A credit union member has lost his challenge of a decision ratified by the Commissioner of Co-operative Development on the term limit for board members of the Rhand Credit Union.
Justice Frank Seepersad dismissed his application for judicial review on October 16.
David Maynard sought to challenge the commissioner’s decision to ratify a vote by the credit union’s membership to amend its bylaws on term limits for board directors in August 2018.
Maynard contended the vote could not be allowed as the meeting was not properly constituted, because there was not a full quorum of members, so there was a procedural irregularity.
At the meeting on August 23, 2018, when the matter was put to vote, 97 out of the 100 members in attendance voted in favour of term limits. But Maynard contends a proper quorum is 200 members.
His application said on February 28, 2024, the commissioner responded to an e-mail he sent in 2023 to say the process engaged was acceptable.
However, in his ruling, Seepersad said Maynard raised his complaint five years after the vote was taken and the amendment accepted by the commissioner.
“For nearly six years after the intended respondent’s decision, the members of the credit union operated on the basis that the amended bylaw is legal and in effect.
“Given the substantial time which has elapsed, this court holds the view that real and substantial and prejudice would now accrue if the amendment which was effected on August 23, 2018, and the intended respondent’s acceptance of same, is now challenged and possibly reversed.
“Such a stance would not accord with good administration and the credit union would be severely prejudiced if the court grants leave to the applicant to judicially review the intended respondent’s decision concerning the amendment.”
Seepersad also said the elapsed time was significant and could not be condoned.
“No proper explanation has been advanced to explain the delay of over five years to challenge the intended respondent’s decision which was effected in November 2018.
“The court also holds the firm view that if it were to grant leave, the Rhand Credit Union would be subjected to extreme and intolerable prejudice.”
Seepersad also said it was plausible that the term-limit provisions may have already been invoked and that the altered boards have effected numerous important decisions.
“It is also not lost upon the court that the amendment may very well be one which aids in good administration as term limits can promote accountability.
“Term limits may thwart entrenched incumbency, and this fosters the emergence of new talent and fresh ideas. In addition, limitations on the duration of service can curtail complacency, corrupt practices and the abuse of power.”
The judge also dismissed the constitutional relief Maynard sought, saying it could not be sustained.
“Aggrieved persons must seek to vindicate aggrieved rights with alacrity and the applicant failed to do so…The invocation of the court’s constitutional jurisdiction is inappropriate and amounts to
