Makis v Alberta Health Services, 2018 ABQB 976

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Makis v Alberta Health Services, 2018 ABQB 976 Date: 20181203 Docket: 1603 18935 Registry: Edmonton Between: Dr. Viliam Makis and Viliam Makis Professional Corporation Plaintiffs/Respondents - and - Alberta Health Services and Alberta College of Physicians Defendants/Applicants _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice T.D. Clackson _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction

[ 1 ] Vexatious litigation and vexatious litigants cannot be tolerated in our overburdened justice system. Regrettably, the need to intervene and manage litigant activities has become increasing common. In this case, the Applicants Alberta Heath Services [AHS] and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta [CPSA] argue that Viliam Makis [Dr. Makis] is a vexatious litigant and engaged in a broad-based abuse of dispute-related processes. The Applicants therefore seek court orders that: 1. manage Dr. Makis’ access to the Courts; 2. manage Dr.

Makis’ access to a number of tribunals and organizations; 3. stop Dr. Makis from communicating with a number of individuals who were members of the abused tribunals and organizations, and some of whom may be witnesses in the litigation launched by Dr. Makis, and 4. Dr. Makis not distribute certain documents that are confidential. [ 2 ] Dr. Makis responds he has done nothing wrong, and challenges this Court’s authority to restrict his access to Alberta courts, tribunals, and other dispute-related processes. [ 3 ] At the heart of Dr. Makis’ many actions is his view that he was unfairly treated.

He now sees his unfair treatment as a broad conspiracy to harm his standing as a physician. As a result, there are now three court proceedings: • Makis v Alberta Health Services , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket #1603 18935. This action may generally be described as a wrongful employment termination action. • Makis v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (Complaint Review Committee) , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket #1803 01472. Dr.

Makis in this action seeks judicial review of the CPSA Complaint Review Committee’s decision confirming CPSA decisions that rejected complaints he made against another physician. • Makis v McEwan , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket #1803 16582. In that action, Dr. Makis sues a number of physicians, their professional corporations, and the University of Alberta, alleging a conspiracy to undermine and terminate Dr. Makis’ professional career, breach of contract, negligence, and misfeasance in public office. Dr. Makis had counsel when he initiated the #1603 18935 action, but is presently self-represented.

He was self-represented when he filed the #1803 01472 Originating Application and #1803 16582 Statement of Claim. [ 4 ] By way of

summary, I have concluded that as part of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, restricting access is the appropriate response to Dr. Makis’ activities. Dr. Makis’ conduct to date leads me to conclude that future abuse of the court and other bodies is likely. Restricting Dr. Makis’ non-court activities is an unusual step, but also necessary. [ 5 ] As well, in the course of his pursuit of what he sees as justice, Dr. Makis used documents obtained through questioning for an improper purpose and has failed to abide by a previous Order I made. He is therefore in contempt of court. II. Facts and Circumstances [ 6 ] Dr.

Makis first complained about what he perceived as unfair treatment on August 20, 2014. That complaint was addressed to Dr. Parliament, Chief of Radiation Oncology at the Cross-Cancer Institute [CCI] and the AHS Medical Director at the CCI; and to Dr. Mador, Senior Medical Advisor for AHS and Edmonton’s Zone Medical Director for AHS. [ 7 ] At the time, Dr. Makis was under contract with AHS as a nuclear medicine physician to provide services at the CCI. [ 8 ] His appointment was for a fixed term ending October 31, 2016. The contract end date is a live issue in the litigation commenced on October 27, 2016, by Dr.

Makis as action number 1603-18935. That is the action in which this application is made. [ 9 ] Dr. Makis’ original August 20, 2014, complaint may be summarized as follows: • That the workload imposed upon Dr. Makis was excessive, which in his view could jeopardize patient care because he was rushed; • That he reported his concerns to Dr. Robert MacEwan, who expressed frustration to Dr. Makis about a clinical trial that Dr. Makis was engaged in; • That Dr. Makis performed a work audit and believed he had been significantly overworked. This he shared with Dr. A.

