New Page 7

8. Did the Trial Judge err in concluding that Honda's conduct was sufficiently reprehensible to warrant punishment?

The Court of Appeal for Ontario agreed that these acts were reprehensible especially in the context of an employer denying reasonable accommodation to a vulnerable employee with a disability:

"That is what the trial judge found happened here. In essence, he found that the appellant refused to give genuine recognition to the respondent's disability and seek, in an open minded, unbiased and good faith way, to meet with him to find a reasonable accommodation. Rather, the appellant deliberately contrived in bad faith to intimidate and then wrongfully terminate him to avoid its duty to accommodate a disability whose legitimacy it could not accept. Given his findings of fact, I find no reviewable error in these conclusions. they provide a rational basis for an award of punitive damages, as deterrence and denunciation of conduct causing significant harm to those who are disadvantaged and vulnerable due to disability" (58)


	Human Rights Bulletin
April, 2008	Keays v Honda
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? Supreme Court Blog about Case	8. Did the Trial Judge err in concluding that Honda's conduct was sufficiently reprehensible to warrant punishment? No The trial judge listed the following acts/aspects as reprehensible: "that the appellant's motivation for terminating the respondent was to avoid its obligation to accommodate his disability; that it attempted to intimidate him into seeing its occupational medicine specialist who employed a hardball approach to employee absence and that the appellant did all of this in full knowledge of the respondent's particular vulnerability because of his disability" (para 56) The Court of Appeal for Ontario agreed that these acts were reprehensible especially in the context of an employer denying reasonable accommodation to a vulnerable employee with a disability: "That is what the trial judge found happened here. In essence, he found that the appellant refused to give genuine recognition to the respondent's disability and seek, in an open minded, unbiased and good faith way, to meet with him to find a reasonable accommodation. Rather, the appellant deliberately contrived in bad faith to intimidate and then wrongfully terminate him to avoid its duty to accommodate a disability whose legitimacy it could not accept. Given his findings of fact, I find no reviewable error in these conclusions. they provide a rational basis for an award of punitive damages, as deterrence and denunciation of conduct causing significant harm to those who are disadvantaged and vulnerable due to disability" (58)