Mentzelopoulos v Alberta Health Services
May 29, 2026
Can a court intervene when podcasters target a litigant with baseless public attacks designed to undermine their ability to pursue a lawsuit? In Mentzelopoulos v Alberta Health Services, 2026 ABKB 414 and 449, Justice Michael J. Lema found in the plaintiff’s favour, issuing contempt citations, a restraining order, and a content take-down order – a significant intervention to protect the integrity of ongoing litigation.
Background
Athana Mentzelopoulos has an ongoing wrongful-dismissal lawsuit against Alberta Health Services (AHS) and the Government of Alberta. Since summer 2025, podcasters David Wallace and James Di Fiore have been publicly attacking her on podcasts and social media, calling her a “fabricator,” “liar,” “fraud,” and “criminal,” and characterizing her lawsuit as a “grift” – all without evidentiary support.
Mentzelopoulos applied for: a finding of contempt against the podcasters for interfering with her lawsuit; a restraining order against further intimidating or harassing comments; removal of existing offending content; access to results of an Anton Piller order obtained by a similarly targeted witness in her case (Sandy Edmonstone); and disclosure of who was funding or backing the podcasters.
The Decision
In 2026 ABKB 414 (May 29, 2026), Justice Lema found in Mentzelopoulos’ favour on the main points. The court issued a contempt citation, granted a restraining order against further harassing comments, and ordered the removal of existing offending content. The podcasters’ campaign was characterized as baseless and aimed at undermining Mentzelopoulos’ ability to pursue her litigation. Access to the Anton Piller evidence and funder disclosure were left open as possibilities.
In a separate case-management endorsement (2026 ABKB 449, June 16, 2026), Justice Lema denied Mentzelopoulos’s request to bifurcate an upcoming application concerning documents allegedly wrongfully taken by her, finding it more efficient to deal with the document dispute and remedies together.
Key Takeaway
Courts will protect the integrity of litigation from external interference, including online campaigns designed to intimidate or discredit parties. For employment litigants and their counsel, this case signals that targeted online harassment by third parties – even those without a direct connection to the opposing party- can attract contempt findings, restraining orders, and mandatory content removal. Employers embroiled in wrongful-dismissal litigation should be mindful that third-party attacks on a plaintiff, even if not directly orchestrated, can complicate proceedings and invite judicial intervention.