McEwan in February and in May 2014; • That the work of the department was skewed toward CT Imagining to the detriment of AET Imaging (terms and processes not explained to me in this proceeding); • That Dr. Makis tried to discuss these issues with Dr. R. MacEwan on August 6, 2014 and suggested a meeting of all physicians on the issues, which Dr. R. MacEwan refused in an aggressive and intimidating matter; • That on August 8, 2014, Dr. Makis repeated his concerns to some colleagues and advised them of his meeting with Dr. R. MacEwan. As a result of that meeting, Dr. Makis sought

schedule changes. He felt Dr. R. MacEwan’s responding email was intimidating and a threat to his employment;

• That on August 12, 2014, Dr. Makis was confronted by Dr. R. MacEwan in his office about the emails that Dr. Makis was sending. Dr. Makis apparently recorded this encounter on his IPhone; • That he reported these events to Dr. West and Dr. Parliament; and • That on other occasions, Dr. Makis has witnessed aggressive behaviour towards other colleagues by Dr. R. MacEwan. [ 10 ] On August 22, 2014, Dr. Mador, having received the August 20, 2014, complaint, advised that he would not implement a formal complaint process but would ask Dr. Parliament and another to work with Dr. R.

MacEwan to resolve workload issues. [ 11 ] In his affidavit, Dr. Makis says nothing happened, which prompted six of his colleagues to write to Dr. R. MacEwan expressing their concerns with his management style and behaviours. The letter went to Dr. R. MacEwan in May, 2015. There were emails exchanged between Dr. Parliament and Dr. R. MacEwan in May which described Dr. Makis as petulant and a problem. No doubt, Dr. Makis obtained those messages through the discovery process, in action number 1603-18935. [ 12 ] In or about this same period, Dr. Makis presented a research proposal which was apparently backed by Dr.

A. McEwan but put on hold by Dr. R. MacEwan because of resources. [ 13 ] I think that it is reasonable to conclude that resources were inadequate at the CCI to accommodate everything everyone wanted to accomplish. As well, personality conflicts created problems. Dr. Makis believes that all of this left him with a target on his back and he was unfairly treated and scapegoated by Dr. R. MacEwan. Dr. Makis further believes that the decision not to renew his contract had its genesis in the foregoing. He believes that there was a conspiracy involving Dr. A. McEwan, Dr. Richard Fedorak, Dr. Matthew Parliament, Dr. R.

MacEwan and Dr. Randy Goebel to get rid of Dr. Makis. [ 14 ] Additionally, in December 2015, a Triggered Initial Assessment [TIA] was launched against Dr. Makis as a result of complaints made about him.

Part 6 of the Alberta Health Services Medical Staff Bylaws provide for an assessment of an expressed concern in relation to a physician. The Triggered Initial Assessment team appointed was Dr. Parliament, Mr. Rice and Ms. Plupek. At the same time, a complaint was lodged with the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding Dr. Makis’ behaviour. In December 2015, Dr. Makis agreed to take a paid leave of absence, as a result of the foregoing. [ 15 ] The TIA report was presented to Dr. Makis on June 14, 2016. It runs to 46 pages. The conclusions

section of the report is reproduced in its entirety: V. Conclusions The work place environment that currently exists in this area is not conducive to the optimal delivery of patient care nor to the efficient functioning of a dynamic health care team. This environment has developed and allowed to continue as the result of the exhibited behaviors and the failure to recognize and address them in a timely and appropriate fashion. The responsibility for this is multiple: • The inappropriate manner in which Dr. MAKIS communicates and interacts with staff; • Dr.

MAKIS’ lack of insight into the power differential that exists between him and nuclear medicine staff; • Dr. MAKIS’ failure to acknowledge and respond to the direction provided from his direct report, colleagues and other staff around his method, volume, content and style of communicating, particularly through via email; • Dr.

