Case information

Contracts — Breach of contract — Torts — Inducing breach of contract — Civil procedure — Appeals — Jury — Right to object — Trial fairness — Participant witness — Integrity of jury decisions — Scope of review — When tactical failure to object is deemed to be waiver of right to object — Reconciling judge’s gatekeeper function with tactical decisions of counsel not to object to evidence at trial — Proper basis for determining when trial fairness has been compromised — Proper scope of participant witness exception for opinion evidence — Whether facts reviewable absent finding of unreasonableness — Whether Court of Appeal can recast pleadings — Whether Court of Appeal can interfere on questions to jury absent objection — Permissible scope of closing address when no objection is made on tactical grounds — Whether tactical silence reverses presumption of prejudice in inflammatory comments — Whether Court of Appeal can review closing based on facts ruled inadmissible on appeal.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Dr. Racette was interested in a temporary position with the Government of Saskatchewan in the Office of the Chief Coroner, but he had failed the required certification exams and had to do some retraining before retaking them. The Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons agreed to allow him to practice under a special licence if he completed a Practice Ready Assessment developed by the College, the Chief Coroner and Dr. Ladham. The Practice Ready Assessment was formalized in a contract between the Government and Dr. Racette.

Dr. Ladham concluded that Dr. Racette had not met the requirements of the Practice Ready Assessment. As a result, the College did not grant the special licence. Dr. Racette was unable to obtain a position as a forensic pathologist. He sued the Government for breach of contract and Dr. Ladham for inducing breach of contract.

The trial was held before a jury, which found the Government and Dr. Ladham liable. It awarded damages for past loss of income ($1,130,000), future loss of income ($1,570,000), past loss of pension and benefits ($125,000), future loss of pension and benefits ($175,000), aggravated damages ($500,000), punitive damages against Dr. Ladham ($1,000,000) and punitive damages against the Government ($500,000). The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and ordered a new trial on liability and damages.