SVGAT Adds a Uniquely Caribbean Focus to 2006 Independence Celebrations by Fred Prescod Co-Chair, SVGAT Education Committee The Council Chamber at the York Civic Centre in Toronto came alive on the afternoon of Sunday, November 5, 2006 when the Education Committee of the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Association of Toronto (SVGAT) hosted an educational forum on the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). The unique event was part of the celebrations to mark the 27 th anniversary of independence of St. Vincent & the Grenadines. The event was attended by about one hundred people from the Greater Toronto area and beyond. The attendees were representative of a wide range of Caribbean Territories and included a number of legal practitioners. Various Consular, Association and organization personnel were also in attendance. Featured on the program was the Honourable Mr. Justice Adrian Saunders, a member of the Caribbean Court of Justice. He was joined on the panel by the Honourable Mr. Justice Gregory Regis of the Ontario Court of Justice. Mr. Alwyn Child, an attorney and member of the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Association of Ottawa, performed the duties of moderator. Prior to the opening of the main session, attendees were given a chance to mingle in the lobby. This activity brought together many friends and colleagues who obviously had not seen one another for a long time. The formal session was opened by Fred Prescod, Co-Chair of the SVGAT Education Committee. In his opening remarks Fred paid special tribute to Gideon Exeter and Elma Gabriel, two stalwarts of the SVGAT who provided invaluable assistance in putting together the event. In his enlightening and stimulating feature presentation Justice Saunders brought to life a seemingly mundane topic the Caribbean Court of Justice. He began by outlining the jurisdiction of the Court, and he explained the makeup of the Court s seven-member bench and how the judges are appointed. He pointed out that the CCJ is unique in being perhaps the only court in the Western World that is completely independent of political influence. The judges are appointed by the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC), which consists of the following persons: (a) The President (Chair of the Commission); (b) Two persons nominated jointly by the Organization of the Commonwealth Caribbean Bar Association (OCCBA) and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) Bar Association; (c) One chairman of the Judicial Services Commission of a Contracting Party; (d) The Chairman of a Public Service Commission of a Contracting Party; (e) Two persons from civil society nominated jointly by the Secretary-General of the Community and the Director General of the OECS;
(f) Two distinguished jurists nominated jointly by the Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of the West Indies, the Deans of the Faculties of Law of any of the Contracting Parties and the Chairman of the Council of Legal Education; and (g) Two persons nominated jointly by the Bar or Law Associations of the Contracting Parties. Justice Saunders also addressed matters relating to the CCJ s twelve signatory countries, the broadbased Caribbean representation on the bench, and the relevancy of this representation as it relates to their intimate knowledge and appreciation of Caribbean issues. He compared this to the earlier reliance on the British Privy Council whose judges would have had no such familiarity with, or understanding of Caribbean matters. In a more formal, but stirring presentation Justice Regis compared the birth of the CCJ to that of the Supreme Court of Canada (see the appended manuscript). His enthusiastic address was a most appropriate complement to Justice Saunders presentation and won the hearts of the audience as was evidenced by the applause at the conclusion. An open discussion and question period followed the two presentations. Questions and comments came from a large cross-section of the audience legal practitioners, concerned citizens, youths, and even a multi-lingual lay person. Moreover the session greatly enriched the overall proceedings through the very passionate and adroit manner in which both Justices tackled the questions. The moderator, Alwyn Child further enhanced the session by his skilful handling of the discussions. In the end it was obvious that even the few skeptics in the audience were finally convinced that we should all be supporting and promoting the CCJ in every way possible. The formal part of the afternoon concluded with closing remarks from Jason Jones, Past President of SVGAT. During his remarks Jason paused to allow 14-year-old Zakiya Hutchinson to present nicely wrapped tokens of appreciation to Justice Saunders and Justice Regis. The day s proceedings ended as everyone gathered in the lobby for light refreshments. During this time it was interesting to observe how all and sundry craved a few precious moments of the Justices time. This was obviously a testament to the way in which the forum stimulated the audience. In addition the personal popularity of Justice Saunders was very evident as he enjoyed the company of many friends from his early school days in St. Vincent.
