In Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd, the Supreme Court held that bad faith on the part of an employer in how it handled the termination of an employee was another factor that is properly compensated for by an addition to the period of reasonable notice.

[2] In Yanez v. Canac Kitchens,[3] Echlin J declared: [39] It has been long accepted that employers should be discouraged from asserting "soft" cases of just cause.

Additionally, the assertion and defence of specious "Wallace claims" can consume large amounts of valuable court time; can increase the costs to all concerned; and can generally drive the parties apart.

The next day, Keays told Honda that, on the advice of counsel, he would not meet with the specialist without explanation of the purpose, methodology, and parameters of the consultation.

Keays granted the largest award of punitive damages in a wrongful dismissal case in Canadian judicial history, and it created considerable discussion as to whether it was a harbinger of things to come.

[12] It was also argued that the Court of Appeal ruling could be used in support of expanded damage awards at arbitration and before human rights tribunals.

[31] Keays has attracted considerable debate and controversy: Subsequent jurisprudence has identified several key areas where an employer's conduct will constitute bad faith that will attract Wallace damages:[40] While the effect of Keays was to ensure that Wallace damages be reserved for special cases and not be handed out as a matter of course, post-Keays cases are revealing significant trends:[41]