MAKIS’ repeated sending of inflammatory e-mails and copying e-mails to multiple recipients irrelevant to the matter in hand despite being advised on many occasions that this behavior was counterproductive; • The passive participation, and tacit approval, by other staff in continued communication with Dr. MAKIS around subjects that were highly inappropriate in the workplace; • The breakdown over time of the professional and supervisory relationship between Dr. Rob MacEWAN (and others) and Dr. MAKIS, to the point that Dr. MacEWAN had ceased to communicate with Dr. MAKIS. As a consequence Dr.

MacEWAN was unable as the head of the Diagnostic Imaging area to deal with physician issues in a timely and appropriate manner. Concerns: The allegations and counter allegations spawned by the investigation, and the investigation itself, has exacerbated a pre-existing atmosphere of distrust and suspicion that will be difficult to overcome. The level of emotion and frustration evoked in the witnesses and the claims are such that some staff may well leave the area if Dr. MAKIS was allowed to return. Of additional concern is the attitude that Dr.

MAKIS exhibited during and since his interview with respect to his colleagues, other staff, and particularly Dr. Rob MacEWAN and Quinn WEST and his conviction that there was, and may possibly still be, active attempts by them to sabotage his medical career. Despite the fact that the investigation team found that Quinn WEST and Dr. MacEWAN were not actively conspiring to undermine his medical practice as he claimed, it is the firm opinion of the team that this finding will be disputed by Dr. MAKIS. This opinion is based upon Dr.

MAKIS' behavior exhibited up to this point, particularly his long-term focus and documentary support of this theory around conspiracy and that over 100 pages of archived documentation identifying a number of disparate occurrences only have the participants: Dr. MacEWAN, Quinn WEST and Dr. MAKIS, and nothing more in common. Another concern that should be kept in mind when moving this situation forward to some form of resolution is the residual impact of the behavior and the subsequent investigation on everyone in the Diagnostic Imaging area.

Without stating conclusions, it would be safe to say that no one, neither the complainants nor Dr. MAKIS, will be entirely happy with the outcomes and may, feel vindicated or emboldened by those same outcomes. In context, the team's finding that the alleged behavior demonstrated by Dr. MAKIS was not “bullying and threatening” and may not satisfy the complainants and witnesses who were the objects of these communications and as importantly may serve to inoculate Dr. MAKIS to further complaints around future behavior.

A further concern is the effect on the delivery of patient care that was already developing prior to the complaints and which may reoccur should Dr. MAKIS return. The department is a small and close knit group where communication is an absolute requirement in ensuring good patient care. Failure of adequate communication, distrust, resentment and lack of accountability in this circumstance may result in adverse patient care. Recommendations Evidence to support some of the specific allegations against Dr. MAKIS as well as other inappropriate behaviour by Dr.

MAKIS, and workplace dysfunction has been identified by this investigation and must be considered moving forward. To change the work place environment and to create and support a functional clinical team moving forward consideration should be given to the implementation of system improvements in areas such as: communication training, professional boundaries, team building and conflict resolution. It is the suggestion of the investigation team that any training provided or offered should be contextual and specific to the identified needs of the area and the behavior exhibited within that area.

To change that environment and to create and support a functional team moving forward consideration should be given to the implementation of system improvements such as: 1. All of the affected staff could take

part in an optional mediated resolution process. This resolution process should be independently facilitated and if possible, for all members of the Diagnostic Imaging area. Emotional intelligence and sensitivity training to be considered for all employees impacted to ensure staff are aware of what appropriate conduct is, providing employees with the necessary tools to draw upon if faced with difficult situations. 2. Provide ongoing support for impacted employees which could include a debrief of events, EFAP support, evaluation of progress, team effectiveness. 3.

