NASSAU, BAHAMAS — The Supreme Court has found that the Anglican Central Education Authority and its former education director defamed attorney Terri Bellot through allegations of violence, dishonesty and fraud that were either unsupported or known to be false following a dispute over her daughter’s delayed school transcript.
Justice Carla Card-Stubbs ruled that a January 21, 2019 disciplinary letter signed by then-director of education Italia Davies contained an exaggerated account of Bellot’s conduct at St. John’s College and represented an excessive response to her criticism of the school’s handling of the transcript.
The court also found that Bellot was denied due process and procedural fairness when the authority demanded that she publicly apologise and threatened to ban her indefinitely from the school’s campus without first giving her a meaningful opportunity to answer the allegations.
Bellot succeeded in her claims for libel and procedural unfairness. However, the court dismissed her claims for breach of contract, breach of policy and negligence. Damages for the defamation and the legal costs of the action will be determined after further submissions from the parties.
The dispute began after Bellot’s daughter, Simone, then a Grade 12 student at St. John’s College, applied and paid for a school transcript on January 2, 2019.
The school’s transcript request form stated that transcripts would be produced within three to five business days. However, the document was not prepared within that period because the school’s electronic transcript system was unavailable due to a problem involving payment of its subscription fee.
Bellot made several inquiries and eventually prepared a draft transcript using her daughter’s existing school-issued records. She went to the school on January 14 seeking to have the document checked and approved.
The school’s electronic system was restored that day, and the official transcript was sent to the University of Georgia. Bellot maintained, however, that the university’s January 8 deadline had already passed.
Following Bellot’s visit, Davies signed the disciplinary letter accusing her of disrespectful conduct, violating the school’s Respect and Protect Programme Policy and intending to create and use a school document without permission.
The letter was copied to Anglican Bishop Laish Boyd, the ACEA chairperson and the school’s principal. It also demanded a public apology and warned that Bellot would be banned indefinitely from the campus if she failed to comply.
According to the ruling, Bellot was at the time a parent, St. John’s College alumna, elected member of the school’s board, member of the Anglican Diocese and legal adviser to the vestry of St. Ambrose Anglican Church. She was also a member of the diocese’s legal panel and a practising attorney.
Justice Card-Stubbs found that Bellot had openly presented the draft transcript to school officials for verification and had not attempted to pass it off secretly as an authorised school document.
During cross-examination, Davies acknowledged that Bellot had gone to the school seeking permission to use the draft and had explained how and why she prepared it. When questioned about why the disciplinary letter alleged Bellot intended to use the document without permission, Davies said she could not say.
Davies testified that the letter was prepared by the ACEA with input from attorneys and that she had been directed to sign it. The judge noted, however, that Davies read, signed and endorsed its contents.
The court found that Davies knew Bellot had sought approval before the letter was issued and therefore knew the allegation that she intended to use the document without permission was false.
Justice Card-Stubbs ruled that the allegation imputed dishonesty or fraud and represented a serious attack on Bellot’s integrity.
The court also rejected the allegation that Bellot’s behaviour amounted to violence under the school’s Respect and Protect Programme Policy.
Bellot acknowledged being angry and assertive and admitted raising her voice after learning why the transcript system was unavailable. Davies described her as loud, abrasive and disrespectful but conceded that Bellot did not engage in physical violence, verbal abuse or threatening conduct.
The judge found that Bellot raised her voice but did not cause the type of disturbance alleged by the defendants. She also found no evidence that Bellot threatened the safety of students, parents, teachers or administrators.
The ruling noted that the Respect and Protect policy appeared in the student handbook and was directed primarily towards student behaviour. It was not expressly presented as a disciplinary code governing parents.
Justice Card-Stubbs found that Bellot’s conduct did not violate the policy, even if it could be applied to parents, and described the references to violence in the disciplinary letter as “malicious embellishment.”
The judge concluded that Davies intended to “make an example” of Bellot after she openly criticised the school’s handling of the transcript matter. That improper motive, combined with the false allegations and excessive language, established express malice.
While the letter was circulated among people who had a legitimate interest in school governance and was therefore initially capable of attracting qualified privilege, the court found that the protection was defeated by malice.
Justice Card-Stubbs also criticised aspects of Davies’ testimony, finding that she was at times “deliberately obtuse,” while describing Bellot as a credible, convincing and consistent witness.
On procedural fairness, the court found that the threatened indefinite ban would have affected Bellot’s ability to communicate with her daughter’s teachers, attend graduation and participate in school board, parent-teacher and other school activities.
The ACEA was entitled to address conduct it considered loud or disrespectful, the judge said. However, it moved immediately to disciplinary condemnation, a demand for a public apology and the threat of an indefinite ban without first allowing Bellot to respond.
Bellot later wrote to the ACEA challenging the accusations and asking about an appeal. The authority upheld its position and referred to witness accounts that had not been disclosed to her.
The court found that Bellot’s later ability to protest the decision did not cure the failure to hear from her before the sanction was imposed.
Although the negligence claim was dismissed, the judge found that the defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the electronic system needed to produce transcripts. The claim failed because Bellot did not prove that the late transcript caused a recoverable loss or adversely affected her daughter’s university application.
The contractual claim was dismissed because Bellot did not establish an enforceable contract on the case pleaded or properly plead the special damages sought. The court also found that breach of policy did not stand as an independent cause of action in the circumstances.
The judgment was delivered on September 11, with the written reasons dated September 15. The court acknowledged and expressed regret over the prolonged delay in deciding the case, which Bellot filed in September 2019.
The parties must now make submissions on the amount of damages to be awarded for defamation and on legal costs.
