CANADA'S CORRUPTOCRACY - APRIL 01-2016
JUDICIAL LIES PILED ON TOP OF JUDICIAL LIES = CASE LAW for the Employee's Case(Canada)
BY: Roger Callow ‘The Outlawed Canadian’ in an 'Outlaw Justice System' www.employescasecanada.ca (30 year unresolved 'standing case' legal matter in 'illicit' West Vancouver, B.C. teacher lay-off in 1985) now known judicially as ‘the cluster-fuck case’ which has been through 10 different court systems and over 40 judges. No compensation (includes pension rights) has been paid. Currently there are two SCofC hearings slated (QC & SK) with a hearing pending in P.E.I. as the Justice System gets ubered (external threat from an unexpected source) through the interlocked legal proceedings from different courts across Canada. Pulitzer Prize seeking writer is sought in this one-of-a-kind story of the century. This edition is focused on TEACHER LAY-OFF (see Web for full account under this label)
A) PLACARD: A LIE: (1)BY THE COMPANY IS A MATTER OF POLICY (2) BY THE EMPLOYEE IS GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL
B) The body parts were having a discussion as to who was boss. Obviously, I am claimed the bureaucratic finger for without opposable thumb- fingers, man could not be distinguished from the animals. The legal lung department then spoke up pointing how if it were not for their power to suck all the air out of the atmosphere, an ice age would be created. The political brain pointed out without an order from their department, nothing could transpire. And so it went, each part of the body arguing large and long, as to their claim for leadership. Then the asshole Justice System spoke up...or at least tried to among the howls of laughter among the other body parts. So the asshole closed down leaving the brain to fog over, the lungs to collapse and the fingers to go limp. All of which it goes to prove, you do not need to be a political brain to be a boss, just an asshole Justice System.
C)'The trial was a spectacle, a farce, a ridiculous way to search for the truth. But as I learned, the truth was not important. Perhaps in another era, a trial was an exercise in the presentation of facts, the search for truth, and the finding of justice. Now a trial is a contest in which one side will win and the other side will lose. Each side expects the other to bend the rules or to cheat, so neither plays fair. The truth is lost in the melee. The Racketeer John Grisham
TEACHER LAY-OFF (and no April's Fool Day joke)
1) In 1985, when B.C.'s imposed BILL 35 was passed, ostensibly to deal with the problem of 'declining enrolment'; as a senior teacher with advanced qualifications, I became the test person for this government legislation which sought to run an end-game around the Union.
Declining enrolment was not an issue for teachers in 1985. It is today in 2016. (Real crime?...whistleblowing)
2)The end-game, as the West Vancouver, B.C. School Board asserted, was that BILL 35 had its own conditions apart from the collective bargaining procedures, hence the Unions were not to be involved leaving this victim with very heavy legal costs should I have contested the lay-off on my own. The Unions could ill-afford to be made redundant under these circumstances so they declared this BILL to be 'the battle of all teachers' knowing full well that they would involve themselves in a 'sweetheart deal' with the Employer (most dismissals are of this nature). As a consequence, the Union financed the arbitration and after some thought, the succeeding court challenge. (as a side note, CBC lay-off of Jian Ghomeshi did not include a reason hence circumnavigating the Union although the Union, as in my case, chose to finance him on the lay-off level - it is a question of Union survival.)
3) If one client is successful in challenging a lay-off, then a bumping process is invoked whereby a second teacher is to be laid off and so on until the proper teacher is selected. That is a no-win situation for the Union which has to bear these heavy legal costs with no remuneration. Hence their mounted defense is weak and is little more than show; a sure sign to the predatory justice system to 'do the necessary'.
4) For the Union, it matters little which teacher is laid off (unless it is a Union leader) as one lay-off is expected anyway. Hence an individual client such as myself is at a tremendous disadvantage being solely represented by the Union. That's why the government-appointed arbitrator felt free to convert 16 new hires to read 16 lay-offs with myself as the 17th knowing full well that I was the only lay-off in West Vancouver (indeed, the entire province) in June of 1985. He did not expect an Appeal.
5) I changed from the Union lawyer to one of my own and appealed in which Southin j. quashed the arbitration labeling, as she did, the arbitrator to be 'patently unreasonable'
6) Hence began my 30 year sojourn in limbo looking for a judicial decision in which compensation (now includes pension rights) could be collected. No compensation has been paid to date which flies in the face of contract obligations (the essence of the judicial system) due to the chicanery of 10 separate court systems and 40 judges which is currently ongoing.
7) In 1995, as the Employer was not doing anything to re-arbitrate as so ordered by Southin j. after she recommended employment be returned, I returned before Spencer j. against the Employer requesting that the 'should 'return employment be converted to 'must' return said employment with all terms of the contract to apply.
8) Spencer j.'s choice was clear; either return employment due to the Employer's abandonment of this case or order a re-arbitration. He did neither. He created the bogy that this was a Union matter in which the Union controlled all aspects of a client's legal welfare.(Union not present at this Vancouver hearing). Succeeding B.C. justices bought into that argument (while the Employer sat quietly by claiming that only BILL 35 conditions applied).