Affected staff in the Diagnostic Imaging area engage in team-building training that identifies areas of concern raised during this investigation including, but not restricted to: building trust, individual accountability, problem solving and conflict resolution. 4. Consideration should also be given to providing effective communication skills training to the Diagnostic Imaging staff, including the physicians involved to forestall this type of behavior from continuing without effective intervention in the future.

This training should include a clear understanding of specific roles and responsibilities of each staff member within the Diagnostic Imaging area, with particular emphasis on hierarchical functioning and role clarity. 5. All affected staff should engage in training around professional boundaries and the expectations of professionals towards their peers.

The failure of some staff to acknowledge and respect the boundaries between personal and professional conduct created an environment in which the distribution and sharing of pornographic images was deemed appropriate and ultimately led to the erosion of the standards of professional conduct. Recognition and cessation of this behavior may have prevented some of the later consequences in this case. In addition to the above recommendations that are directed to everyone in the workplace environment, the team has some recommendations that are specific to Dr. MAKIS: 1. Dr.

MAKIS engage in training around proper electronic communication techniques. Regardless of the team’s findings, his communication methods and style does the opposite of what he has claimed; it creates, rather than solves problems. As mentioned prior, the volume, style, tone and subject matter of these communications has led to a great deal of misunderstanding and ultimately frustration among his colleagues and staff. 2. Dr. MAKIS should personally engage in interpersonal communications and conflict resolution training.

Regardless of the fact that his behavior was identified as not being bullying or threatening, it is still of concern and will, if allowed to continue, create challenges for his colleagues specifically and the Diagnostic Imaging area in general. 3. Dr. MAKIS should personally engage in appropriateness training with regard to the correspondence with staff that occurred in this case through texting, emailing and social media posts that contained intimidating and bullying content as well as unsolicited sexual references and inappropriate and pornographic images. [ 16 ] Dr.

Makis responded with a 24 page dispute of the report. His concluding paragraphs were as follows: Conclusion The TIA report was written with extreme prejudice and presumes me “guilty until proven innocent”. My testimony was mischaracterized on numerous occasions in the TIA report, and key events and evidence that supported my claims were either ignored by the TIA panel or were inexplicably omitted from the TIA report entirely, as described in extensive detail above.

The TIA panel failed to adequately investigate the allegations that I submitted regarding the unprofessional conduct of AHS Directors Quinn West and Dr. Robert MacEwan. The TIA panel willfully ignored or downplayed allegations of physical assault, harassment, coercion, retaliation, defamation and threats. The TIA panel ignored numerous violations of AHS Medical Staff By-laws and CPSA code of conduct by Quinn West, Dr. Robert MacEwan and Dr. Matthew Parliament. …

… There is evidence that this complaint was filed in bad faith and with malicious intent in violation of AHS Policies (specifically Workplace Violence: Prevention & Response Policy 3.6 : Intentionally making false, bad faith, or malicious allegations may result in disciplinary action...).

No attempt was made by any of the complainants or TIA witnesses to discuss any of the issues in the complaint with me, and suspiciously all 7 initial TIA witnesses (in full contrast to the 2 harassed TIA witnesses Brittany Sammann and Joanne Snydmiller) have requested that I be fired regardless of the findings of the TIA panel, even though the TIA panel itself has ruled virtually all of the allegations either "unfounded" or “unsubstantiated”. The TIA panel has ignored contradicting and false TIA witness testimony.

The TIA panel has ignored evidence of collusion between the complainants and the initial TIA witnesses, including the secret Dec.2, 2015 meeting where it was decided that the Dec.3, 2015 letter be authored by Sarah and Brent.

The TIA panel has also ignored the fact that two of the TIA witnesses involved in this collusion, were AHS Directors who openly discussed how to get me fired by harassing/coercing staff or soliciting staff into filing formal complaints against me over a period of 4 months prior to the filing of this complaint and confessed this in writing in a chain of emails dated August 21-23, 2015, to senior AHS Directors Dr. Bill Anderson and Dr. Matthew Parliament.

