Human Rights Bulletin
April, 2008
-
Facts
-
Honda terminated Keays because he disobeyed a direct order to meet with the occupational specialist. Was this order reasonable?
-
Did the employer have reasonable cause not to comply with the employer's order?
-
Was the discipline proportionate to insubordination?
-
Did the Trial Judge correctly calculate reasonable notice?
-
Did the Trial Judge err in its ruling of bad faith conduct?
-
Did the Trial Judge err in finding that Keays was entitled to punitive damages for discrimination?
-
Did the Trial Judge err in concluding that Honda's conduct was sufficiently reprehensible to warrant punishment?
-
Did the Trial Judge err in assessing the quantum of damages?
-
What factors should be considered in fixing the quantum of a punitive award?
Can courts award punitive damages based on discrimination?
This is the question upon which the Supreme Court of Canada has been deliberating since February 20, 2008 when Honda appealed the 2006 Court of Appeal for Ontario's upholding of a 2005 decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
In March 2005, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded employee Kevin Keays compensatory damages (24 months pay in lieu of notice) and punitive damages ($500 000) after finding that Honda had wrongfully terminated him after a period of harassment because of his disability (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome).
On September 29, 2006 the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld that decision but reduced the punitive damages to $100 000 after finding that the trial judge had erroneously distorted the duration, and misidentified nature, of Honda's misconduct.
On February 20, 2008 the Supreme Court of Canada heard Honda's appeal of the Court of Appeal's ruling.
Employers and employees across Canada eagerly await what might be a Canadian Supreme Court landmark decision in employment law allowing employees the right to sue their employers for discrimination leading to wrongful termination.