JULY 2008
Employment Law Update
Supreme Court clarifies the availability of
punitive damages for wrongful dismissal
On June 27, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned a punitive
damage award of $100,000 against an employer in the landmark wrongful
dismissal case of Honda Canada Inc. v. Kevin Keays.i
This was a highly controversial case, which began with an award of $500,000
for punitive damages by the Ontario Superior Court, one of the highest
awards of its kind ordered by a Canadian court in the context of an action for
wrongful dismissal.
The case involved the termination of Kevin Keays, a senior quality
engineering associate for Honda, after fourteen years of service. In 1997,
Keays began suffering from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and went on
disability leave. He remained on leave until December 1998, when Honda’s
long-term disability (LTD) insurer determined that he was able to return to
work and terminated his LTD benefits.
Following his return to work under protest, Keays continued to be routinely
absent from work. Keays was placed under Honda’s disability program, which
allows employees to be absent from work if they provide doctor’s notes
confirming that the absences are related to their disability. Over time, the
doctor’s notes offered by Keays became increasingly ambiguous and did not
confirm that his absences were due to his disability. As such, Honda asked
Keays to attend a meeting with its medical specialist in order to get a better
understanding of his medical condition and to determine if his disability could
be accommodated.
Keays, on the advice of his lawyer, refused to attend the meeting without
clarification from Honda as to the purpose, methodology and parameters of
the assessment. Honda refused to provide Keays with such details and
proceeded to terminate his employment for insubordination. Keays filed an
action for wrongful dismissal before the Ontario Superior Court.
“Canadian Law Firm
of the Year”
CHAMBERS GLOBAL 2006
IFLR 2007
This newsletter was prepared by
members of the Employment and
Labour Group at Stikeman Elliott.
The trial judge concluded that Keays had been terminated without just cause
and awarded 15 months of salary in lieu of reasonable notice, and an
additional 9 months in moral or aggravated damages due to the bad faith
displayed by Honda in Keays’ termination. In addition, the trial judge awarded
an astonishing $500,000 in punitive damages due to Honda’s discriminatory,
outrageous and high-handed conduct towards Keays. The Ontario Court of
Appeal allowed the appeal in part, significantly reducing the punitive damage
award to $100,000.
STIKEMAN ELLIOTT LLP │ MONTRÉAL TORONTO OTTAWA CALGARY VANCOUVER NEW YORK LONDON SYDNEY
www .stikeman.com
Most recently, the Supreme Court of Canada completely erased the award for punitive damages, as well as the
moral damages awarded for the manner of the dismissal.
The Supreme Court confirmed the general principle that damages are not available to employees for the shock
and distress that is often suffered as a consequence of being terminated.
More particularly, with respect to the availability of punitive damages, the Supreme Court declared:
“Punitive damages are restricted to advertent wrongful acts that are so malicious and outrageous
that they are deserving of punishment on their own.”ii
The Supreme Court went on to say that conduct meriting punitive damage awards must be extreme in nature and
by any reasonable standard deserving of full condemnation and punishment. Courts should only resort to punitive
damages in exceptional cases, where the award is necessary for the purposes of denunciation and deterrence.
This is consistent with Article 1621 of the Civil Code of Quebec, whereby the amount of punitive damages should
not exceed what is sufficient to fulfill its preventive purpose.
In the case at hand, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no such conduct that merited the award of
punitive damages. The Supreme Court confirmed that Honda’s disability program requiring medical notes be
provided to justify absences from work was not discriminatory, even though employees with “mainstream
illnesses” had no such obligation. In fact, the requirement of doctor’s notes was part of the employer’s
accommodation because it permitted absences without the possibility of same leading to disciplinary action for
failing to perform work functions. Moreover, the Supreme Court accepted that the need to monitor the absences
of employees regularly absent from work is a bona fide work requirement in light of the very nature of the
employment contract and the responsibility of the employer for the management of its workforce.
The Supreme Court also clarified the objective of moral damages, which should be limited to compensating an
employee for mental distress suffered as a result of an abusive or bad-faith dismissal.
The Supreme Court’s decision is significant in that it confirms an employer’s right to manage an employee’s
absenteeism from work through doctor’s notes and medical examinations. This is good news for employers faced
with the challenges of accommodating employees suffering from long-term disabilities or frequently absent from
work due to a chronic illness. ■
For more information, please contact your Stikeman Elliott representative or any member of our Employment and
Labour Group.
i
Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008, S.C.C. 39 (June 27, 2008).
ii
Ibid., at paragraph 62.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to this publication, please contact us at info@stikeman.com
This publication provides general commentary only and is not intended as legal advice.
© Stikeman Elliott LLP