In May 2025, Marshall Smith launched a defamation suit against four parties: Athana Mentzelopoulos, the former CEO of Alberta Health Services (AHS); The Globe and Mail; Carrie Tait a reporter for the Globe; and John Doe who is presumed to be a member of the AHS board. This Post examines the defence of Mentzelopoulos. In Part 2, I examine the SoD of The Globe and Mail and Carrie Tait. Below are the SoC of Smith and the SoD of Mentzelopoulos.
2503-09698 - FILED - 2025-05-14 - STATEMENT OF CLAIM (Certified Copy) (1)unmarked Statement of Defence Mentzelopoulos v. Smith 9-7-25Defence of Mentzelopoulos
Mentzelopoulos’s defence counsel are W.E. Brett Code K.C. and Amy Cooper of the Calgary law firm Tingle Merrett LLP. The Statement of Defence (SoD) states that the claim should be denied in its entirety and therefore Smith is not entitled to any damages. The main argument of Counsel is that Mentzelopoulos’s pleadings in her Statement of Claim (SoC) against AHS and the Government of Alberta are subject to absolute privilege (paras.23-28).
Absolute privilege is a legal concept in defamation cases that refers to the fact that in certain circumstances an individual is immune from liability for defamatory statements under certain circumstances. This privilege extends to statements made by an individual during trial or in a pleading.
In addition to the protection of privilege, the SoD holds her statements in pleadings are “statements of fact, true or substantially true in substance and in fact, and to the extent any of her statements are statements of opinion, they constituted fair comment, made without malice and in good faith, on matters of public interest, based on facts proven or believed to be true” (paras. 31-33).
The fair comment defence protects “opinions expressed on matters of public interest against defamation claims provided the comment is based on true facts, recognizable as opinion and made without express malice. To meet the test the comment is not a statement of fact, it concerned public interest matter, and was grounded in true facts known to the audience and was objectively fair, meaning anyone could honestly hold that opinion based on the facts.” (Source: Gemini AI)
The filing states that Mentzelopoulos has no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Smith suit surrounding John Doe (para. 3).
In the SoD, four general arguments against the defamation suit are posited:
- Mentzelopoulos never made defamatory statements in her pleadings, or at all (paras. 19-22);
- There is absolute privilege in her judicial pleadings (paras. 23-28);
- Justification which mans that if Mentzelopoulos’s statements “bear any actual meaning, whether by their express words or implication, which is denied, those meanings are justified in substance and in fact” (paras. 29-30); and
- Fair comment, based on her opinions in the “impugned statements,” were fair comment on matters of public interest including expenditure of public funds for health care purposes, transparency in the process for delivery of healthcare in Alberta, and management and governance of AHS, its contracting and procurement processes and human resources (paras. 31-33).
“During her time as CEO and President of AHS, Ms. Mentzelopoulos’ relationship with Mr. Smith was cordial and respectful. They met in social settings on occasion to discuss work-related matters” (para. 14).
“In general, the statements made by Mentzelopoulos merely recount what Mr. Smith said and did” (para. 69).
“Mr. Smith has by himself, by his very statement and inclusion of the alleged innuendoes, suggested those meanings and introduced those inferences seemingly in an attempt to create harm for purposes of a claim against the defendant” (para. 67).
Specific facts challenged
Mr. Smith claims that he was contacted by Nicole Williams (Adrianna LaGrange’s Chief of Staff) who had been contacted by doctors representing the Alberta Surgical Group complaining their contract was being paused. Mentzelopoulos has no recollection of Williams mentioning the issue although the ex-CEO talked almost daily with Williams.
Mentzelopoulos challenges Smith’s statement that Smith no longer had any other involvement in discussions between AHS and ASG. According to her recollection Smith did participate in discussions on the Red Deer and Lethbridge chartered surgical facilities (CSF) (paras. 34-35).
She states the relationship with Prasad and his appointment in charge of procurement had been settled by the summer of 2024 and that the only remaining issues were not about the transition per se but about establishing appropriate accountabilities and fairness to staff (paras. 36-37).
She also denies that the issue of Nate Pike had only surfaced in 2024. In 2023 when she was working for the then official administrator of AHS, Mr. Smith texted her a screenshot of an X account called the Breakdown. On July 13, 2023, Smith texted Mentzelopoulos writing “I have a bad ass law firm bearing down on him.” She also disputes that Smith discussed Mr. Pike on 12 August 2024. She also asserts she was unaware that Mr. Mraiche was preparing or had prepared legal action against Nate Pike (para. 38).
She also clarifies she was not aware “Hansard the cat” was an employee of AHS and “did not conclude from her discussion with Smith he expected any action in her regard” (para. 40).
Regarding Nate Pike and Hansard the Cat, Smith says he sought no action from the AHS CEO. Mentzelopoulos repeats earlier pleadings that Smith reminded her Pike was “her employee” and “you’re going to look very bad” and there would be “consequences” (para. 41).
The SoD also denies her responsibility over media publications cited in the claim. The Globe relied heavily on the January 20th 2025 letter (without prejudice) between her legal counsel and AHS legal counsel. The brief states she was entitled to advance her claim against the Crown and AHS and the letter cannot support any claim for defamation or damages (para 42).
