inforcing the state of limbo for this litigant.

9) It would appear that the theme of 'damning the torpedoes' has been the subsequent course of courts in B.C., Ontario, and the Federal Court; a matter augmented by the silence of Parliament and the anti-employee Canadian media (see web RED NECK MEDIA for that 1985 account). It is submitted here that judges have compromised themselves to such a degree and extent for which there is no response from such oversight bodies as the Canadian Judicial Council leaving Prime Minister S. Harper on the spot to deal with what should be a matter for the courts.

10) I believe that the SCofC can hear any matter of national importance. What do I have to do to qualify?...lay actions in every other province in Canada not yet challenged?

Yours truly, 'The Outlawed Canadian' in an outlaw Justice System (Roger Callow)


cc S. Harper P.M. /Philippe Couillard Que. Premier / Canadian Judicial Council



April 20, 2015


REFERENCE: No. 550-17008208-157  Superior Court  District of Gatineau

Roger Callow(Plaintiff) v. Board of School Trustees (West Vancouver, B.C. S.D. #45)



Lavery, de Billy LLP

Ste 4000, 1, Place Ville Marie,

Montreal, Que. H3B 4M4

Tel: 514-871-1522   Fax: 514-871-8977  for the Defendant


Acknowledgment of Appearance form dated April 13,2015 is made.



Roger Callow (self represented)

The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System employeescasecanada.com

208-2220 Halifax Drive,

Ottawa, Ontario K1G 2W7



1) The above unresolved labour case where no compensation has been paid (includes pension rights) regarding a teacher lay-off (under the neophyte imposed BILL 35) in June of 1985 has its genesis in British Columbia.

2) This matter has been before 8 separate court systems and over 30 judges in B.C., Ontario, the Supreme Court of Canada (2 unheard occasions in 1999 and 2004) and the Federal Court of Canada (T-2360-14) where a charge of fraud in a 267 page factum was recently laid against the original conspirators along with those involved in the court processes. That court would seek to obviate that serious charge by claiming it to be 'frivolous and vexatious'.

3) The oversight bodies have been called to replace the Chief Justice as one consequence of those proceedings to date. Depending on the 'secret memo notes' from Justice Southin's 1986 judgment which quashed the arbitration favouring the Employer ruling, as she did, the government-appointed arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable', left this plaintiff - as it turns out - in a 30 year state of limbo in contravention of such basic legal tenets as 'there can be no process without judgment.

4) Those meeting notes which she ordered and then returned 'because she did not use them' would relate to meetings held in June of 1985 with government officials, lawyers and, it appears contact with local Union representatives.

5) In brief, those meeting notes hold the future of the credibility of the entire Canadian Judiciary as the allegations here is that this senior teacher was the target of a massive government fraud without equal wherein the subsequent judicial cover-up has reduced Canada to Third World status.

6) This is the first time that this issue has been raised in a Quebec court. Will Quebec permit themselves to become part of this colossal debacle?

7) It is submitted here that no competent Quebec legal firm would accept this case without seeing those 'secret memo notes'. While the RCMP have not been involved to date, Lavery de Billy LLP may become involved in the future should they seek to deny those memo notes to this plaintiff. Indeed, no Justice can make an intelligent evaluation of this case without having possession of this case: e.g. How can the court evaluate the status question of this plaintiff which the letter from the Employer included (Jun7, 1996) raised but is studiously avoided in the massive court cover-up alleged above?

8) It should be noted here that the legal firm of Hicks, Morley et al of Ottawa which is included in those fraud charges will no longer represent the Employer. The Vancouver arm for the Employer, Harris & Co. is very much a part of the fraud allegations along with the Teachers Union in this matter. The Employer was wise to find a new as yet untainted law firm.

9) My particular concern is the apparent connection that Respondent lawyers appear to have with the Office of the Chief Justice where judicial appointments have been made.

10) The long and the short of it is that should the Defendant produce the 'secret memo notes', I will be finished with Quebec as T-2360-14 in Federal Court covers all other aspects of this case.

11) On the other hand, should Quebec courts choose to seek to duck out of their responsibilities, I will pursue the matter. For example, special courts in Ontario will consider a 3 man appeal should the litigants agree. If necessary, that 3-man committee qualifies for a Supreme Court challenge (Third trip) which is the only court (a point agreed by one Ontario judge and myself) capable of dealing with the topic of fraud of the judicial processes. If the court offers mediation features, I would be interested. The proceedings do not require a physical presence in court as I request that both the court and the Defendant acquiesce to a 'party by party' written account.

12) Politically, the question raised here is whether the courts in Quebec are any different from their English Canadian counterparts.


Yours truly,



Roger Callow (Plaintiff) April 19, 2015


cc PMO / Que. Premier Couillard / Canadian Judicial Council