Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett said yesterday he found it "puzzling" that the Anglican Central Education Authority (ACEA) canceled a graduation ceremony for the entire 2013 St. John's College (SJC) senior class instead of simply excluding the students who were found in breach of school rules.
Sir Michael suggested that the decision created a problem for the students who did nothing wrong, but were still deprived of a graduation ceremony.
He made the observation as lawyers for the ACEA and parents of the SJC students presented their cases in the Supreme Court.
Attorney Christina Galanos, who represents 26 plaintiffs, filed suit against the ACEA in June after it canceled the students' graduation ceremony and prom for what the organization called "gross insubordination and deceit".
Galanos told the court that the students had a legitimate expectation to receive their diplomas at a graduation ceremony and to have a prom. She said the plaintiffs are entitled to damages based on a breach of this expectation.
The plaintiffs contend that they met the requirements for graduation.
The school accepted money from the students for both events and the money has not been returned, Galanos said. She asked the court to award more than $60,000 in collective damages plus the return of a $300 graduation fee to each student.
She said she wants $1,000 for each student for the cancelation of the graduation ceremony and $1,000 or $500 per student for the cancelation of the prom.
She argued that the school entered into individual contracts with the students, which said that once they met certain requirements they would be able to participate in a graduation ceremony.
Sir Michael said while he saw nothing in that document which compels the school to hold a graduation ceremony he suspected that everyone expected the event to take place.
Galanos said that as far as she knew SJC had never canceled a graduation and has held a ceremony for each senior class for the past 20 years at least.
However, Krystal Rolle, the ACEA's attorney, argued that the code of conduct document the students signed was not a contract, but merely a "one-sided pledge" to abide by the authority's rules.
She said the students signed the agreement when they were in the 11th grade, but prior to that agreed to abide by the school's policy manual. Rolle said the ACEA had the right to decide if a graduation is held.
She added that the document did not state that the school was obligated to hold a graduation for the students.
However, Sir Michael said while he agreed that there was no expressed provision in the document which said the ACEA was mandated to hold a graduation, he believed it was understood that the school would host the event.
Rolle said the ACEA did not think the graduation fee of $300 should be returned and argued that most of that sum was paid out to "third parties" and added that the school did not financially benefit from this charge.
Rolle said the ACEA had several reasons to cancel the graduation, including the fact that more than 90 percent of seniors did not show up to school on "ditch day" and the participation of some students in a video posted on Youtube which showed them dancing.
The matter is expected to continue at 10 a.m. today.
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
