Human Rights Bulletin

April, 2008

Keays v Honda
  1. Facts
  2. Honda terminated Keays because he disobeyed a direct order to meet with the occupational specialist. Was this order reasonable?
  3. Did the employer have reasonable cause not to comply with the employer's order?
  4. Was the discipline proportionate to insubordination? 
  5. Did the Trial Judge correctly calculate reasonable notice?
  6. Did the Trial Judge err in its ruling of bad faith conduct?
  7. Did the Trial Judge err in finding that Keays was entitled to punitive damages for discrimination?
  8. Did the Trial Judge err in concluding that Honda's conduct was sufficiently reprehensible to warrant punishment?
  9. Did the Trial Judge err in assessing the quantum of damages?
  10. What factors should be considered in fixing the quantum of a punitive award?

Supreme Court Blog about Case

www.queensu/humanrights/
 

2. Honda terminated Keays because he disobeyed a direct order to meet with the occupational medicine specialist.  Was this order "reasonable"?

NO

The trial judge ruled, and the court of appeal agreed,  that this order was unreasonable order for three reasons:

  1. only medical documentation would allow the specialist to understand the employee's condition;

  2. In the same meeting/memo ordering Keays to meet with Dr. Brennan, the employer informed the employee that the specialist had already concluded that Keays did not have a disability requiring him to be absent from work; 

  3. and that based on this information, Honda had already revoked Keays' accommodation.