Proposal for a Mutual Resolution While I maintain that the allegations made against me in this complaint are false and that the Dec.3 and Dec.23, 2015 complaints were made in bad faith and with malicious intent, I have already taken several steps, in good faith, toward a mutual resolution to address all of the concerns raised by all of the parties involved in this TIA, including the complainants and the TIA witnesses. Please note that I was hired on August 5, 2013 as a 100% diagnostic imager and that I began performing clinical therapy work in Jan.2014 at the request of Dr. Robert MacEwan and Dr.

Sandy McEwan, both of whom had covered all therapy work at the CCI prior to my hiring. Initially, both Dr. MacEwan and Dr. McEwan were happy that I was seeing the vast majority of patients and was performing the vast majority of the clinical therapy work, which allowed Dr. MacEwan to focus on administrative work and Dr. McEwan to focus on his University of Alberta and CNSC work. Tensions arose, however, when Dr. McEwan supported my research interests (we co-authored 36 papers) and Dr.

MacEwan didn't, and I found myself in the middle of a constant and long-term battle between Sandy and Robert which had an incredibly toxic effect on the whole department of Diagnostic Imaging. I believe Dr. MacEwan's vision for the Diagnostic Imaging department involved the removal of Dr. McEwan, myself and all research and therapy work and I believe that Dr. MacEwan was supported by Dr. Parliament in this vision for the department. After much reflection, on May 11, 2016, I formally removed myself from all clinical therapy work and research work at the CCI going forward, via a letter to Ms.

Sandra Gordey, as a sign of good faith toward all parties in this TIA. By removing myself from all therapy work, I will not have any professional contact with the three complainants: Brent, Sarah or Emma, which will address all of their concerns, and I will also not have any professional contact with Dr. Sandy McEwan, which will address all of his concerns. Dr. Sandy McEwan has demonstrated that from January to June 2016, his team is fully capable of handling all of the clinical therapy work that I used to perform.

I will return to 100% diagnostic imaging work that I was originally hired for, which will be highly beneficial for the currently short-staffed CCI Diagnostic Imaging department, and I am willing to move my office to the radiology area which is far away from the nuclear medicine area where the therapy team performs some of their therapy work at this time, to ensure no interaction whatsoever with any of the complainants, or Dr. Sandy McEwan.

Since 2013, I have read over 2500 PET/CTs at the Cross Cancer Institute, more than any radiologist in Alberta and my expertise and work are well known to radiologists across the province. I have an excellent relationship with my imaging technologists as well as my radiology colleagues and I am looking forward to resuming my diagnostic Imaging career at the Cross Cancer Institute, as soon as possible. Furthermore, as another sign of good faith, I would like to propose that I will not send any emails to Quinn West or Dr.

Robert MacEwan regarding patient concerns, going forward, and that I will communicate directly and only with Dr. Bill Anderson, the Zone Medical Director of Diagnostic Imaging, regarding any diagnostic imaging patient concerns, with his permission. This gesture of good faith should address any and all concerns of the remaining TIA witnesses: Quinn West, Dr. Robert MacEwan and Dr. Matthew Parliament, regarding my “email communications”.

Please note that the occasional emails in question arose from conflicts between my imaging and therapy work, which would not exist In the future, as I will not perform any therapy work. I am requesting, however, that my AHS Medical Services Agreement which expires on October 31,2016,be renewed as soon as possible, as per

section 1.2,in light of Dr. Robert MacEwan’s documented long term efforts to destroy my medical career via defamation, threats, harassing/coercing staff into filing formal complaints, soliciting staff into filing formal complaints, and advocating for my AHS contract non-renewal (in retaliation for my Aug.20,2014 harassment complaint and in violation of AHS Medical Staff By-laws and CPSA Code of conduct). Dr. MacEwan has been advocating for my AHS contract non-renewal since August 2015 with senior AHS Directors and staff and I cannot ascertain how much damage Dr.

