MENTZELOPOULOS v ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES

The underlying dispute arose from a wrongful dismissal Action brought by Athana Mentzelopoulos. Sandy Edmonstone, a former Alberta Health Services board member, identified as a prospective witness in that Action, alleged that the Applicants conducted a public campaign targeting him through podcasts and online commentary. He asserted that the campaign was intended to intimidate or discourage him from testifying, and obtained contempt-related relief and evidence preservation measures on an ex parte basis (the “Ex Parte Orders”).

The Applicants, two podcast hosts, applied to set aside the Ex Parte Orders. The Applicants argued that the Ex Parte Orders were improperly granted as Mr. Edmonstone lacked standing to seek contempt relief, relied on inadmissible hearsay and speculation, failed to make full and frank disclosure, failed to satisfy the Anton Piller test, and infringed their Charter rights.

Justice Lema held that Rule 10.55 and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction permit an interested person, including a non-party witness, to initiate contempt proceedings, and that it was appropriate to pursue the contempt process within the underlying Action. The Court further held that a contempt citation is interlocutory, permitting information-and-belief evidence under Rule 13.18. The principal evidence consisted of the Applicants’ own published statements, which were admissible as party admissions. The Court found no breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure, applied an objective witness-interference test, and concluded that there was a strong prima facie case that the campaign was likely to deter or influence prospective testimony.

Justice Lema also found that the Anton Piller requirements were met, including a reasonable inference of the existence of responsive documents and a material risk of concealment or destruction. Finally, Lema J. held that the Charter did not apply to Anton Piller proceedings between private parties, and the Restraining Order targeted only harassing, defamatory, or intimidating publications. Accordingly, the Applicants’ Charter rights were not violated.

The Court dismissed the set-aside Application and maintained the Ex Parte Orders.