Ex-medical professional alleges conspiracy to undermine his career
The Alberta Court of Appeal has rejected an application to restore two appeals by an inactive nuclear medicine physician and his professional corporation, given their failure to post security for costs by the time of the application hearing.
This proceeding arose from a complaint filed against the applicant to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA), complaints he made to the CPSA against other physicians, and the termination of his contracts with the Cross Cancer Institute and the University of Alberta.
The applicant brought a first action against the CPSA and Alberta Health Services (AHS) for alleged wrongful termination of employment.
He filed a second action against the university and multiple physicians. He claimed a broad criminal conspiracy involving numerous individuals, their lawyers, and members of the judiciary, who were allegedly attempting to undermine and end his professional career.
The applicant also alleged contractual breach, negligence, and misfeasance in public office. He argued that removing him from the cancer institute resulted in the “murders of or serious harming of 2456 Alberta cancer patients.”
In 2018, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench ordered that the applicant was a vexatious litigant. In 2020, the Court of Appeal of Alberta partly allowed his appeal of this order.
The applicant sought to appeal the Court of King’s Bench’s orders:
In July 2023, in Makis v Alberta Health Services, 2023 ABCA 214, the Alberta Court of Appeal refused to give the applicant permission to appeal the orders dismissing his applications in both actions to declare the respondents vexatious litigants.
However, the appeal court gave the applicant leave to appeal the orders striking or summarily dismissing his entire second action and his claim against the CPSA in the first action as long as he posted $20,000 as security for costs for these appeals by Sept. 30, 2023. The appeal court said it would dismiss either or both appeals without such security.
The applicants – the former doctor and his professional corporation – failed to post security for costs in both appeals by the deadline or seek an extension. Last Mar. 24, they applied to restore their two appeals deemed abandoned.
The former doctor provided an affidavit to explain his failure to post security for costs and the delay of about 18 months in filing this application. He alleged that he lacked the financial resources to post security until recently.
According to their counsel, while the applicants could not earn income in the intervening period due to the ex-doctor’s loss of his medical license and employment, they have since obtained the amount needed, thanks to a fundraiser they held. Counsel said the former doctor offered to undertake to post security for costs within 14 days of the restoration of the appeals.
The respondents alleged that the delay prejudiced them.
Last Apr. 23, in Makis v Alberta Health Services, 2025 ABCA 139, the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the application to restore the appeals based on the applicants’ failure to post or attempt to post security for costs by the time of the application hearing. The appeal court said restoring the appeals would not align with the interests of justice.
The appeal court ruled that there was an extraordinary and unexplained delay on the applicants’ part in taking any steps before applying to restore their appeals. The appeal court presumed that this delay prejudiced the respondents, given the significant passage of time.
The appeal court found any arguable merit in either appeal inadequate to overcome the other deficiencies present. The appeal court noted that arguable merit was only one of multiple factors to consider in deciding whether restoring the appeals would align with the interests of justice.
The appeal court deemed the affidavit vague and unhelpful as it failed to explain why the applicants took no steps to request a deadline extension and provided no specific evidence about their efforts to raise the funds they needed.
Lastly, the appeal court said the former doctor’s proposed undertaking was also unhelpful and unenforceable. The appeal court explained that the proposed undertaking failed to meet the standard stated in Parker v Parker, 2019 ABCA 300, which required the applicants to post or try to post security for costs by the time of the application hearing.