MacEwan has inflicted on my medical practice and my professional reputation in this regard. The renewal of my AHS contract would mitigate some of my concerns regarding the long term damage that has been inflicted on my medical practice by Dr. MacEwan since August 2015.

Lastly, I am willing to take any courses that have been suggested by the TIA panel to improve my electronic communication techniques, interpersonal communications, conflict resolution training and appropriateness training, provided that these do not preclude my immediate return to work and that they do not prevent me in any way from having a regular working

schedule at the Cross Cancer Institute [ 17 ] Dr. Makis did in fact take the courses. [ 18 ] The TIA report and response were followed by a series of actions by Dr. Makis which are the factual foundation for this Application. I take the description of these events from the various affidavits filed and have utilized the descriptors provided by the Affiants. I have added a name at the end of each entry to identify the target of Dr. Makis’s action. The following acronyms are used:

AHS CEO - AHS Chief Executive Officer ECO - AHS Ethics and Compliance Office EPS - Edmonton Police Service HRC - Alberta Human Rights Commissioner LSA - Law Society of Alberta OPIC - Office of the Investigation and Privacy Commissioner PIC - Alberta Public Interest Commissioner [ 19 ] In chronological order, the events occurred as follows: 1.

June 1, 2016 - complaints made to the CPSA Registrar alleging unprofessional conduct including physical and verbal assaults, harassment, poor leadership, defamation, retaliation, conspiracy, coercion, fraud, violations of confidentiality, deceit, jeopardizing patient care, illegal reporting of findings from radiology studies and other allegations. CPSA concluded that there was insufficient evidence of alleged unprofessional conduct to commence investigations. [MacEwan] 2.

June 4, 2016 - complaints made to the ECO alleging unprofessional conduct, and harassment, and further allegations that previous investigations were not properly done. [MacEwan] 3. June 6, 2016 - complaints made to the ECO alleging harassment, conspiracy, retaliation, verbal threats, defamation, false testimony, inappropriate management of cancer therapy program, and inappropriate investigation of previous complaints. [West] 4.

June 8, 2016 - complaints made to the CPSA Registrar and separately to the ECO alleging mishandling of complaints, denying requests to remove a leader from the CCI, retaliation, mishandling reports of physical assault and other misconduct. The CPSA concluded there was insufficient evidence of alleged unprofessional conduct to commence investigations. [Parliament] 5. June 9, 2016 - complaints made to Edmonton Zone Medical Director reiterating the allegations made in an earlier complaint to the ECO on June 4, 2016. [MacEwan] 6.

June 9, 2016 - complaints made to AHS Medical Director Diagnostic Imaging Services re-iterating the same allegations as in the ECO complaint dated June 6, 2016. [West] 7. June 16, 2016 - complaints made to the PIC alleging a total of 6 acts of misconduct as outlined in the CPSA complaint dated June 8, 2016. It was concluded that an investigation into the alleged misconducts will not be initiated as the issues are either not jurisdictional or do not meet the threshold of wrongdoing, or are best addressed under another process. [Parliament] 8.

June 16, 2016 - complaints made to the PIC, reiterating the allegations made in the ECO complaint on June 4, 2016, which includes a total of seventeen allegations of misconduct. It was concluded that an investigation into the alleged misconducts will not be initiated as the issues are either not jurisdictional or do not meet the threshold of wrongdoing, or are best addressed under another process. [MacEwan] 9. June 16, 2016 - complaints made to the PIC alleging a total of six acts of misconduct as outlined in the ECO complaint dated June 6, 2016.

It was concluded that an investigation into the alleged misconducts would not be initiated as the issues are either not jurisdictional or do not meet the threshold of wrongdoing, or are best addressed under another process. [West] 10. June 17, 2016 - complaints made to the AHS Edmonton Zone Medical Director reiterating allegations made in the CPSA complaint dated June 8, 2016. No action was taken with respect to this complaint. [Parliament] 11.

