HUME v ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES

The Plaintiff was a molecular geneticist and professor at the University of Alberta whose appointment was contingent on third-party funding. She sued Alberta Health Services (“AHS”) and Alberta Precision Laboratories Ltd. (“APL”), alleging that, in relation to her clinical services, she had a separate legal relationship with AHS/APL as an employee, dependent contractor, or independent contractor. AHS/APL applied for Summary Dismissal, while the University was successful in striking AHS/APL’s Third Party Claim on the basis that any employment-related issues with the University were governed by the Collective Agreement between the Governors of the University of Alberta and the Association of Academic Staff of the University of Alberta (“AASUA”). The Plaintiff appealed only the Summary Dismissal decision.

AASUA then applied for leave to intervene in the Appeal. AASUA is the exclusive bargaining agent for the University’s academic staff and took the position that many academic clinicians hold dual roles: one as academic staff employees of the University under the Collective Agreement, and another in a separate legal relationship with third-party entities providing clinical services. AASUA argued that, if the Applications Judge’s decision stood, it could wrongly imply that disputes arising from those third-party clinical roles fell within AASUA’s representational obligations under the Collective Agreement.

In considering Rule 2.10, the Court reviewed whether AASUA had a particular interest in, or would be directly and significantly affected by, the outcome of the Appeal, and whether it could provide expertise, perspective, or information that would assist the Appeal Court. Justice Yungwirth held that both criteria were met. The Appeal could significantly affect AASUA’s historic position that disputes arising from academic clinicians’ clinical relationships with third parties fall outside the scope of the Collective Agreement. Further, AASUA could provide evidence and perspective about the Collective Agreement, its representational limits, the treatment of dual-role academic clinicians, and the history of how such arrangements had been handled. That information had not been fully or accurately presented by the parties, particularly since the University was no longer participating in the Appeal after the Third Party Claim was struck and that ruling was not appealed.

The Court also found there would be no undue delay, no material prejudice to the parties, and no widening of the lis. AASUA’s proposed intervention was confined to the jurisdictional issue raised on the appeal and did not extend to the Plaintiff’s underlying claim, if the Appeal succeeded. Accordingly, the Court granted AASUA leave to intervene in the Appeal, including leave to make oral and written submissions and file additional affidavit evidence relevant and material to the Appeal. AASUA was ordered to bear its own costs of the intervention Application, but the Court declined to grant it blanket protection from any future costs award on the Appeal.