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

6. Did the Trial Judge err in its ruling of bad faith conduct?

NO

The trial judge ruled and the court of Appeal for Ontario agreed that Honda conducted itself in bad faith when it:

1. It  misrepresented, in the March 28 letter, the views of the company doctor and its occupational medicine specialist in order to justify terminating the accommodation.   Contrary to what the letter stated, neither had come to the conclusion that Keays was malingering or that there was no disability requiring  accommodation.  

2. It set the employee up for failure in requiring him to meet with a company specialist who would have required him to attend work regularly, an physical impossibility according to his physician 

3. It terminated Keays' accommodation in retaliation for his having retained counsel to protect his human right (This constitutes discrimination in the form of illegal reprisal).