9) The question of jurisdiction reached the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 (Chief Justice Lamers (d) / Beverley MacLachlin-incumbent Chief Justice / Cory) under the all-important question of the 'Jurisdiction of Unions' which is of importance to all Canadian employees. They refused to hear this challenge. No client will hold Union membership under these conditions which explains why the Union movement is moribund.
10) A second challenge in 2004 (MacLachlin was the Chief Justice as is the case currently with two SCofC challenges from QC and SK and possibly a third on the way from P.E.I.) under the terms of 'ultimate remedy' which was also rejected for a hearing, dropped Canada to Third World status as the essence of the Justice System is its finality. In contract language, that means money must change hands.
11) In 2005, largely due to the B.C. teachers at large being perceived as 'wimps' due, I submit, to their continued failure to support this teacher, were dunned with a $500,000 fine by a far right wing judge for their wildcat strike (weapon of strike had been removed from B.C. teachers.) B.C. Teachers, as one consequence, are continually under attack.
12) Employers are continually trying to sneak in the 'ability to pay' (condition of BILL 35) which was the focus point in an ON teacher lay-off case recently regarding how, in one instance, a number of teachers, in being laid off for reasons of declining enrolment, were assigned half their compensation by an arbitrator due to the Employer's 'ability (or inability) to pay'. On appeal in court, those teachers won full compensation.
13) BILL 35 included that 'ability to pay' clause of which the arbitrator accepted the Employer's claim of being short $500,000 for the year (later figures showed a surplus in the same amount) The court threw that claim out as figures (as shown above) could be too easily fudged which had been the judicial stance to date under statute law.
14) While years of experience and teacher accreditation are factors (and not in question in my case); the real sidewinder is the inclusion in BILL 35 of such as the term; 'current demonstrated ability' (cda) , a term undefined in BILL 35 nor in law in general. That constitutional challenge is part of the SK Appeal in the SCofC. The point here, is that the Union - now seeing that BILL 35 was withdrawn in the 1990's (before this sole laid case was resolved) felt it unnecessary to make a constitutional challenge as B.C. courts would only recognize the Union on my behalf. A similar stunt was pulled in Ontario in 2013 with the imposed BILL 115 against teachers there which was later withdrawn after its purpose was fulfilled. This type of judicial action is known derogatively as 'banana republic justice'. Further, these terms such as cda are indicators by the governments to the courts that these Acts are being used for a political purpose and therefore 'anything goes'.
15) And then a funny - or not so funny - thing happened on the way to the forum; Associate Deputy Justice of B.C. Supreme Appeal Court, Alistair Cullen drummed me out of the B.C. Justice System in 2013 telling the Respondent Union and Employer that they were no longer required to respond to my legal challenges against them in this unresolved legal case. He acted for reasons 'best known to himself' not expecting me to seek out other forums in the Federal Court, Supreme Court of Canada, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, P.E.I. courts in an ubering process which has destroyed the very essence of what a Justice System in a democracy is all about. The individual, as one consequence has been expunged from Canadian society for without an efficacious justice system, there is no democracy. That is now Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's legacy, no matter which course he chooses to take or not take as the case may be. To date, he has done nothing.
16) Regarding lay-offs by School Boards for financial reasons, it makes financial sense to lay-off senior teachers whom receive twice the salary as beginners. This incremental system was set up in the 1950's when teachers were poorly paid and hence there was difficulty retaining them. The deal worked out to retain teachers was that beginning teachers would receive a lower than normal salary which would be topped up should they gain seniority. This explains why part of the teacher bargaining process today by the Union is to shrink increment levels as a means of protecting senior teachers from lay-off.
17) Individual teachers faced with lay-off should study this case. While there may be interest from other teachers when you get your pink slip in June, that interest rapidly evaporates over the summer months and is all but ignored in September when teachers begin a new year.
18) Look at how the media is reeling under lay-offs. For example, in the Ottawa Sun and Ottawa Citizen now jointly managed by a 34 year old editor, there have been wholesale lay-offs of senior staffs as the print media continues to bleed red ink. For every $7 dollars of expenditures, there is $1 of revenue due mainly to technological changes. A whole profession is being wiped out although advertisements for replacement are seen in the media (non-salary internships). Considering government debt, particularly in Ontario, and one has little difficulty prognosticating the future for senior teachers.
19) So while declining enrolment was not an issue in 1985, it is an issue today. While I have every sympathy with laid-off teachers; please do not send me your legal factums or otherwise as they will be returned to you unopened. You may send me up to a one-page synopsis of your concern but do not expect an answer.
20) In conclusion, the significance of the Employee's Case is as a negative harbinger for any laid-off individual in Canada for he or she cannot trust to the politicians, the anti-employee media, the union, and the most important of all - the Justice System. Hence my moniker...
'The Outlawed Canadian in an outlaw Justice System
POST IN STAFFROOM