OCTOBER 05-2014 (sentSEPTEMBER 28-2014)


in the APPEAL of #14-61592 (H.D. Sept. 23-14 SCOTT j. OTTAWA SUP. COURT)


1) This letter included in the formal appeal of #1461592 includes an apparently random background definition in order to justify my request that the only appropriate action for the ON Appeal Court in this 29 year unresolved labour matter originating in British Columbia and dealt with by three separate court systems has left this targeted litigant without a judicial finding regarding the legitimacy of his senior teacher lay-off in West Vancouver, B.C. in 1985. He has been left in a permanent state of limbo where no compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. That unfortunate state of affairs is largely due to the cupidity of over 30 judges including Supreme Court of Canada's Chief Justice, Beverly McLachlin, whom, along with then Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) Chief Justice, Antonio Lamers (d), rejected a hearing of this case under the inherent powers of unions. In short, the B.C. Justice System chose to permit the B.C. Teachers Union to be responsible for all matters regarding my lay-off. They have chosen to do nothing in this apparent sweetheart deal. The courts refuse to take their responsibilities under these circumstances of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice leaving this targeted writer without a resolution from which compensation may flow. A second SCofC appeal under the 'ultimate remedy' formula was launched in 2004, which is the essence of the collective bargaining rules therefore striking at the very heart of civil law as a matter of contract. That failure to be heard under Chief Justice B. McLachlin reduced Canada to Third World status. 'I have never seen a Form 25C (since repealed) said the SCofC clerk alleging, as I did, a conflict of interest as it related to her participation in a third Appeal to the SCofC.


2) An ADDENDUM has been included using the Ottawa Sun newspaper for September 28-2014 illustrating how this type of above abuse by the authorities is widespread in many different fields including the Justice System.


3) The purpose of this inclusion here is to justify why I request that the ON Appeal Court do nothing other than to re-direct appeals from four Ottawa court hearings in the past two years directly to the Supreme Court of Canada as the only body competent to deal with the accusation of systematic judicial abuse.


4) While the Appeal Court might consider it a matter of shame that they cannot deal with the charge of judicial abuse within their own jurisdiction (currently there is a charge of fraud against two Ontario judges and a Respondent lawyer lodged with oversight committees); nonetheless, Justice C. McKinnon's justification (#13-59060 H.D. April 10-2014) for applying a 'vexatious label' required him by law to quote a history of his application stretching across two other court systems. While there is some credibility for his Ontario claims, his interpretations of the other two court systems was woefully inept. Both of us, however, conceded that only the Supreme Court of Canada could deal with the larger problem although McKinnon j. argued against using Ontario courts to get there. (The SCofC, as Registrar 'tyrannical king' Roger Bilodeau repeatedly informs me, takes only appeals from the highest court of a jurisdiction to be considered. He quotes chapter and verse of section #40 to that effect to which I quote that chapter and verse back at him claiming that I have done just that a number of times. But that is another problem.) #13-59060 is currently under appeal by me as to requesting 'an extension of time' (Bilodeau is not the only Registrar rejecting my submissions). I am the Respondent in that case although one wouldn't know that in reading McKinnon j.'s Order which saw fit to burden me with special fees in this matter. I have asked for those fees to be reversed under maintenance ('legal tomfoolery' in answer to McKinnon's request for a definition).


5) In his definition justifying my vexatious behaviour, McKinnon j. made copious reference to web site material first introduced by Hicks, Morley et al for the Employer and now included by me as a matter of course. For example, such placards as the following were included: A) IMPEACH SCOFC CHIEF JUSTICE B. MCLACHLIN  B) SILLY ASS JUDGES KILL HABEAS CORPUS  C) JUSTICE SYSTEM BROKE YET PLENTY FIXED AS IT IS. A reading of the above would no doubt be perceived by the general public that I am accusing judges of being idiots. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are something worse; namely, mediocre and there is nothing worse than a mediocre leader functioning above his I.Q. level.


6) The thrust of the above account lies on the definition of a lie. The most common academic form of lying is the 'error of omission'; a common sales technique where the euphemism 'confound them with science and confuse them with bullshit' is the common denominator. For example, the purpose of Hicks, Morley et al for the employer laying #13-59060 was to request a discussion of all issues as a means of getting the court to sanction their request that they were under no obligation to pay any compensation. The hope was that with that favorable ruling, any future claims that I might make would be still-born without a dollar value in this civil action. McKinnon j.'s failure to address that request in his Order may be construed in another sense; namely, that I have indeed made a legitimate claim. The problem is to find a court to handle that claim which would now appear to be the SCofC. 'But how do I get it there?' I asked Justice McKinnon. 'I don't know, but you are not going to use Ontario courts for the purpose.'


