Daryl Dillon v Yara Trinidad Ltd

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

Daryl Dillon

and

Yara Trinidad Limited

Prowell-Raphael, J.

Suit No: 0006 of 2020

High Court

Complainant in person

Ms. Catherine Ramnarine for the Respondent.

THE SUBSTANTIVE COMPLAINT

Prowell-Raphael, J.

1 The substantive Complaint (the ‘Complaint’) was filed on 15th 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 non-discriminatory. Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed.

THE NOTICE OF APPLICATION

5 On 3rd April 2023 Dr Cipriani filed a Witness Statement dated 2nd March 2023 (‘Dr Cipriani's Witness Statement’) but died on 31st December 2024. Before the Tribunal is the Respondent's Notice of Application (‘the Notice of Application’) filed on the 28th April 2025 in which it seeks the following orders pursuant to Rule 46(c) of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal Rules (‘EOTR’) Parts 26.1(1)(d) and (w), 29.2(2) and 30.2 (2)5 of the Civil Proceedings Rules, 1998 '(the ‘CPR’) [Notice of Application filed on 28th 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 28th 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 28th April 2025. The Complainant attested to an affidavit in response filed on the 13th 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 3rd 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 31st December 2024, but the Respondent's attorneys only learnt of this around 23rd April 2025 and filed the Notice of Application on 28th April 2025. The Complainant argues the Respondent knew of the death as early as 1st January 2025 and should have acted sooner.

10 The Complainant's contention that the Respondent should have acted earlier has some merit, especially since the Respondent did not explain the reason for the almost four-month interval in bringing notice of the death to the attention of their attorneys. On the affidavits as they stand, however the attorneys acted promptly once aware. The interval is not inordinately long and the fundamental issue of Dr Cipriani's unavailability due to death is not...