MENTZELOPOULOS v ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES, 2026 ABKB 675

The Defendants sought, among other relief, an Order requiring the Plaintiff to return documents obtained or created during her employment as president of the Defendant, Alberta Health Services (“AHS”) (the “Documents”).

The underlying Action arose from the Defendants’ termination of the Plaintiff’s employment. The Plaintiff maintained that she was entitled to retain and use the Documents in support of her wrongful dismissal claim. The Defendants argued that, following the termination, the Plaintiff had no right to retain the Documents because they were protected by solicitor-client privilege and/or contained confidential information.

Applying the relevant jurisprudence and governing principles, the Court held that, with limited exceptions, the Documents were confidential and/or privileged. Justice Lema found that the Defendants had neither expressly nor impliedly waived privilege over the privileged Documents. Lema J. further found that the Plaintiff was not entitled to retain the confidential Documents, having regard to her obligations under her employment agreement, fiduciary law, and the law governing employees’ use of confidential information.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to return all original privileged or confidential Documents in her possession or control, destroy any copies, and refrain from disclosing or otherwise using them without the Court’s express permission. The Plaintiff was also directed to amend her Affidavit of Records accordingly.

Justice Lema also ordered that any privileged or confidential Documents filed in connection with the Application be sealed, and directed a particular counsel to provide an Affidavit concerning their review of the privileged Documents. However, Lema J. declined to require the Plaintiff to re-attend Questioning pursuant to Rule 6.8 or provide an Affidavit concerning her disclosure of privileged or confidential information. Justice Lema noted that existing Orders already prohibited such disclosure and the Defendants had not adduced evidence of any actual or suspected breach of those Orders.

The Court ultimately granted the Defendants’ Application and awarded them costs.