7) Regrettably, McKinnon j.'s logic is not limited to just his hearing as actions across Canada including the SCofC are continually rejecting my apparently legitimate bid for a judicial finding. I call that cover-up and cover-up is invariably worse than the original crime...just as former U.S. President, Richard Nixon whom, I'm sure, has that epitaph printed on his gravesite.


8) The Bible, it would seem, is not quite so generous in excusing sinners: 'Forgive me my sins for what I have done...and what I have failed to do. By rights, the politicians on one level or another should have intervened some time ago as should the anti-employee media. For example, the Ottawa Citizen (April 28-2014 page 1) quoted almost verbatim McKinnon's bravado Order. I have no complaint with Editor Andrew Potter's action on that accord. However, when he refused to print my 'Right of Reply'; he reduced newspaper credibility to a new low. The failure of various leaders to intervene on the do-nothing attitude of two provincial Attorney-Generals and the Federal Minister of Justice put 'paid' to Parliament. (Indeed, my blog pillories both the political and judicial orders with this statement:

M.P.Paul Calandra is symbolic of everything wrong with Parliament just as Ottawa Superior Court Judge Colin McKinnon is symbolic of everything wrong with the Justice System. In that context, I told McKinnon's court that I had no objection to Hicks Morley's argument if he had filed it as a defence to my previously laid #13-58607  slated to be heard on May 15-2014). McKinnon j. as part of his ruling on 'vexation' canceled that hearing (cowboying) forcing me into requesting 'A leave to Appeal' under #14-61592 before Justice R. Scott.


9) The actions of these two above judges and the Respondent's lawyer in the hearing of #14-61592 were of the 'commission' as opposed to 'omission' nature which has prompted my charge of fraud against these three parties and are dealt with in other parts of this Appeal.



10) As unpaid legal bills form an important part of applying the label of 'vexatious litigant'; a detailed history is recorded here. It goes without saying that this account is in marked variation to the Hicks, Morley account copied verbatim by McKinnon j.

a) The first challenge to my ability to pay was launched by B.C. Court of Appeal Justice K.C. McKenzie (no relation to B.C. Supreme Court's Anne McKenzie of the 'MacKenzie Creed' reference although my blog observation is to ask 'whatever do they put in the porridge of the Mac clans?! A fourth 'Mac'; Justice 'Rip van Winkle' sitting on the one hour Divisional Court hearing (DT-12-1872 being appealed for costs and also requesting 'an extension of time') managed to fall asleep as I so aptly pointed out in court much to the amusement of some. However I digress.

My legal advisor wrote in the above hearing of B.C.'s Appeal Court #CA038538 laid in September 2010 that I had always been current with my payments and that surely, being asked to post a surety under these conditions which applied to all provinces, was little short of absurd. What was absurd was that I was never informed of this Order by the court with the Employer informing me after the due date for such payment. However, I found out by other means of the court's decision and paid the #10,000 surety to have CA038538 heard in Appeal Court. Nothing happened and the Chief Justice and Registry of the B.C. Appeal Court never responded explaining why. Unfortunately, the MacKenzie Creed filed in October 2010 on her own recognizance and for reasons best known to herself (although both Justices McKinnon and Scott would attribute rationalizations) effectively blocked me from doing anything in B.C. Courts so I turned to the Federal Court and later, the Ontario Courts.

b) In #12-54944 (November 4-2012 H.D. R. Maranger j.), the first of the Ontario appeals, he labelled the special costs requested by Hicks, Morley et al to be exorbitant. That account was eventually settled for 1/6 of their asking price.

c) As Maranger j. ignored the 'MacKenzie Creed' on the grounds that the Ontario courts should avoid B.C. matters; I appealed this decision to the Divisional Court solely on this ground which explained my presence in an Ontario court. Hicks, Morley in 8 months filed no material, merely showing up at 'perfection' in order to be included in court so that they could collect their special fees. Their court argument had little to do with the decision that 'Ontario Court judges have no authority over the judges of other provinces or jurisdictions' (no laws nor case studies cited) and much to do with their strong suggestion that driving this Applicant out of court could be achieved with special fees. They were awarded $10,000 for a fraction of the work they produced in #12-54944. That sum is under appeal.

