SUPREME COURT OF CANADA VII – BEYOND ALL REASON
(or how Canada became ‘a failed state’)
A) “Res ipsa loquitur’ is Latin. It means ‘the thing speaks for itself’… In malpractice lawsuits, prosecuting attorneys who successfully argue res… are guaranteed a significant payday. You see, our court of law is based upon the premise that we’re innocent until proven guilty. Res… turns that premise on its head. It says, because something happened and normally that something shouldn’t have happened, you, the accused, are guilty of causing it to happen. Therefore you are guilty of malpractice…That’s the given, just like the attorney can argue that the patient entered the operating room for a toe operation and left with one leg missing….” A Heartbeat Away Michael Palmer
B) As the senior West Vancouver teacher concerned, I was ‘laid off’ for reasons of declining enrolment (there wasn’t any)in June of 1985 by a Superintendent’s letter which did not have the School Board authorization which he claimed. The court quashing the rigged arbitration said as much. Over 20 judges including the SCofC on a number of occasions have never had a hearing to reveal that falsehood. No teachers were laid off that year but a myopic media bought into the propaganda that ‘why lay off a junior teacher when a less satisfactory senior teacher was available for the purpose?’ (SEE web: REDNECK MEDIA) It is this systematic judicial cover-up which has reduced Canada to ‘failed state’ status.
INDEX FOR RESUBMISSION SCofC VII – FEBRUARY 05-2013
In order to seek a judicial finalization of this 28 year unresolved labour matter in which no compensation has been paid in defiance of the collective bargaining rules, this plaintiff is revising ‘ACTION REQUIRED’ as a means of putting a judicial end to what has to be the most tortuous civil action in Canadian Jurisprudence.
1) ‘Mail tag’ with the SCofC’s Administration whom have denied the last four resubmissions requiring a judicial interpretation from the three judges appointed to review such applications.
APPENDIX I 7 pages
2) A copy of the British Columbia Court of Appeal Decision November 26-2012; entered January 16-20143 approving the payment of a surety. APPENDIX II 1 page
3) The Justice Anne MacKenzie Order (‘Mackenzie Creed’) APPENDIX III 1 page (also p.34)
4) B.C. Supreme Court No. A950147 Justice Spencer Decision June 2-1995 APPENDIX IV 1 page
5) Original Book from SCofC III
6) Appeal No. DC-12-1872 Ontario Superior Court currently under way. This booklet is for information only
7) Information regarding re-submissions V and VI
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT
NB 5) which restricts this appeal to the Employer
1) In decades to come, a historian in reviewing this 28 year unresolved labour matter before over 30 judges, must wonder why a ‘school-yard’ battle which should have taken 15 minutes to resolve, has taken Canada’s judiciary 28 years and still has not accomplished anything, much to the detriment of the legal system for 34 million Canadians.
2) It is not the intention of this memorandum to go into the details of those actions as they are included elsewhere in this submission.
3) Included in APPENDIX I is material showing how much of the delay is due to judicial administrative obfuscations. The enclosed refers specifically to SCoC machinations.
4) The specific appeal referred to in this current matter is found in APPENDIX II. As this plaintiff did not have access to the B.C. Courts due to the ‘MacKenzie Creed’ , he was unable to be heard on the submission of that Surety Claim.
5) While noting that B.C. Justice Lowry granted both the Employer and Union their claims, this action is directed solely against the Employer.
6) As CA038538 was never heard due to court administration actions outlined elsewhere, what claim – it needs be asked – did the Employer have in requesting funds from this surety that was earlier paid by this plaintiff to ensure the holding of such a hearing but was never heard due to court machinations?
7) The court, under 5 minutes, decided that if the hearing was indeed held, presumably it would favour the Employer justifying the pay-out. That is duplicitous.
8) Underlying all these events since October 2010 is the ‘MacKenzie Creed` which denies this plaintiff access to B.C. courts for reasons best known to the judge. APPENDIX III
9) Included also in this account is an exerpt from the original hearing in 1995 before B.C. Justice Spencer. Contradictorily, one and at the same time, he warned that `…(he) was not to be made the victim of abuse of authority…’ while he did just that.
10) In short, if Justice Spencer did not see fit to change the `should` return employment to this plaintiff to `must` return employment as recommended earlier by the courts, then he should have returned the matter to further arbitration, again, as so ordered earlier by the court.
11) The above request from the plaintiff was due to the fact that the Employer did not display any intention of returning to arbitration. Why should they when no judge was prepared to order this plaintiff back on salary? This plaintiff should never have been curtailed from salary in the first place until a resolution was found. Justice Spencer did not order salary resumption nor did the earlier court giving rise to this plaintiff`s accusation of conspiracy.
12) In brief, what the Employer could not achieve through the front door with a quashed arbitration in which the arbitrator had been ruled `patently unreasonable`, they were able to obtain through the back door with the cupidity of the courts starting with Justice Spencer and continuing through to the present day.
1) To quash the `MacKenzie Creed` as being ‘ultra vires`. As long as this Creed is in place, any remuneration ordered against the Employer need not be paid as this plaintiff has no access to the courts to enforce such an Order. The Employer has already ignored one court order; namely, that of returning to arbitration.
2) To act on the request originally made in 1995; that, due to the failure of the Employer to return to court as so ordered, that employment be returned to the plaintiff with all terms of the contract to apply:
a) Full salary dating from November 04-1985 appropriately compounded. Full salary is requested due to the fact that the plaintiff has been denied social advantages of the contract over the past 28 years.
b) an Order that this remuneration be made within 90 days as an actuarian would be required to tally sums owed.
3) The defendant Employer may have good reason for the delay but surely those reasons are subject to further litigation elsewhere and, as such, their explanations do not merit attention here as it is the mere fact of failing to obey a court order which this court should concern itself.
(signed)________________________________ February 05-2013
Roger Callow date
SCofC Hon. C. Wagner on behalf of all SCofC judges
Christie Blatchford on behalf of all Canadian media