THE High Court judge hearing Equal Opportunity Tribunal (EOT) lay assessor Veera Bhajan’s challenge over her not being able to take up her position will also hear an application complaining of her failure to provide critical information to the court when the matter goes to trial next month.
Bhajan was granted the court’s permission to challenge a decision by the EOT and its chairman, Donna Prowell-Raphael, not to comply with an appointment of President Paula-Mae Weekes and let her take up her position.
The matter is being heard by Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams and will go to trial on November 12.
However, the tribunal and its chairman filed an application asking the judge to set aside the leave she granted on the basis that Bhajan in her ex-parte application left out critical information.
The setting-aside application also alleged that the judicial review claim was premature since the tribunal remains inoperable because of the covid19 pandemic and other infrastructural problems.
Bhajan is represented by a team of attorneys led by Alvin Fitzpatrick, SC, and includes Rajiv Persad, Michael Rooplal, Shari Fitzpatrick, Rajiv Chaitoo, Clay Hackett, and Gabriel Hernandez.
Representing the EOT and its chairman is Senior Counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and attorneys Kiel Taklalsingh, Leon Kalicharan, and Karina Singh.
The Attorney General is represented by Rishi Dass, Svetlana Dass, and Karissa Singh.
At a hearing on Tuesday, Fitzpatrick and Dass resisted the setting-aside application being heard separately and asked that it be heard at the trial to save on time and expense.
Fitzpatrick said separating the two would likely result in a delay while Dass reminded the court that her case management directions for the filing of affidavits had not been appealed so the trajectory to trial was not altered.
[caption id="attachment_918745" align="alignnone" width="948"] Veera Bhajan -[/caption]
In his submissions, Maharaj maintained it was not an application to delay the trial, insisting leave should be set aside since Bhajan failed to disclose material facts to the court when she sought permission to take her lawsuit further.
“The non-disclosure is serious non-disclosure.” He said it would not be proper to treat the setting-aside application as a rolled-up hearing with the review claim. He said if he was successful then there would be no claim to go forward and the applicant was free to file a new application
“I cannot see conceptually how the claim could continue if leave is set aside. I cannot see how you can hear an application to set aside and the merits of the claim at the same time. It would be unjust and inconsistent.”
After hearing all three sides, Quinlan-Williams said she was satisfied that the best use of the court’s resources would be to hear the application and the review claim at the same time.
In its setting-aside application, the EOT and its chairman have complained that Bhajan omitted to provide the court with pertinent information relating to her appointment and by failing to do so
