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

7. Did the Trial Judge err in finding that Keays was entitled to punitive  damages for discrimination?

No

The Trial Judge ruled, and the Court of Appeal for Ontario agreed, that although a complainant does not have the right to sue an employer for discrimination or harassment, he is entitled to punitive damages if the employer engages in discriminatory or harassing conduct that leads to wrongful termination.   The following chain of events demonstrates how Honda did just that:

  1. "The appellant required the respondent to justify his medical absences because of his particular disability when employees with "mainstream" illnesses were not so required.

  2.  Due to absences caused by his disability, the appellant subjected him to the first step in the discipline process and then refused to remove the disciplinary "coaching" from his record.

  3. It required him to attend an interview with the company doctor where his disability was belittled and, as the trial judge found, he was treated with gross insensitivity.

  4. What limited accommodation the company gave the respondent was cancelled in retaliation for his having retained a layer to advance the rights guaranteed to him by the Human Rights Code.

  5. And the trial judge found that when the respondent refused to be "bullied" into seeing Dr. Brennan without an assurance that he would not be abused again, he was fired."(52)