Alberta Premier Danielle Smith at a news conference, with Health Minister Adriana LaGrange, in Calgary, on Feb. 19.Todd Korol/The Globe and Mail
A podcaster who has chronicled the Alberta health care controversy and is being sued for defamation is back in court Friday, after a judge ordered him earlier this month to remove all content related to the case from the internet and to stop publishing any new material.
Justice Doreen Sulyma of the Court of King’s Bench in Edmonton issued the two-week injunction on Feb. 14 against Nate Pike, a paramedic who also runs The Breakdown, a one-man online political commentary outlet started in 2019.
Mr. Pike had for months published extensive material on questions around Alberta Health Services’ contracting and procurement, the United Conservative Party government’s role and the involvement of Sam Mraiche, owner of MHCare Medical, a company that does business with the province.
Mr. Mraiche and MHCare filed a lawsuit against Mr. Pike on Dec. 19 for defamation and harassment.
The Alberta government has faced a growing controversy since The Globe and Mail reported in early February on allegations of contracting and procurement issues within AHS. The Auditor-General has launched an investigation and this week a cabinet minister resigned over his government’s handling of the issue.
The allegations were later made public in a wrongful dismissal lawsuit filed by the former chief executive of AHS.
Athana Mentzelopoulos claims in her suit that she was fired two days before she was to go to the province’s Auditor-General with concerns that government officials interfered in the health authority’s contracting and procurement process on behalf of private companies. The claims have not been tested in court.
In Mr. Pike’s defamation case, Mr. Mraiche on Feb. 13 filed an affidavit that said he was “extremely fearful” for his and his family’s safety. The issue was heard on an urgent basis on Feb. 14, when the court ordered Mr. Pike to remove all related material from the internet and to stop making new statements.
Mr. Pike decided to take down all Breakdown publications from the internet, saying he didn’t have enough time to go through all the material.
Mr. Pike’s lawyers say the injunction went too far. The Friday court hearing will consider whether the injunction will be extended, narrowed or allowed to expire. If it expires, The Breakdown could bring its material back online.
“It’s really an extraordinary order,” said his lawyer Shaun Fluker of Wilson Laycraft.
Mr. Pike’s lawyers have also appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal, set to be heard May 5, where they plan to argue the Feb. 14 order was “exceptionally broad and unsupported by the factual matrix or the legal threshold.”
Mr. Mraiche’s lawyers did not respond to several requests for comment. They have previously said in a statement that “any allegations or insinuations of wrongdoing on the part of MHCare Medical Corporation and/or Sam Mraiche are unwarranted and unjustified.”
Legal experts say the injunction is the latest episode of how Canadian judges weigh allegations of defamation against freedom of expression ahead of a full trial when all arguments and evidence are considered.
Hilary Young, a law professor at the University of New Brunswick, said there is “no justification” for what she called an overly broad order from the Alberta court.
Prof. Young’s 2021 research in the Dalhousie Law Journal showed defamation injunctions regularly go “far beyond what is justifiable.”
Freedom of expression is at risk if allegations that aren’t fully tested in court can lead judges to order material removed from the internet, she said.
“If someone’s controversial words can be shut down because they might harm a reputation, that’s a very powerful weapon for anyone who doesn’t want to be criticized publicly,” Prof. Young said.
At the Feb. 14 court hearing, Justice Sulyma appeared skeptical of Mr. Pike’s work on The Breakdown podcast and social media, according to a court transcript filed as part of a subsequent affidavit from Mr. Pike.
Justice Sulyma said it was “kind of odd” that Mr. Pike had extensively followed “matters of government” and that he is “not entitled to defame people.” She also questioned the “right of a private citizen to broadcast crap.”
Justice Sulyma then ordered the two-week injunction. She said a “true defence” for Mr. Pike’s work had not been established. Further, on what’s called the balance of convenience, she favoured Mr. Mraiche, who the judge said has been “put in a dangerous situation.”
Legal experts say deciding a defamation injunction on the balance of convenience is controversial.
Lori Williams, a political scientist at Mount Royal University in Calgary, said there are significant issues of free expression at play in a case of obvious public importance.
“All Canadians are entitled to freedom of expression and to engage in what the law calls fair comment on political matters,” Prof. Williams said.
Mr. Pike said in a brief, final podcast on Feb. 16 that he has worked as an advanced care paramedic for about 15 years. He said he started The Breakdown with the goal of stoking a better understanding of politics and “holding people in positions of power and influence to account.”