A court has established boundaries for questioning in a high-profile wrongful dismissal case involving a former health authority CEO accused of transferring confidential and privileged documents to her personal email account before her termination.
The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta has restricted questioning of A.M., former CEO and President of Alberta Health Services (AHS), about documents she allegedly took from her employer, while protecting information she may have provided to investigative authorities.
“Allowing the Defendants to ask what documents Ms. Mentzelopoulos took, and who she shared this information with, is both relevant and material information for the application before the Court,” wrote the tribunal.
However, the court specifically ruled that “the Defendants are not entitled to question the Plaintiff on what, if anything, the Plaintiff has provided to the Auditor General of Alberta or the RCMP or other law enforcement as part of any ongoing investigations.”
Background of the dispute
A.M. filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit against AHS and the Province of Alberta that remains in its early stages. The defendants discovered that on January 7, 2025—the day before A.M. was terminated—she sent nine emails with attachments from her work account to her personal email.
In response, AHS and the Province filed an emergency application seeking several remedies:
- A mandatory injunction requiring A.M. to return and delete all records obtained during her employment
- An order requiring A.M. to swear an affidavit detailing what documents she took and with whom she shared them
- A prohibitory injunction preventing her from using or disclosing these documents
- Permission to question A.M. under oath pursuant to Rule 6.8 of the Alberta Rules of Court
The case is unfolding against the backdrop of active investigations by both the Auditor General of Alberta and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
Privileged and confidential information at issue
The defendants allege that A.M.’s actions breached her employment agreement and common law obligations. Of the nine emails:
- Two emails with attachments are claimed to be protected by solicitor-client privilege
- Seven emails are described as confidential business records
The defendants argue they must protect privileged information and contain any confidential material that may harm AHS or the Province if disclosed. A.M.’s counsel has not reviewed the emails and cannot address the privilege claims.
Court’s decision on questioning
The court agreed that questioning under Rule 6.8 should proceed before addressing the application for an injunction. This rule allows questioning to obtain evidence for use at an application hearing.
In setting parameters for the questioning, the court cited principles from previous cases, including:
- The information sought must be relevant to the pending motion
- Questioning is not an examination for discovery, and “fishing expeditions” are not permitted
- Cross-examination is permitted for parties with adverse interests
- Courts may regulate questioning for abuse of process
- Courts may provide advance directions on permissible questions
A.M.’s counsel argued that the defendants simply wanted to determine what information she provided to investigators—a claim the court partially acknowledged by limiting the scope of questioning.
Balancing interests and ongoing investigations
The court crafted a solution intended to balance the defendants’ need to protect sensitive information with the integrity of ongoing investigations:
“This direction strikes a balance between providing the Defendants with information they need to ensure any privileged and confidential information is protected while not interfering with the ongoing work of the Auditor General or the RCMP or other law enforcement,” the court wrote.
As a result, the court:
- Adjourned the applications for interlocutory injunctions pending completion of the Rule 6.8 questioning
- Extended a previous consent order prohibiting A.M. from distributing or using the emails, with one key exception
- Added an exception allowing A.M. to provide documents to the Auditor General and RCMP that were requested as part of their investigations
Next steps
Following the Rule 6.8 questioning, the parties will return for a case conference where the court will address:
- Scheduling and process for the injunction applications
- Issues related to filing transcripts from the questioning
- The process for determining solicitor-client privilege claims
- A litigation plan for the wrongful dismissal action
- Whether the case should be subject to formal case management
For more information, see Mentzelopoulos v Alberta Health Services, 2025 ABKB 235 (CanLII).
