Injunction prevented him from representing himself as a medical professional or oncologist
The Alberta Court of Appeal has dismissed a former nuclear medicine physician’s applications seeking permission to appeal and a stay pending the return of an application for a permanent injunction to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench.
The applicant was involved in legal disputes relating to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta’s (CPSA) complaint against him, his complaints to the CPSA against fellow physicians, and his terminated contracts with the Cross Cancer Institute and the University of Alberta.
In December 2018, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (now King’s Bench) declared the applicant a vexatious litigant, which meant he had to obtain permission to appeal. In March 2020, the appeal court set aside portions of the vexatious litigant order.
The applicant requested permission to appeal three orders issued by the Court of King’s Bench. In July 2023, he received permission regarding two of those orders. However, the court would dismiss his appeals if he failed to post security for costs of $20,000 for each.
Appeals not restored
The applicant applied to restore his two appeals, which the court had deemed abandoned.
On Apr. 23, 2025, in Makis v Alberta Health Services, 2025 ABCA 139, the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the application for his failure to timely post security for costs. According to the appeal court, restoring the appeals would not serve the interests of justice.
After the CPSA applied for a permanent injunction before the Court of King’s Bench, an interim interlocutory injunction issued in August 2025 restricted the applicant from:
- representing or implying that he was a regulated member of the CPSA or a licensed medical practitioner in Alberta
- using certain titles, abbreviations, or initials, including “Doctor,” “Dr,” or oncologist
- offering or providing health services to the public for cancer treatment, among other things
The applicant applied for permission to appeal the interim interlocutory injunction. If granted permission to appeal, he would seek a stay of the interim interlocutory injunction pending appeal. If denied permission to appeal, he would request a stay pending the determination of the CPSA’s permanent injunction and civil contempt applications.
Before the Court of King’s Bench, the CPSA applied to hold the applicant in civil contempt of the interim interlocutory injunction. The CPSA alleged that he continued to hold himself out as a medical doctor, physician, radiologist, nuclear medicine specialist, or oncologist despite not being licensed to practice medicine in Canada at present or in Alberta since February 2019.
Permission denied
Last Jan. 21, in College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta v Makis, 2026 ABCA 17, the Court of Appeal of Alberta refused permission to appeal.
The appeal court emphasized that the parties should return to the Court of King’s Bench, make fulsome arguments, and consider joining the injunction and civil contempt applications, which the court could hear together at the earliest opportunity.
According to the appeal court, rather than an appeal, a special chambers application could address this matter, as mandated by the Court of King’s Bench.
The appeal court noted that the Court of King’s Bench’s issuance of an interim interlocutory injunction aimed to help the parties proceed quickly and efficiently to special chambers.
The appeal court ruled that hearing the proposed appeal of the interim interlocutory injunction would unduly interfere with this proceeding’s progress toward a full hearing before the Court of King’s Bench.
The appeal court held that the balance of convenience, particularly the public interest component, supported refusing a stay pending a return to the Court of King’s Bench and the special chambers hearing. The appeal court deemed this outcome just and equitable in the circumstances.