June 24, 2016 - complaints were made to the AHS Edmonton Zone Medical Director and Medical Director Diagnostic Imaging Services with allegations of several witnesses, including Dr. Parliament, violating AHS Medical Staff By-laws and other allegations [Parliament] 12. June 24, 2016 - complaints made to the AHS Edmonton Zone Medical Director and Medical Director Diagnostic Imaging Services with allegations of several witnesses, including Dr. MacEwan, violating AHS Medical Staff By-laws, engaging in collusions, and fabricating testimony in the TIA investigations. [MacEwan] 13.

June 24, 2016 - complaints were made to the AHS Edmonton Zone Medical Director and Medical Director Diagnostic Imaging Services with allegations of several witnesses, including Quinn West, violating AHS Medical Staff By-laws, engaging in collusions, and fabricating testimony in the TIA investigations. [West] 14. June 24, 2016 - complaints were made to the AHS Edmonton Zone Medical Director and Medical Director Diagnostic Imaging Services with allegations of several witnesses, including Dr. McEwan, engaging in collusions, and fabricating testimony in the TIA investigations. [McEwan] 15.

June 24, 2016 - complaints were made to the AHS Edmonton Zone Medical Director and Medical Director Diagnostic Imaging Services, with allegations of improperly choosing witnesses to be interviewed for the investigation, mischaracterization of Dr. Viliam Makis’ testimony, the TIA team’s failure to properly investigate the key events or evidence, excluding or ignoring relevant evidence, and downplaying some allegations. [The AHS TIA investigative team included Peter Ratcliff, Dr. Richard Ovlen and Melissa

Kowalchuk]. 16. July 11, 2016 - Dr. Makis wrote to Heberling expressing his concern about the way the complaint had been handled by the AHS investigation team. In that letter, he refers to the “triggered initial assessment” conducted by AHS. In this letter he refers to violations of the CPSA’s Code of Conduct by several AHS Directors. Note: In a letter dated September 7, 2016, Heberling advised the Plaintiff that the information gathered by AHS and the findings of their investigation would have no bearing on her investigation and eventual findings. 17.

July 15, 2016 - request made to the AHS Edmonton Zone Medical Director and Medical Director Diagnostic Imaging Services to provide supporting documentation for two CPSA complaints. The CPSA complaints concern allegations of improper reporting of lutetium studies and violation of Health Canada Regulations. [MacEwan] 18. July 29, 2016 - following-up on the request to obtain supporting documentation for two CPSA complaints already made. [MacEwan] 19.

August 2, 2016 - complaints made to the AHS Edmonton Zone Medical Director and Medical Director Diagnostic Imaging Services, with respect to the complaint processes and investigations at AHS and again re-iterating allegations of physical assault and harassment. [MacEwan] 20. August 8, 2016 - filing an appeal to the CPSA Hearings Director after receiving a dismissal letter from CPSA on July 8, 2016 with respect to the complaints made on June 1, 2016. [MacEwan] 21. August 14, 2016 - filing an appeal to the CPSA Hearings Director after receiving a dismissal letter on July 8, 2016.

Re- summarizing previous allegations. [Parliament] 22. August 17, 2016 - further supporting documentation submitted to the AHS, Edmonton Zone Medical Director and Medical Director Diagnostic Imaging Services, with respect to allegations of retaliation and non-renewal of contract. [Parliament] 23. August 17, 2016 - further supporting documentation submitted to the AHS Edmonton Zone Medical Director and Medical Director Diagnostic Imaging Services, with respect to allegations of retaliation and non-renewal of contract. [MacEwan] Note: on August 17, 2016 the CPSA Hearings Director advised Dr.