The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ): The Caribbean Court of Justice was established in April 2005 to adjudicate disputes under the CARICOM Single Market and Economy and to replace the British Privy Council as the final Court of Appeal for CARICOM countries who choose to do so. It is headquartered in Trinidad and has a panel of six (6) justices along with the President. The member countries of the CARICOM are Antigua & Barbuda; Barbados; Belize; Dominica; Grenada; Guyana; Jamaica; Suriname; St. Kitts & Nevis; St. Lucia; St. Vincent and the Grenadines; Suriname and Trinidad & Tobago. For more information on the CCJ please visit www.caribbeancourtofjustice.org Profile of the Honourable Mr. Justice Adrian Saunders: The Honourable Mr. Justice Adrian Saunders graduated the University of the West Indies with a Bachelor of Laws degree and was called to the Bar in 1977. He entered private practice as a barrister and solicitor from 1977 until 1996 when he was appointed as a Judge of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC). At the time of his appointment, he was the Senior Partner in the firm of Saunders & Huggins in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. On 1st May, 2003, Mr. Justice Saunders was appointed Justice of Appeal of the ECSC and from June 2004 until March, 2005 he acted as Chief Justice of that Court. In April, 2005, Mr. Justice Saunders took up an appointment as a Judge of the Caribbean Court of Justice. Since being appointed a Judge of the ECSC, Mr. Justice Saunders has been deeply involved in judicial reform in the Eastern Caribbean. He has been a faculty member of the Halifax-based Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute since 1998, and as such has regularly participated in judicial education programmes for Judges from throughout the Commonwealth. Mr. Justice Saunders served as Chairman of the Judicial Education Institute of the ECSC from 2001 to 2004. From 2000 to 2004, he sat as Chairman of the Ethics Committee of the ECSC, presiding over the development of a code of ethics for Judges of the Eastern Caribbean. He was also Chairman of the Committee that established court connected mediation in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. Off the Bench, Mr. Justice Saunders was President of the National Youth Council of St. Vincent and the Grenadines in 1978. He represented his country at table tennis on a number of occasions and for many years he was a member of the Executive of the St. Vincent & the Grenadines Table Tennis Association. He also served as Chairman of the St. Vincent Save the Children and as President of the St. Vincent Guild of Graduates. In December 2004, with the concurrence of the affected parties, Mr. Justice Saunders was appointed by a Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Prime Ministerial Sub- Committee on Cricket to act as Judge-Advocate and deliver a binding ruling on a heated dispute between the West Indies Cricket Board and the West Indies Players' Association
Profile of the Honourable Mr. Justice Gregory Regis: The Honourable Mr. Justice Gregory Regis is the Local Administrative judge (LAJ) in Durham Region for the Ontario Court of Justice. He has been a judge since 1999, and presides in Criminal court, primarily in Oshawa. Before his appointment to the bench, Justice Regis served as an assistant crown attorney in that Region for eight years. His legal career includes a period as defense counsel, as well as four years as the head of the Jane Finch Community Legal Services, where he practiced in the areas of Immigration, Workers Compensation, and Landlord and Tenant law. He has also worked on a number of law reform projects. Justice Regis is an occasional lecturer at Osgoode Hall law school, and the Ontario Law Society's continuing education program for lawyers. He has also presented at the education programs of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers Association, Ontario Crown Attorney's Association, and the Ontario Conference of Judges. Before embarking on his career in the law, Justice Regis had a successful career as a journalist and teacher. He has a keen interest in literacy and access to the criminal justice system. Justice Regis was born in St. Lucia, West Indies and came to Canada in 1974. He has a Bachelor of Applied Arts (B.A.A.) degree from Ryerson University and a Bachelor of Laws degree (LL.B) from York University's Osgoode Hall Law School. He has served on the boards of several community organizations in Toronto and Ottawa. Among the positions he held are President of the St. Lucia Toronto Association and chairman of Caribana. Justice Regis maintains a keen interest in the development of the Caribbean. He is a strong advocate of Caribbean unity. Address by Justice Gregory Regis: The Birth of the Caribbean Court of Justice and the Supreme Court of Canada: A Comparison
Remarks by: The Honourable Mr. Justice Gregory Regis, Ontario Court of Justice on Sunday, November 5, 2006 Presented at a forum organized by the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Association at the York Civic Centre, 2700 Eglinton Avenue, West, Toronto, Ontario. I am delighted to be part of this very important event. I thank the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Association of Toronto for staging this forum, and for inviting me to participate. Many of us who live in Canada, almost instinctively look for parallels in this country, when there are developments in our homeland. For example, we compare the behaviour of West Indian politicians to that of Canadian politicians. We suggest that the Caribbean countries conduct business along the same lines as is done in Canada. It was no surprise that the Caribbean community in Canada would have a lot to say, when the Caribbean Court of Justice was first proposed. Now that the court has been established no surprise again the debate continues. I ve heard people suggest, that some of the problems, experienced in establishing the CCJ, are uniquely Caribbean. This would never happen in Canada, I was once told. Well, that s actually not true. A review of the history of the Supreme Court of Canada reveals many similarities to what is now going on in the Caribbean. In my presentation today, I will look at some of those similarities, including some of the arguments made against the establishment of the court, and the abolition of the Privy Council. And I will urge you to agree with me that, based on Canada s experience, we should be optimistic about the future of the Caribbean Court of Justice. Justice Saunders has reviewed some of the events leading to the establishment of the CCJ. He has told you of the arguments in support of the CCJ as a final court for the Caribbean, as well as some of the arguments that have been made against. Many of these are found in the Canadian experience. Canada was formed in 1867, by the uniting of the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. At that time, Canada s final Court of Appeal, like all British colonies, was the Privy Council, in London England. Although the Canadian Constitution contained provisions for the immediate establishment of the Supreme Court of Canada, that court was not established until 1875 eight years later. In the interim, the Government of Canada made two attempts to establish the court, but was unable to pass the necessary legislation through parliament. There was strong opposition to breaking the colonial links. Many politicians saw this as a risky venture.