d) Earlier, the B.C. Appeal Court was asked to approve funds by a joint combination of the Employer/Union lawyers for expenses relating to the failed hearing of CA038538 from the surety funds posted by me. I remonstrated in writing with the Appeal Court judge on the grounds that I had no standing in B.C. courts (unless you include the bogus standing of the Union which was acting against my interest in this bid). He ignored my comments in a '5 minute hearing' granting them their fees. This one was of those questions to the SCofC blocked by Registrar Roger Bilodeau. The point here is that if vexatious Orders are to be applied; surely that should not permit the opposition to launch cases in which they knowingly realize that the target Respondent has no right to appear. That's anarchy and one more of the SCofC's crimes.

e) Be that as it may, I was blocked from ever being able to reclaim these surety funds from the B.C. courts so, rather than seeing these funds ending up in the Xmas Party fund for judges, I gave my authority to Hicks, Morley to collect monies owing from the remains of this surety with the difference to be made up one way or the other after my appeal for costs in Ontario Appeal Court has been heard (now waiting for an extension of time with a request to bind it to the appeal of #13-59060 and possibly bound with this current appeal of #14-61592). There was no response from Hicks, Morley to this offer.

f) Justice McKinnon saw fit to award #12,000 to Hicks, Morley et al for their costs in #13-59060 (H.D. Apr. 10-2014) as the Applicant with myself being the Respondent; a preposterous conclusion done no doubt, to bolster his 'vexatious' labeling. I have asked for those costs to be reversed considering that Hicks, Morley et al ran two cases in tandem (a judicial no-no) in order to wreak advantage which happened when McKinnon j. canceled out #13-58607 slated for May 15-2014 in which I was the APPLICANT and where, I submitted, Hicks, Morley should have made a rebuttal as RESPONDENT; not initiate a new action. The Appeal of #13-59060 focuses heavily on this apparent legal transgression by both parties. That case is under Appeal as to substance and costs.

g) Hence, I am, and always have been current with my costs; McKinnon j.'s account merely aping the Hicks, Morley et al account. In that regard, along with many other judges, I submit McKinnon j. is acting as an agent for the Employer.


The Ottawa Sun excerpts from various topics taken from the September 28-14 edition to illustrate the control that 'the Old Boys Club' exerts over the system much to the detriment of various interest groups and individuals; mainly as a means of protecting their power structure.



A) '...With a wave of her hand, she cut him off. "Things back then were exactly the same they are today. Nothing has changed except the people. And the people who play these games are all the same. They talk of doing good, of making the world a better place. That is all bullshit. It is about power and about protecting their interests. That is all it is ever about. Always!" ' Stone Cold  David Baldacci

B) '... And we all know how much the higher-ups at the Bureau like to avoid looking stupid at all costs.' Dead Even  Mariah Stewart

C) '...that control rests with whoever worries least about being seen to exercise it...'

 The Shape of Snakes  Minette Walters

D) '...Without a core policy to argue over, elections here have become little more than a time to assassinate political character.' Andrew MacDougall former P.M. Harper advisor My sequel:  'Without due diligence in a proper application of the law to courts, hearings result in the assassination of the character of litigants.'

E) 'April 1866 Letter from a Maori chieftain on his death-bed: 'My friend Black Hawk' (learned Bible from missionaries) 'It was a good book from a merciful God and I found it so myself. But I was soon to discover that it was the white man's Sunday book only and all the remaining days of the week the pakeha felt free to disobey the commandments of his own God....' Solomon's Song  Bryce Courtenay


TOPIC 1: WE'RE JUST NOT ON BOARD Something needs to be done about the OMB, say critics  Christina Blizzard  p. 6

'...The fundamental problem I  ( Urban Designer Ken Greenberg) have with the way the Ontario Municipal Board has evolved is that somewhere along the line it adopted the model of a trial...You have lawyers...so it is set up to be adversarial. It is extremely expensive for everyone...It doesn't allow for discussion of things people are most interested in...He's not alone in that view....'

TOPIC 2: Gateway challenge in court QMI Agency p.12

'...We played by Canada's rules' acting Chief Clarence Innis said. 'But all our concerns were ignored....Canada has violated its own constitution (Section 35)....'


