Nate Pike Reposts ‘The Breakdown’ After New Ruling

An Edmonton judge on Monday terminated a controversial interim injunction against a popular Alberta political web series and podcast that prompted its host to remove all his social media content for two weeks.

Nate Pike, The Breakdown’s owner and host, decided to shut down his media platforms after another judge on Feb. 14 directed him to remove all content related to Edmonton businessman Sam Mraiche and his medical supply company, MHCare Medical. The judge also ordered Pike not to make any further comments about Mraiche or his company.

Mraiche sued The Breakdown and Pike for $6 million in December, alleging a campaign of defamation and harassment in a series of commentaries. In seeking the interim injunction, Mraiche said Pike’s alleged campaign caused him and his family to fear for their safety due to threats he said they received.

The multimillionaire businessman is at the centre of what the Alberta NDP has dubbed the CorruptCare scandal. It has roiled the province’s politics and generated headlines since the Globe and Mail broke the first story in July 2024 about the relationship between Mraiche and United Conservative Party ministers, including Premier Danielle Smith.

The allegations have not been proven in court. Pike has filed a statement of defence in which he denies the allegations that he illegally defamed Mraiche or his business.

Mraiche’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment so it’s not known if Mraiche intends to appeal Monday’s ruling.

The Breakdown has about 40,000 followers, and a GoFundMe legal defence fund set up by Pike has raised more than $200,000.

Pike reposted his content almost immediately after the judge issued the ruling.

Veteran Vancouver lawyer Roger McConchie, one of Canada’s top defamation lawyers, told The Tyee reposting the content may carry a legal risk.

Pike won’t be violating a court order if he reposts the allegedly defamatory statements, but McConchie said “if [Pike] loses at trial, the damage award would almost certainly be increased by any continued publication of the impugned expression between now and the trial verdict.”

Granting an interim injunction constitutes serious interference in free speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The legal threshold for such an injunction is high. Essentially, a judge must find that a defendant in a lawsuit has no defences to the alleged defamatory statements.

Court of King’s Bench Justice Doreen Sulyma made that finding on Feb. 14 after a rancorous hearing in which, McConchie said, she appeared not to have been provided with a full, clear explanation of the leading case law related to such injunctions, which are rare.

McConchie told The Tyee that Sulyma’s ruling didn’t appear to meet the stringent test for issuing the interim injunction — and that is what Court of King’s Bench Justice Bonnie Bokenfohr found during a 30-minute hearing on Monday.

Bokenfohr ruled Mraiche’s lawyers had not established that the defences of justification, fair comment and responsible communication in the public interest would fail, or that it was beyond doubt that any defence raised by the respondent was not sustainable.

“I was not surprised at all by the ruling,” McConchie said.

“The court simply applied the long-standing test for pretrial injunctive relief in defamation matters, and as a result, the application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.”

Another major issue was resolved at a hearing on Friday presided over by Bokenfohr. Pike’s lawyers gave an undertaking to remove the home addresses, contained in public documents, of individuals involved in the defamation action.

Bokenfohr on Monday, however, rejected a request by Mraiche’s lawyers to order The Breakdown not to publish information about Mraiche’s family members, several of whom worked in the government.

The judge found that only publicly available information had been published and the publication of their names and positions with the government did not rise to the level of harassment.

Mraiche’s lawyers had argued Pike and The Breakdown had neglected to properly monitor comments on his social media. Bokenfohr advised Pike that he had a legal obligation to actively monitor posted comments and to remove incitements to violence.

Pike’s lawyers had immediately filed an appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal of Sulyma’s ruling. One of his lawyers, Shaun Fluker, said they are still considering whether to continue the appeal.

McConchie said that, contrary to the public claims of some commentators, Sulyma’s ruling did not set a precedent that should cause journalists concern. He said her ruling cited none of the major established precedent cases, including one from the Supreme Court of Canada.

Pike’s lawyers had asked Bokenfohr to rule on an application to move up the discovery stage of the lawsuit — to essentially show what evidence they intend to provide to support the defamation allegations. Without giving reasons, Bokenfohr said she wouldn’t rule on the application.

The judge said if the two sides can’t agree on costs — the winning side normally gets costs — then they should make written submissions within 30 days.

“We are seeking costs,” Fluker said. “Now we proceed with defending the claim.”

If you have any information for this story, or information for another story, please contact Charles Rusnell in confidence via email.