Two appeals from the Equal Opportunity Tribunal (EOT) and its chairman Donna Prowell-Raphael, over High Court Judge Avason Quinlan-Williams’ handling of a lawsuit brought by EOT lay assessor Veera Bhajan over being allegedly blocked from taking up her appointment, are expected to be consolidated.
One of the appeals, alleging that Quinlan-Williams was apparently biased when she maintained her decision to determine whether Bhajan should be allowed to pursue the judicial review case and the substantive legal issues raised by her, simultaneously, came up for hearing before Appellate Judges Mira Dean-Armourer and James Aboud on Monday afternoon.
During the virtual hearing, attorney Kiel Taklalsingh, who represented the tribunal and Prowell-Raphael, requested an adjournment to allow a separate application for the procedural appeal, which was brought before the trial of the case, and the substantive appeal over Quinlan-Williams’ final judgment in the case to be joined and heard expeditiously.
After listening to brief submissions from Bhajan’s attorney Alvin Fitzpatrick, SC, and attorney Rishi Dass for the Office of the Attorney General, the panel agreed to adjourn the appeal.
Based on the decision, Fitzpatrick said his client would consider consenting to the consolidation and urgent hearing.
In the substantive appeal, brought by Prowell-Raphael alone, her attorneys raised five grounds while they felt that Quinlan-Williams’ decision was wrong.
In the court filings, obtained by Guardian Media, they said: “The learned judge erred in law and/or demonstrated apparent bias against the appellant in making comments that were excessive and exceeded the reasonable bounds of judicial criticism which would lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that the learned judge was actuated by bias and/or demonstrated apparent bias in arriving at her orders and decisions.”
They claimed that Quinlan-Williams sought to impugn Prowell-Raphael’s character and professional standing by making negative comments, which were not supported by the evidence before her.
They also complained that Quinlan-Williams failed to present a legal and factual analysis of the case before she upheld it in favour of Bhajan.
As a secondary issue, her legal team is contending that Quinlan-Williams did not have the jurisdiction to order both Prowell-Raphael and the tribunal to pay compensation as such was not properly pleaded by Bhajan’s lawyers in the lawsuit.
In her judgment on November 23, Quinlan-Williams ruled that the tribunal and Prowell-Raphael acted illegally and beyond their statutory remit in taking the action.
In addition to issuing declarations against the tribunal and Prowell-Raphael, Quinlan-Williams ordered that Bhajan be paid her salary and benefits which were withheld since March, plus interest. She also ordered that Bhajan’s appointment, which took effect on March 17, be immediately facilitated.
The tribunal and Prowell-Raphael were ordered to pay $100,000 in damages for the distress and embarrassment they caused her.
Justice Quinlan-Williams also ordered $250,000 in vindicatory damages to highlight the court’s strong feelings over what transpired in the case.
“There ought to be a sense of public outrage over what occurred,” Quinlan-Williams said, as she described the attempts to block the appointment as disturbing and off-putting.
Quinlan-Williams noted that based on the evidence before her Prowell-Raphael never spoke directly with Bhajan after she was appointed by President Paula-Mae Weekes on March 17.
She also questioned whether Prowell-Raphael would reconsider her continued role on the tribunal based on the outcome of the case.
“I wonder if at the end of this saga after all is said and done and when there is an opportunity to reflect on decisions made and actions taken, whether the second defendant would, in a quiet time, reflect on whether she is the best fit for chair of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal,” Quinlan-Williams said.
Quinlan-Williams noted that the challenges persisted even after the Office of the President and the Office of the Attorney General stood by the legality of the appointment and supported Bhajan’s legal challenge.
In her judgment, Quinlan-Williams noted that over the past few months, the tribunal and Prowell-Raphael gave varying reasons on why she should not be allowed to assume her duties including the tribunal’s limited financial resources, its inability to accommodate a member with a disability and allegations that Bhajan may be perceived to be biased based on her disability.
Quinlan-Williams soundly rejected its claims that Bhajan, who was born without arms and received the Hummingbird Medal (Silver) in 2011, did not have 10 years combined experience in law and social work as required for the appointment of a lay-assessor.
“As to her qualifications to hold the post of lay-assessor, her life has been the best testament to social welfare. She has lived it. Her experiences are from the time of her birth,” Quinlan-Williams said.
As no stay of the judgement was sought by the EOT and Prowell-Raphael, Guardian Media understands that Bhajan was allowed to take up the position late last month.
Bhajan is also being represented by Rajiv Persad, Michael Rooplal, Rajiv Chaitoo, Shari Fitzpatrick, and Gabriel Hernandez. The EOT and its chairman are also being represented by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, Leon Kalicharan, and Karina Singh. Tenille Ramkissoon, Svetlana Dass, and Karissa Singh represented the AG’s Office.
