Union intervenes in case determining employment status of 610 academic health professionals
Justice D.A. Yungwirth of Alberta's Court of King's Bench has granted intervention status to a faculty union in an appeal that could determine whether hundreds of academic clinicians can simultaneously be employees of both a university and a health authority.
The case involves Dr. Stacey Hume, a molecular geneticist who worked 17 years at the University of Alberta while providing clinical services to Alberta Health Services (AHS).
In a decision issued Jan. 7, 2026, the Association of Academic Staff of the University of Alberta successfully argued it must participate in the appeal after being excluded from initial proceedings — despite the potential for the decision to overturn decades of practice separating academic and clinical employment relationships.
‘Global payment system’ for doctor
Dr. Hume held a contingent appointment at the University of Alberta from 2005 to 2022, working as a professor in the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry while simultaneously providing clinical laboratory services to patients of AHS and Alberta Precision Laboratories. Her compensation arrived through what the court described as a "global payment" system, where both her university salary and clinical remuneration flowed through a single university payroll.
According to court documents, of the nearly 2,000 Academic Faculty academic staff members, “approximately 610 of them in the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry have dual roles – an academic staff employee at the University of Alberta providing academic services to the GUA pursuant to the Collective Agreement, and in a separate role, providing clinical serves to other third-party entities."
After receiving 12 months' notice in November 2021 that her appointment would end, Dr. Hume sued AHS and APL in April 2022, claiming she was their employee or dependent contractor for clinical work.
AHS responded by filing a third-party claim against the university, asserting Dr. Hume was solely a university employee whose entire relationship fell under the collective agreement.
Remuneration for clinical work
The faculty union investigated Dr. Hume's situation between April 2021 and October 2022 and concluded that the essential character of the dispute did not arise out of the collective agreement but rather out of her relationship as a clinician serving AHS and APL. This position aligned with the union's longstanding interpretation of its representational boundaries.
As Justice Yungwirth noted, "AASUA membership fees and union dues are only collected on the portion of their remuneration related to their academic employment service to the GUA and not on the portion of the academic clinician's remuneration related to their clinical services provided to third parties."
For clinical work, the evidence showed that academic clinicians "receive their remuneration from the third parties through various legal arrangements that allow them to be paid indirectly through the GUA so that both academic and clinical work is paid through the GUA payroll system as a 'global' payment."
Collective agreement in spotlight
The Applications Judge granted summary dismissal of Dr. Hume's claim against AHS and APL, finding no merit to her assertion of employment or dependent contractor status. The same judge struck AHS' third-party claim against the university, ruling that employment issues fell under the collective agreement and outside court jurisdiction. Dr. Hume appealed the dismissal.
Justice Yungwirth identified the central question: "The main issue to be determined in the appeal is whether or not there is a genuine issue requiring trial on Dr. Hume's claim that a separate legal relationship (employee, dependent contractor, or independent contractor) exists between Dr. Hume and AHS/APL 'concurrent' with her employment by the Governors of the University of Alberta as an 'academic staff member' under the Collective Agreement."
Justice Yungwirth granted the union leave to intervene in the appeal, including the right to make oral submissions and file written argument and additional affidavit evidence. The union confirmed its focus remained solely on the jurisdictional issue of whether the dispute falls under the collective agreement, and indicated it is not seeking intervenor status in Dr. Hume's main action should her appeal succeed. The appeal is scheduled for September 10, 2026.
