Canada: Court Of Appeal Reduces Punitive Damage Award In "Keays v. Honda"

Last Updated: October 16 2006
Most Read Contributor in Canada, November 2016

On March 17, 2005, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded a wrongfully dismissed employee $500,000 in punitive damages, reportedly the largest such award in a wrongful dismissal action in Canadian history. In a supplementary decision a further $610,000 was awarded in costs against the employer.

On September 26, 2006, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its much-anticipated decision in the appeal of the case. In a move that provides some small relief to employers, the Court reduced both the costs and punitive damage awards. However employers should not be overly complacent, as the underlying lessons of the Court of Appeal decision are still quite sobering: the costs award was only marginally reduced, the concept of punitive damages appears to be here to stay in wrongful dismissal actions, and the substantial notice period which the lower court awarded (24 months) was upheld on appeal.

The Facts

In 1986 Kevin Keays ("Keays") began working for Honda Canada Inc. ("Honda") on the production line of an assembly plant in Alliston, Ontario. After approximately twenty months working on the production line Keays joined the Quality Engineering Department. Keays was selected to receive training on a new computer system, created for the implementation of newly designed components into Honda vehicles, after which he was expected to instruct his fellow employees in the department on using the system.

Shortly after commencing work at Honda Keays began experiencing absences from work as a result of health problems, eventually going on a disability leave in October of 1996. Honda’s business philosophy mandates a "lean" operation; Keays absences required his already busy co-workers to undertake his responsibilities. While on leave Keays was diagnosed as suffering from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ("CFS"). Keays returned to work in December of 1998, under protest from both Keays and his physician, following termination of his benefits by Honda’s long term disability insurer.

Keays began to again experience work absences within a month of returning to work, and received a written report from Honda for his work absences in August of 1999. "Coaching", by way of such a written report, is the first step in Honda’s progressive discipline process. Upon complaining that he was unable to live up to Honda’s attendance expectations, Keays was advised of a Honda program exempting employees from attendance-related progressive discipline based on a disability. Keays’ physician completed the necessary form for the program. The doctor informed Honda that Keays suffered from CFS and would probably miss about four days of work per month as a result.

Honda subsequently provided some accommodation for Keays’ absences, but Keays was required to provide a Doctor’s note for each absence, a requirement not imposed on other employees with "mainstream" illnesses. Following six days of absence in October of 1999, Honda asked Keays to see the company doctor. When Keays later complained to his supervisors that the doctor threatened to move Keays’ back to the production line, the supervisors told Keays that there was no intention to move him "at that time".

In January and February of 2000 Keays requested that the written report be removed from his record and that Honda reconsider the requirement that he provide a doctor’s note for each absence. Keays retained counsel who wrote Honda a letter in March of that year both outlining Keays’ concerns and extending an offer to attempt to resolve their differences. Honda had an unwritten policy discouraging third parties advocating on behalf of employees. Honda did not respond to this letter and instead informed Keays on March 21st that Honda no longer accepted he had a disability requiring him to be absent, and directed him to meet with Honda’s occupational medicine specialist.

Keays’ informed Honda that, on the advice of his lawyer, he would not meet with the occupational medicine specialist unless provided with clarification of the "purpose, methodology and the parameters of the assessment". Honda, by a letter dated March 28th, refused to elaborate on the purpose of the meeting and warned Keays that if he did not meet with the doctor he would be terminated.

Keays did not meet with the doctor and was dismissed. Subsequent to his dismissal, Keays suffered from post-traumatic adjustment disorder, was unable to work, and qualified for a total disability pension.

