Equal Opportunity Tribunal,Veera Bhajan back in court for appeal

AN appeal of a High Court judge’s decision not to set aside leave granted to Equal Opportunity Tribunal (EOT) lay assessor Veera Bhajan and her favourable ruling are likely to be heard together.

On Monday, two Court of Appeal judges agreed to adjourn the procedural appeal of the EOT and its chairman against the order of Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams to hold a rolled-up hearing, as there were two other applications in the Court of Appeal.

In October, the EoT and its chairman, Donna Prowell-Raphael, sought to have Quinlan-Williams hear their application to have the leave granted to Bhajan set aside.

The judge ruled against this move, instead choosing to hold a rolled-up hearing in which she dealt with that application and Bhajan’s lawsuit over her taking up her position with the tribunal.

The tribunal and Prowell-Raphael appealed, but in November, working with a strict timeline, Quinlan-Williams held the trial and gave her decision in Bhajan’s favour.

Prowell-Raphael has appealed the final decision as well as filing an application to have the two appeals consolidated and heard at an expedited hearing.

The application to have the appeals consolidated is fixed for hearing on December 20, before the Chamber Court.

In a ruling on Monday, Justices of Appeal Mira Dean-Armorer and James Aboud agreed to adjourn the procedural appeal assigned to them pending the hearing of the application in the Chamber court.

“It is our view the determination of the procedural appeal will have an effect on both the application for consolidation and substantive appeal,” Dean-Armorer said in an oral decision.

She went on to add that if they chose to hear the procedural appeal and make a determination, this would lead to a conflict between their ruling and the final ruling in the substantive appeal, leading to uncertainty.

Bhajan’s attorneys and those for the Attorney General objected to an adjournment of the procedural appeal, saying it was an abuse of the court’s processes.

The procedural appeal was eventually adjourned to February 21, for a status update.

Last Monday, attorneys for Prowell-Raphael filed her appeal against Quinlan-Williams’ decision on November 23.

The EoT has said it will not appeal the decision.

In her appeal, the tribunal’s chairman complained of the entire decision of the judge, who ordered that Bhajan should receive compensation for the failure by the EoT and the chairman to comply with her presidential appointment, made on March 17.

The judge also ruled the action of the tribunal and its chairman was unlawful and taken in bad faith. She also ordered the two to comply with the appointment and granted an injunction restraining any attempt to prevent Bhajan from taking up her post as lay assessor.

Prowell-Raphael wants an order setting aside the judge’s decision and one to dismiss Bhajan’s original judicial review claim. Alternatively, she wants the matter to be reassigned to a new judge.

In her appeal, she alleges the judge erred in law, acted without jurisdiction, and demonstrated apparent bias in her conduct of the proceedings and in her decision.

She also complained about the judge’s comments, which the appeal said exceeded the reasonable bounds of judicial criticism. The appeal referred to the statements the judge made in the reading of her decision, particularly those aimed at Prowell-Raphael.

“The learned judge erred in law and/or acted with and demonstrated apparent bias by delivering an oral ruling and/or making comments and/or findings in relation to the appellant’s character, professional standing, and conduct that were unjustified, unsupported by evidence, not relevant to the issues arising in the proceedings, and an inappropriate exercise of judicial authority,” her appeal says.

It further argued there was no basis in law to award damages and the judge failed to consider the evidence of the tribunal and the chairman that Bhajan’s appointment could not be facilitated because the tribunal was closed owing to logistical, infrastructural and financial constraints.

This evidence, the appeal, said was inconsistent with the judge’s findings of “bad faith, hatred, viciousness, and...the appellant being unfit for the office of chairman of the EOT.”

The appeal also faulted the judge for not considering that the chairman’s concerns relating to Bhajan’s appointment did not constitute a decision not to give effect to the appointment, but arose as part of her consultative duty.

Bhajan is represented by Senior Counsel Alvin Fitzpatrick, Rajiv Persad, Michael Rooplal, Rajiv Chaitoo, Shari Fitzpatrick, and Gabrielle Hernandez.

Representing the EOT and its chairman are Senior Counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, Kiel Taklalsingh, Leon Kalicharan and Karina Singh.

The Attorney General is represented by Rishi Dass.