In the period immediately before the court was finally established, there were great debates about what jurisdiction the court should have. While the Federal Government wanted to make the Supreme Court of Canada, the final court in all matters, the provinces did not want that court to adjudicate on provincial matters. They still wanted the option of going to the Privy Council. In an article on the history of the Supreme Court of Canada, Professor Michael Herman records Quebec s opposition at that time as follows: The fundamental objection, still the main source of Quebec s opposition to the Supreme Court of Canada, was that Quebec s law, like its culture, was distinctive and could be developed and nurtured only by those who understood its special character. Interestingly however, Quebec thought the law lords in England would be better able to protect its interests, than Canadian judges appointed to the new court. Quebec would later change its position. The early years of the Supreme Court of Canada were uncertain. Opponents remained vocal. The court was plagued with problems. It did not have permanent offices. At its first sitting in January 1876, there was not a single case to hear. There was open friction among some of the judges. It would be a year before the court began to hold regular sessions with a full agenda. There were charges of political patronage in the appointment of judges. According to Professor Herman, Ontario lawyers attacked the court s professionalism, claiming that the judges were of inferior quality, compared with the Privy Council and the Ontario Court of Appeal. There was strong opposition to the Privy Council being replaced by the Supreme Court of Canada. Even the Privy Council joined the debate. It argued that the bond between colony and motherland must be maintained. That argument received an appropriately strong rebuke, from Canada s then Justice Minister, Edward Blake. Mr. Blake argued that it was vital that judges have the influence of local knowledge, local habits and local experience not just legal training to formulate sound judgments. That debate continued for several years, and a number of attempts were made to abolish the Supreme Court of Canada. The proponents of maintaining the colonial links were persistent. While that debate continued, however, Canada was developing its political and economic institutions. Canada was growing as a nation and independent country. Canadian nationalism was on the rise, and Canadians began to see the Privy Council as an objectionable symbol of colonialism. Legal scholars objected to the way the Privy Council interpreted the Canadian Constitution. Quebec was unhappy with the way the unilingual judges in England were interpreting the Quebec Civil Code. A consensus was developing that the Privy Council had to go. Meantime, the Supreme Court of Canada was making its mark. People began to respect the decisions of the court, and accept it as a legitimate institution. Still it took 75 years for the Supreme Court of Canada to become Canada s final Court of Appeal. In 1933, appeals to the Privy Council were abolished in criminal cases, and in 1949, appeals in civil cases were abolished. Today, the Supreme Court of Canada is recognized as a leader in the world. There is general agreement that the court is a strong and permanent institution in Canada. Former Chief Justice Bora Laskin has described it as a potent element in Canadian self-government.
In relation to the Caribbean Court of Justice, the debate is frighteningly similar. There is still a large part of the Caribbean population which says it trusts the Privy Council in England, more than local judges. There are still some legal hurdles to be met by most of the Caribbean countries, before they can abolish the Privy Council. As Justice Saunders told you, only Barbados and Guyana have abolished the Privy Council so far. I suggest that the other Caribbean countries need to join the Appellate branch of the CCJ without delay. The Privy Council is a colonial symbol which should be abolished without delay. I concede that the way toward full independence is not easy without revolution. In participatory democracies like the Caribbean countries, self-government is achieved in a piecemeal and often protracted manner. In our relatively short history as self-governing countries, the Caribbean has shown tremendous talent in nation building. An independent and relevant justice system is vital in democratic societies. It is not easy to build institutions in poor developing countries. Yet the Caribbean countries have made a bold start at building one of the most important institutions in a democratic society an independent court. The governments need to push this project to completion. You can help. You can let your island government know that you support the abolition of the Privy Council. The Caribbean Court of Justice has started in a much stronger position than did the Supreme Court of Canada. Seventy-Five years ago, Colonialism was still acceptable. This is not the case today. The CCJ has the support of all the Caribbean governments. It has a permanent home. It is agreed that the judges are of the highest calibre. It has cases to decide important cases. The CCJ has, in its short existence, demonstrated a high degree of professionalism and integrity - and most importantly, independence. Its early judgments clearly show that the judges are attuned to the culture and mores of Caribbean society. I am very excited about the CCJ. I believe it is the most important institution which will be established in the Caribbean in my lifetime. Former Chief Justice Laskin saw the Supreme Court of Canada as a significant part of the machinery of Canadian self-government. I see the CCJ as the strongest vehicle to achieve Caribbean unity and full independence. I urge you to pay attention to the court. Give it time to establish itself and develop. Support it. Defend it, if it should ever be unfairly attacked. Thank you.