At trial, Justice McIsaac slammed Honda for its treatment of Keays. He found that Honda’s direction for Keays to meet with the occupational medicine specialist was unreasonable, not made in good faith and was done to subsequently terminate Keays and avoid accommodating his disability. The trial judge determined that Keays had good reasons not to comply with the direction, and his refusal to see the doctor was thus not a repudiation of his contract of employment, holding that Honda’s reaction to Keays’ refusal was disproportionate. Not only did Honda not have just cause to terminate Keays, the trial judge also found that it had failed to fulfill its obligations to Keays under the Human Rights Code. As a result, Justice McIassac awarded punitive damages in the amount of $500,000 for Honda’s "outrageous and high-handed" conduct that amounted to discrimination and harassment in employment. He also extended the notice period from 15 to 24 months due to the "egregious bad faith displayed by Honda" in the manner in which Keays’ employment was terminated and "the medical consequences flowing therefrom".

In a supplementary decision, Justice McIssac awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis. Keays’ costs were fixed at $610,000, inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T. Included in the costs calculation were the costs of a first attempt at trial, which ended in a mistrial as a result the judge falling ill, together with a 25% premium for Keays’ tenuous economic circumstances and the risk undertaken by counsel with respect to payment for fees and disbursements.

THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

Justice Rosenberg, writing for the majority of the Court of Appeal, upheld the underlying rationale for awarding punitive damages. He wrote that it is:

.... clear that acts of discrimination in breach of human rights legislation may serve as a separate actionable wrong so as to give rise to a punitive damages award in a wrongful dismissal case.

However, in assessing the quantum, Justice Rosenberg felt a reduction was appropriate "because the trial judge relied on findings of fact that (were) not supported by the evidence and because the award inter alia fails to accord with the fundamental principle of proportionality". Justice Rosenberg held that there was no evidence to support the trial judge’s finding that Honda’s conduct "formed a protracted corporate conspiracy", nor any evidence to support the trial judge’s statement that "Honda ran amok as a result of their blind insistence on production ‘efficiency’":

I see nothing in this record to show that this appellant "ran amok". Certain employees in positions of responsibility, relying upon some expert advice, made decisions that were clearly wrong. But the record does not support this grave allegation of corporate malfeasance levelled at the appellant by the trial judge.

Justice Rosenberg further found that the trial judge’s assertion that Honda’s "outrageous conduct has persisted over a period of five years" was a "gross distortion of the circumstances amounting to a .palpable and overriding error". A period of seven months was substituted, being the period from the written "coaching" report to Keays’ dismissal.

Disregarding the "erroneous findings of fact" by the trial judge, the quantum of punitive damages could only be supported on the basis of the following findings:

  • Honda’s intent to intimidate and eventually terminate Keays was for the purpose of depriving him of the accommodation he had earned
  • Honda did not reveal an extremely damaging letter from the occupational medicine specialist until late in the trial;
  • Honda was aware of its obligation to accommodate and must have known it was wrong to terminate the accommodation without just cause and to terminate Keays as an act of retaliation;
  • Honda knew that Keays valued his employment and that he was dependent upon it for disability benefits;
  • Honda knew that Keays was a victim of particular vulnerability because of his precarious medical condition; and
  • Honda refused to deal with the Keays’ counsel who made a reasonable request to discuss accommodation of Keays’ disability.

The majority held that while Honda’s conduct "was sufficiently outrageous to warrant an award of punitive damages, the quantum needs to be reconsidered". While acknowledging that the punitive damage awards in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. ($1 million) and Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto ($800,000) were on the same scale as those awarded by the trial judge, Justice Rosenberg wrote:

Punitive damage awards in other wrongful dismissal cases have been far more modest even in the face of serious misconduct such as slander of the employee. The awards in such cases have been in the range of $15,000 to $50,000 and, rarely, up to $75,000.

Justice Rosenberg held that two factors stood out in comparing the case to Whiten:

  • In Whiten the conduct persisted for two years; the seven months of misconduct for which Honda must take responsibility "was simply not on the same scale"; and
  • In Whiten the defendant persisted in a course of conduct "in the face of findings from its own experts and advisors" in comparison with Honda, who "had advice, albeit wrong and based on incomplete information, that caused it to question the respondent’s disability and it had, for almost a year, accommodated his absences".

