Province, forensic pathologist appealing $5-million judgment

The provincial government and Saskatchewan’s chief forensic pathologist are appealing a recent decision granting $5 million to a man who attempted, unsuccessfully, to become the province’s second forensic pathologist.

During a lengthy civil trial, Dr. Jeffrey Racette claimed Dr. Shaun Ladham — the latter the province’s then-sole forensic pathologist — treated him poorly and went so far as to sabotage Racette’s chances of being offered the job.

On Nov. 6, a jury returned with its verdict, awarding $5 million to Racette. The jury found the Office of the Chief Coroner and Ladham, as lead assessor, failed to prepare and provide the required written assessment on Racette to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. The jury further found one or both of the defendants breached the assessment agreement — thereby committing breach of contract — “by not performing it honestly and in good faith.”

Among its other findings, the jury decided Ladham acted in bad faith when he “induced breach of the Practice Ready Assessment with Dr. Racette.”

In an appeal filed earlier this week with the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, the province and Ladham say they are appealing the entire judgment, and are asking either a judgment by the province’s highest court or an order sending the matter back to Court of Queen’s Bench for a new trial.

The province and Ladham list numerous grounds pertaining to Justice Brian Scherman’s treatment of the case, claiming he erred in law and misdirected himself and the jury in a number of areas — effectively causing “a substantial wrong and miscarriage of justice.”

Among grounds, the province and Ladham say the judge was wrong in determining the content and interpretation of the contract between the government and Racette, claiming those details should have been left for the jury to decide. The defendants further say Scherman erred in his charge when he said Saskatchewan had a contractual obligation to provide a written assessment to Racette in circumstances where the province decided against offering him employment.

The defendants added the judge erred in his charge and in questions put to the jury when he found Ladham was a party to the contract in question, and that Ladham could be found liable as such.

The notice of appeal claims Scherman didn’t correctly instruct the jury on the law of breach of contract and inducing such a breach; didn’t provide proper instruction on when and how aggravated, punitive and pecuniary damages could be awarded in this case; provided the jury with an “unfair and unbalanced charge”; and improperly interjected during the questioning of several witnesses, “thereby inappropriately influencing the jury.”

The defendants claim the judge additionally erred by allowing the jury to consider “inadmissible and prejudicial testimony” — including evidence of Ladham’s “purported bad character and/or purportedly racist comments from other contexts” — and that he didn’t provide the proper warning to the jury about its use.

The province and Ladham say the jury erred in its assessment of damages which “was not reasonable and/or not supported by the relevant evidence.”