TOPIC 3: Some doctors disgusting  Alan Shanoff  p.15

'...Dr. Brian Goodman's book The Secret Language of Doctors provides the inside scoop on what some doctors are actually up to while we wait for treatment..."The aim is not so much to care for you as to find a clever way to jettison that responsibility by finding someone else to do it...." Check out Goldman's book. His honesty is refreshing.'


TOPIC 4: Condemn all of it - not some of it - Islamist violence Michael Coren p.16

'...Excuses and obfuscation, a cloud of unknowing and a refusal to speak and act....'


TOPIC 5: Canuck exec jailed 15 years in Cuba Reuters  p.20

'...the company had said previously it feared the outcome of the trial was predetermined....'


Yours truly,


Roger Callow


cc PMO


It gets curiouser and curiouser

October 09-2014


in the APPEAL of #14-61592 (H.D. Sept. 23-14 SCOTT j. OTTAWA SUP. COURT)


TO: Chief Justice Hon. G.R. Strathy

Court of Appeal - Toronto

130 Queen St. West



FROM: Roger Callow

208-2220 Halifax Drive

Ottawa, ON K1G 2W5

Tel./fax: 613-521-1739

REFERENCE: Letter from Deputy Register Sandra Theroulde dated October 02-2014 with return of #14-61592 material which reads in part:

'...These documents do not appear to qualify for filing as they do not relate to any court order....'


1) Any reading of the legal equivalent of 'Robert's Rules of Order' to the above letter would recognize this politically correct statement.

2) The interim hand-written Order of Justice R. Scott reads in conclusion '...Given all of the circumstances, this action is stayed and should the Court of Appeal ultimately dismiss or refuse the appeal by Mr. Cowern (should be 'Callow') of Justice McKinnon order, this action is dismissed with costs to be assessed.

3) The focus of #14-61592 is to allege fraud on two levels which Scott j. would ignore in its entirety in his duplicitous interim Order. This accusation is being made for a first time due to the Applicant Employer (#13-59060) request to discuss 'all claims' . Further, the Union has been included in #14-61592 as their inclusion is due to the B.C. courts recognizing only these two entities in this unresolved case which they appear to have abandoned (until now by the Employer). The Union did not put in an appearance at the hearing for #14-61592 which implies what I have alleged all along; that this personage is the target of a 'sweetheart deal' reinforced by the judiciary over the 29 year continuous history of this legal debacle. Further, this action denotes, for a first time, that both the Applicant Employee and the Respondent Employer request that the court take action on the original unresolved claim. Hence, it needs be asked: how can the court, in all good conscience, now deny this Applicant and this Respondent a hearing to resolve this case?

4) The first fraud relates to the initial lay-off of this senior teacher in West Vancouver in June of 1985 for which there is no legal finding which, in turn, has led to a denial of compensation (including pension rights) for the Applicant contrary to the Collective Bargaining rules.

5) The second fraud relates to the systematic judicial cover-up of the fraud noted in 4) over 29 years and across three judicial systems in British Columbia, Federal Court, and Ontario Courts. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCofC) failed to hear this matter on two occasions; the last dating from 2004. The SCofC is the only court capable of hearing this action of fraud; at least one point that Justice McKinnon and I agreed...but how to get it there when the lower courts keep frustrating any attempt to reach the SCofC for that purpose (for a Third time).

6) Material in the hands of the B.C. Judicial Council (MacKenzie & Cullen Creeds); the Canadian Council of Judges (Federal Court's Madame Justice Gleason & Ottawa Superior Court Justice C. McKinnon-a federal appointment) and the Ontario Judicial Council (Ottawa Superior Court Justice R. Scott) along with the Upper Canada Law Society for a second time (Hicks, Morley et al C. Hofley esq.); all points to irregularities in which the various authorities would seek to deprive this target of due process of law in an unresolved labour case which at one time the court had ordered back to litigation. In short, a Justice System cannot have 'no legal answer' being 'a legal answer' and expect to retain credibility for without that central tenet; there is no legal system.

7) What Scott j. would do is to ghost this issue in much the same fashion as McKinnon j. in preparation for dismissal for technical reasons. 

8) I laid #13-58607 seeking to obtain 'interim compensation'; monies belonging to me apart from judicial outcomes as I should have been retained on contract until this matter had been resolved. Presumably, in any settlement, this amount (29 years of back salary) would be added to any other settlement monies on the main issue reached by the court.

