A King’s Bench judge has dismissed an application filed by the former CEO of the Athabasca Health Authority (AHA) contesting his termination.
The decision by Justice B.R Hildebrandt, dated April 3 2023 order the dismissal of Allan Adam’s originating application which was filed in Dec. of 2021. The decision as well ordered that Adam pay the respondents $6,000 in costs. Adam, who had been named CEO of AHA in March of 2021 contended he had been wrongfully terminated from his position and asked that he be restored to his position by the court.
In the written decision, which MBC Radio News obtained after submitting a request to King’s Bench Court in Prince Albert, Justice Hildebrandt wrote that Adam’s originating application was a complaint about AHA’s decision to terminate him.
“Such an employment decision is not subject to judicial review,” Hildebrandt wrote.
The written decision as well touched on the fact that AHA is not considered to be a public body or state authority, but is rather governed by the Non-Profit Corporations Act. As such AHA is governed by legislation which applies to private non profit corporations. The court as well added even if AHA did qualify as being a public body, Adam’s dismissal still does not qualify for judicial review and a possible reversal. Overall the court found the employment relationship between Adam and AHA to be a matter of private law, which means that his call for judicial review could not be substantiated. The court as well took issue with Adam applying for judicial review on behalf of himself and AHA as an organization. The court found he did not have the authority to bring such an action nor did he give the organization’s board notice as is required by law.
“Mr Adam has neither sought nor obtained leave to bring a derivative action on behalf of AHA,” Hildebrandt wrote.
In granting AHA’s request for Adam to pay costs, the court agreed that the action resulted in them “expending significant time and resources.” When going in to specifics, the court said Adam’s lawyer Will Willier did not have sufficient explanations which satisfied the court in regards to the decision to seek judicial review.
“Mr. Willier’s response to some of the substantive arguments made on behalf of respondents demonstrated that careful consideration to Mr. Adam’s application had not been made,” Hildebrandt wrote.
The full decision can be read by clicking the link below.