Daryl Dillon v Yara Trinidad Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Prowell-Raphael, J.
• Judgment Date: 19 September 2025
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: Suit No.: E.O.T. No. 0006 of 2020
• Court: Equal Opportunity Tribunal (Trinidad and Tobago)

Daryl Dillon

and

Yara Trinidad Limited

Prowell-Raphael, J.

Suit No.: E.O.T. No. 0006 of 2020

Equal Opportunity Tribunal

Appearances:

Appearances Complainant in person

Ms. Catherine Ramnarine for the Respondent.

RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF DECEASED WITNESS STATEMENT

THE SUBSTANTIVE COMPLAINT

Prowell-Raphael, J.

1 The substantive Complaint (the ‘Complaint’) was filed on 15 February 2021. The Complainant had been an employee of the Respondent for over 20 years, having started as a trainee in 1997 and moving up the ranks to the position of a Senior Plant Operator in 2009. The Complainant alleges that he experienced health issues in or about 2012, including fatigue and muscle pain, which led to a series of medical consultations and sick leaves.

2 Despite being certified fit to work by his personal doctor, Dr. Grant, the Respondent's plant doctor, Dr. Cipriani did not issue a fit to work certificate, leading to the Complainant's inability to return to his regular duties. The Complainant faced ongoing employment grievances culminating in his placement on light duties and eventual dismissal in 2018.

3 The Complainant alleges that the Respondent discriminated against him due to his disability, as defined under the Equal Opportunity Act, Chap 22:03 (‘EOA’) and victimised him for raising these issues.

4 The Respondent denies liability for alleged discrimination on the grounds of disability and alleged victimisation and seeks dismissal of the Complaint. The Respondent contends most allegations are time-barred, leaving only the allegation about the Complainant's termination potentially within time. Further the termination of the Complainant was not due to any disability as alleged or at all and was nondiscriminatory. Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed.

THE NOTICE OF APPLICATION

5 On 3 April 2023 Dr. Cipriani filed a Witness Statement dated 2 March 2023 (‘Dr. Cipriani's Witness Statement’) but died on 31 December 2024. Before the Tribunal is the Respondent's Notice of Application (‘the Notice of Application’) filed on the 28 April 2025 in which it seeks the following orders pursuant to Rule 46(c) [46. In addition to the powers conferred on it under the foregoing provisions of this Part, the Tribunal may—(a) … l; (c) generally give all such directions and do all such things as are necessary or expedient for the expedient and just hearing and determination of the complaint or any other matter before it] of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal Rules (‘EOTR’) Parts 26.1(1)(d) and (w) [Court's general powers of management 26.1 (1) The court (including where appropriate the court of Appeal) may—(a)… (d) extend or shorten the time for compliance with any rule, practice direction or order or direction of the court; … (w) take any other step, give any other direction or make any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective], 29.2(2) [29.2 (1) The general rule is that any fact which needs to be proved at trial by the evidence of witnesses is to be proved by their oral evidence given in public. (2) This is subject—(a) to any provision to the contrary contained in these Rules or elsewhere; (b) to any order of the court] and 30.2 (2) [30.2 (1) Any party who wishes to give hearsay evidence which is admissible only by virtue of section 37, 39 or 40 of the Act must serve on every other party a hearsay notice. (2) A hearsay notice must be served not later than the time by which witness statements are to be served or, if there are no such statements, not less than 42 days before the hearing at which the party wishes such evidence to be given unless the court gives permission] of the Civil Proceedings Rules, 1998 '(the ‘CPR’) [Notice of Application filed on 28 April 2025]:

• 1. That the time for filing a Hearsay Notice in respect of the Witness Statement of Dr. Reginald Cipriani dated 2nd March 2023 together with certain attachments thereto be extended to 28th April 2025;

• 2. That the Tribunal admit the evidence contained in the Witness Statement of Dr. Reginald Cipriani dated 2nd March 2023 and the attachments thereto into evidence notwithstanding that (by virtue of his death) he is unable to attend and give oral evidence at the Trial of this Complaint; and

• 3. That there be no orders as to costs

6 The Notice of Application filed on 28 April 2025 was supported by an Affidavit of Daniel Nancoo filed on the same day. A hearsay notice (‘the Hearsay Notice’) was also filed on the 28 April 2025. The Complainant attested to an affidavit in response filed on the 13 May 2025. Attorneys for each party have submitted written skeletal submissions in support of their respective positions.

ISSUES

7 The Issues for determination on the Notice of Application are:

• a) Should the Tribunal admit the evidence contained in Dr. Cipriani's Witness Statement and the said attachments thereto into evidence?

• b) If admitted, what weight (if any) should be attached to Dr. Cipriani's Witness Statement as a whole or to parts of it?

• c) What, if any, procedural safeguards or case management directions are necessary to mitigate prejudice?

ANALYSIS

8 The Tribunal has carefully considered the Notice of Application, relevant laws and procedural rules under the CPR as well as the EOTR, the authorities referred to by the parties and their respective submissions. The Tribunal is grateful for the breadth of the authorities put forward by the parties.

9 The Respondent submits that when Dr. Cipriani's Witness Statement was filed on 3 April 2023, both he and the Respondent expected he would testify in person, so no hearsay notice was filed then. Dr. Cipriani passed away on 31 December 2024, but the Respondent's attorneys only learnt of this around 23 April 2025 and filed the Notice of Application on 28 April...