Considering the compensatory damages already awarded, the lack of any factors requiring deterrence and the relatively short duration of the conduct Justice Rosenberg held that a punitive damages award "of no more than $100,000 can be justified".

The Reasonable Notice Period

The Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere with the finding that the order to see the doctor was unreasonable and that, in the circumstances, Keays had an excuse for not complying with the order, absent clarification of the meeting’s purpose.

The trial judge determined that it was unreasonable to compel the respondent to meet with Dr. Brennan in order to get this information when all of his medical records were either already available to or obtainable by the appellant and would answer the question best. Moreover, the ostensible basis upon which the respondent was ordered to see Dr. Brennan was that the doctor had already reviewed his file, which if completely accurate would have made the meeting unnecessary.

Ruling that the trial judge properly found that Keays was dismissed without just cause, Justice Goudge considered the trial judge’s award of 15 months’ notice reasonable, considering all of the circumstances. The Court held that the trial judge;s finding of bad faith in the termination process was supported by the evidence which, together with the "significant adverse consequences" to Keays, justified an extension of the notice period to 24 months.

Costs Premium

The trial judge’s decision to award a cost premium was also not interfered with, as the "risk undertaken and the reward achieved" justified such an award. The Court ruled that the trial judge erred in awarding a premium based solely on the quantum of damages recovered by Keays:

The premium is justified not only by the result achieved, but also, by the risk undertaken by counsel of non-payment of significant fees and disbursements ... A consideration of both factors, not just one, is required in fixing the quantum of the premium. Here, the fees and disbursements ultimately risked by the respondent’s counsel amounted to $393,000, considerably less than the recovery of almost $620,000. Keeping both in mind, and recognizing that fixing the quantum of the premium is an art not a science, I would set aside the award of $155,000 and reduce the premium to $77,500.

The costs award was thus reduced from $610,000 to $532,500.

CONCLUSION

The lessons set out in the original decision have largely been upheld by the Court of Appeal. In particular, in assessing disability, employers:

  • should not disregard medical evidence submitted by employees’ treating physicians without a reasonable basis and without providing the employee and his/her doctor the opportunity to address any employer concerns;
  • should ensure requests for medical information are reasonable and realistic having regard to the state of medical science and the reality of the experienced disability, particularly when dealing with "invisible" disabilities such as CFS;
  • should not insist upon medical evidence which does not exist and cannot simply disregard medical evidence produced because it does not rise to a level of objective scientific proof in circumstances where such objective evidence is not available because of the nature of the condition;
  • must be very careful not to denigrate, demean and belittle employees by characterizing their medical conditions in pejorative terms;
  • should strive for neutral, impartial and unbiased third party experts and should not rely upon hired guns who are known to hold a particular point of view; and
  • must ascertain the nature of the medical impairment, a function carried out primarily by the employee’s treating physicians, prior to implementing accommodations.

The Court of Appeal’s decision reinforces an employer’s obligation to be proactive and act in good faith during the accommodation process. Communications with employees, unions and employee representatives should be candid and forthright. The process should be open and transparent, rather than adversarial; workplace culture must recognize that accommodation is a fundamental human right and not an indulgence or act of charity granted by employers. Where an employer acts in "bad faith" in the accommodation process they run the risk of significant liability. While a breach of Ontario’s Human Rights Code cannot form the basis of a civil action, discriminatory conduct, if proven, can serve as a separate actionable wrong giving rise to significant punitive damages.

The decision will likely now make its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In some recent decisions, that Court has shown a preference to reinstitute the awards of trial judges, who are much more intimately familiar with the facts and the parties, having observed them directly at trial. Whether that Court will reinstitute the original award of half a million dollars in punitive damages, or whether it will even choose to hear the case, is a matter for another day. For the meantime, employers are well advised to revisit and refresh themselves with respect to their duty to accommodate disabled employees.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.