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

4. Was the discipline proportionate to insubordination? 
 

NO.

The trial judge ruled, and the court of appeal agreed,  that termination is the ultimate form of employment discipline, one that is required by only the most egregious acts such as

• misconduct that gives rise to a breakdown in the employment relationship

• misconduct that is fundamentally or directly inconsistent with the employee's obligations

• misconduct that violates an essential condition of the employment contract

Refusing, with reasonable cause, to comply with an unreasonable order does not constitute such an egregious act.