Ms. Mentzelopoulos also denies it was her intention that statements contained in her claim would be republished by The Globe and other media outlets (para. 45).
Denies defamation
She also denies that she defamed Mr. Smith with respect to her impugned statements about: Smith’s role in the ASG contract; the relationship between Smith and Prasad; her interactions with Smith about Nate Pike; pressure from Tremblay to terminate purported critics of government working for AHS; her conversations with Smith about Hansard the Cat; her statement that Smith said he would be taken care of for the rest of his life by “Sam” (Mraiche); and the status of negotiations for the Lethbridge and Red Deer CSFs.
She also asserts that someone told her that Smith had said he would ensure that Mentzelopoulos “never works again in Canada.” She believes Smith knew, while still in the Premier’s Office, that AHS was expanding its internal investigation into procurement. This was within the last couple of days of Smith’s employment as Chief of Staff.
Finally Mentzelopoulos asserts that investigators in December 2024 provided evidence from the forensic audit “concerning enough” to the then board of directors of AHS that some members of the board recommended that the information be turned over to the RCMP (para. 60).
There is more of this but suffice it to say that the former AHS boss has mounted a vigorous defence.
Use of AI to parse legalese
Given the often mind-numbing legalese and detail, I used Co-Pilot, Windows 11 AI assistant, to read through the claim and defence. My query and the answer is below.
Query: Please compare and contrast two PDF documents open on my computer- Statement of Claim Marshall Smith and Statement of Defence for Mentzelopoulos. In particular, please compare and contrast the degree of detail in one statement versus the other. Can you make a judgement as to who is telling the truth about the interactions of Smith and Mentzelopoulos?
Level of Detail: Claim vs Defence
Mentzelopoulos’ defence is significantly more detailed. It includes precise dates, direct quotes, and references to other legal filings (e.g., the Crown’s Defence, AHS documents). Smith’s claim, while serious, leans more on interpretation and perceived intent.
Aspect Statement of Claim-Smith Statement of Defence- Mentzelopoulos Narrative Structure Focused on specific allegations of defamation and harm Systematic rebuttal of each allegation with contextual framing Tone Assertive, accusatory, emotionally charged Formal, restrained, and legalistic Factual specificity
Selective quotes and paraphrased interactions Extensive point-by-point response with dates and context Legal framing Emphasized reputational damage and malice Anchored in legals defenses: privilege, fair comment, truth Supporting evidence
Relies heavily on inferred meanings and innuendo Cites text messages, timelines, and third-party involvement Credibility & Truthfulness
– Mentzelopoulos’ account is more internally coherent. She acknowledges interactions with Smith but frames them within broader systemic issues—procurement pressure, political interference, and whistleblower concerns. Her defence includes corroborating details (e.g., text exchanges, third-party investigations, timelines) that align with institutional processes.
– Smith’s claim appears reactive. It focuses on reputational harm and suggests malicious intent, but lacks the same level of documentary support. Many of the alleged defamatory statements are drawn from pleadings in another case, which Mentzelopoulos argues are protected by absolute privilege.
– Key tension: Smith portrays Mentzelopoulos as fabricating or exaggerating his role in procurement and personnel matters. Mentzelopoulos counters that Smith’s own communications and involvement—especially around Nate Pike and CSF contracts—were inappropriate and politically motivated.
My Take (Analytical, Not Legal)
Mentzelopoulos’ defence is more persuasive in terms of structure, detail, and legal grounding. Her narrative doesn’t hinge on emotional appeals but rather on procedural integrity and documented interactions. Smith’s claim may still hold weight in court, especially if he can produce evidence contradicting her version—but based on the documents alone, her account feels more substantiated.
Summary
It is not uncommon to see disputes about what was said, when, and by whom in defamation suits. What makes this suit a matter of significant public interest is the players that were involved. The Chief of Staff to the Premier is one of the most powerful positions in the Government of Alberta. It is presumed that a chief of staff is acting as a proxy for the premier and issues of importance to the government would be communicated from the political centre to the most senior administrators responsible for program delivery, in this case Mentzelopoulos. There is a very delicate balancing act in relations between the political centre and supposedly independent agencies directed by cabinet appointed directors. The balancing act from the centre or the minister’s office is always to orchestrate changes that are politically desirable without a fuss. Boards of directors tend to be concerned about reappointment as well as good governance and will lean in different ways according to circumstances. Reading the tea leaves here a competent CEO, supported by a board with a majority of outside directors, and seized with concerns on the procurement front, stood up to support the CEO. Clearly Mentzelopoulos felt the inquiry she had initiated was a “hill to die on” and thence the effort to negotiate compensation with AHS (the 20 January letter) which failed and the subsequent litigation.
Marshall Smith obviously wants to clear his name and resume what was expected to be a remunerative career in the private sector. At the present time the current status of Mentzelopoulos’s claim has been assigned to a Kings Court Justice and the lawsuit may proceed to trial within the next 90 days.
Related Posts
Mentzelopoulos: AHS, Government defence and plaintiff’s reply