9) The B.C. Courts would only recognize the Employer and Union in this 'sweetheart deal' to resolve this matter. Those two interests have abandoned this matter leaving me in limbo. The Employer would, it appears, recently seek to re-open this matter.

10) In 2010 'interim compensation's was sought in B.C. (CA038538). Unfortunately, this matter was derailed by B.C. Supreme Court Deputy Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie who dropped this case for reasons best known to herself pointing out that I could proceed only 'with the permission of a judge' due to an earlier 'vexatious' ruling which I submit that I had indeed requested in CA038538. That case was never heard even though I paid a spurious $10,000 surety for that purpose. Because there was no docket number, MacKenzie's duplicitous Order was, it is submitted, to sink into a 'black hole' so that the Judicial Register would only read...'Action dropped due to failure of the Applicant to proceed'. In short, she 'ghosted' this issue.

11) A second more draconian Order from B.C. Supreme Court Deputy Chief Justice, Alistair Cullen (July 2013) used Docket Number CA038538 to expel this target entirely from the B.C. Courts in this unresolved legal matter. No reference was made in his Order as to its connection - if any - to the earlier MacKenzie Order. That is, does it supplant the earlier Order or does it co-exist with that Order in some fashion or other? We do not know why he passed this Order despite McKinnon's attempt to attribute motivation to this Order. Even here, there is no excuse for depriving a litigant from access to the Justice System, particularly if a legal matter remains unresolved.

12) While I rejected the MacKenzie Order (death by a thousand legal cuts), I accepted the Cullen Order as the abandonment of this issue by the Judicial System so that now compensation could be applied. However, I could not go to a B.C. Court for the reason explained above hence I appealed to courts outside B.C. under the terms of inherent jurisdiction and natural justice.

13) The above was the rationale behind #13-58607 laid by me and to be heard on May 15-2014 until it was expeditiously cancelled by Justice McKinnon in a process I labeled 'cowboying' (second guessing what my argument was to be, due to his  'running a court within a court' in which he permitted the two cases, #13-59060 and #13-58607 to be run in tandem in yet another duplicitous action.

14) The above scenario happened when the Respondent Employer, rather than laying a defense; launched their own action #13-59060 heard on April 10-2014 as a means of de-railing the May 15-2014 hearing for #13-58607. They were successful under Justice McKinnon.

15) As stated in court, as the Respondent in #13-59060, I had no argument with the case set forth by the Applicant Employer if it had been filed as a defense for #13-58607. Running a case in tandem as happened here is a judicial 'no-no'.

16) The main motive for laying #13-59060 appeared to be for the Employer Applicant to discuss all issues; the first time in 29 years that this request had been made. McKinnon j. made no reference to this request in his judgment. If that argument had been made in 1995 when I had first gone to a B.C. court, the court would then have had the power to intervene rather than doing nothing as was the case thus beginning the 'limbo trail' for this writer.

17) Nor did McKinnon j. nor three other Ottawa courts make any attempt to discuss the validity of the MacKenzie or Cullen Creeds as I requested. Something must be seriously wrong on that level, for, it is submitted here, judges are now able to act outside the law with impunity due to these tacit judicial rulings in Ottawa. That precedent is without equal.

18)  Scott j. is also 'cowboying' his decision by making it contingent on Ontario Appeal Court actions which, it is submitted here, he would seek to influence against my interests. For example, the effect of his duplicitous Order if successful is to bury my charges of fraud, very significant matters for a court of law to exempt under any circumstances. Looking through the big end of the telescope in this illicit fashion, of which I have accused him, has brought about the charges against him to the Ontario Judicial Council.

19) And what if the Appeal Court plans to proceed with my appeal of #13-59060? What is Scott j.'s course of action in that event? All in all, this interim Order sets a dangerous precedent with its 'running judgment' not conducive to good legal practice.



20) Continue with the Appeal as though Scott j.'s Order is a final judgment. One copy (5 pages) of the Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal (#14-61592) is included here for the purpose of assigning a docket number.


Yours truly, (Roger Callow)


cc  Canadian Judicial Council (not responding for some time now);

Ontario Judicial Council; Upper Canada Law Society - includes letter Oct. 02-2014 from Theroulde to all three


SCofC Hon. A. Karakasanis

... Oh, what a tangled web we weave....