Makis that his appeal to the CPSA with respect to previously dismissed complaints against Dr. Robert MacEwan was denied. 24. August 21, 2016 - further supporting documentation submitted to the AHS, Edmonton Zone Medical Director and Medical Director Diagnostic Imaging Services, with respect to allegations of workplace fraud, conspiracy and specifically lying to the TIA investigators. [Parliament] 25.

August 21, 2016 - further supporting documentation submitted to the AHS Edmonton Zone Medical Director and Medical Director Diagnostic Imaging Services, with respect to allegations of workplace fraud, conspiracy and specifically lying to the TIA investigators. [West] 26. August 21, 2016 - further supporting documentation submitted to the AHS Edmonton Zone Medical Director and Medical Director Diagnostic Imaging Services, with respect to allegations of workplace fraud, conspiracy and specifically lying to the TIA investigators. [MacEwan] 27.

August 21, 2016 - further supporting documentation submitted to the AHS, Edmonton Zone Medical Director and Medical Director Diagnostic Imaging Services, with respect to allegations of workplace fraud, conspiracy and specifically lying to the TIA investigators. [McEwan] 28. September 8, 2016 - complaint made to AHS Senior Advisor for Employee Relations with allegations of retaliation, conspiracy, defamation, sabotage and making of false statements. [West] 29.

September 9, 2016 - complaint made to the AHS Edmonton Zone Medical Director and Medical Director Diagnostic Imaging Services, with respect to allegations of unprofessional conduct, workplace fraud, absenteeism, conspiracy, clinical violations, failure to document and communicate, providing false testimonies to AHS investigators, sabotaging, tampering with mail, breaching confidential patient information, and other breaches. [McEwan] 30. October 7, 2016 - re-filing complaints to the ECO and the AHS CEO with allegations previously submitted on June 4 and June 9, 2016 to AHS. [MacEwan] 31.

October 7, 2016 - complaint made to the AHS CEO and ECO which were previously made on June 8, 2016 and June 17, 2016. [Parliament] 32. The plaintiff wrote a letter dated October 11, 2016, to Dr. Trevor Theman, the then Registrar of the CPSA, expressing concern about the involvement of CPSA’s Complaints Director, Dr. Michael Caffaro in the review of the First Complaint. As stated on page 2 of that letter, the plaintiff had filed written complaints against Dr. MacEwan and Dr. Parliament. The CPSA investigated the complaints and opened files for the investigations. The file for the Dr.

MacEwan investigation was 160350.1.1 and for the Dr. Parliament investigation was 160351.1.1. As stated, the complaints against Dr. MacEwan and Dr. Parliament were dismissed by Dr. Caffaro. 33. October 11, 2016 - complaint made to the CPSA Registrar with allegations of being too accommodating and accepting and other misconduct in relation to reviewing the complaints, requesting that Dr. Caffaro be removed from reviewing the CPSA complaint.

[Caffaro] 34. October 11, 2016 - complaint made to AHS CEO, AHS Board Chair and ECO Chief Officer with respect to the allegations of conspiracy, sabotage, manipulation or interference with the AHS TIA investigation, bad faith, violations of contract, defamation, harassment, retaliation, misuse of public funds, cover-ups, abuse of public office and other allegations, requesting resignation and removal of Dr. Mador from his position.

After a thorough review, the AHS Associate Chief Medical Officer concluded that there was no reasonable basis in evidence to warrant a further review of the complaints under the TIA investigative process. [Mador] 35. October 13, 2016 - complaint made to the CPSA Registrar reiterating the same allegations as in the complaint to the AHS on October 11, 2016. CPSA concluded there was insufficient evidence of alleged unprofessional conduct to commence investigations. [Mador] 36.

October 14, 2016 - complaints made to the CPSA Registrar as well as separately to the AHS CEO and Chair of AHS Board with allegations of physical assault, sabotage, verbal assault, workplace violence, conspiracy, human rights abuse, illegal reporting and unsupervised cancer patient therapy work. The CPSA concluded there was insufficient evidence of alleged unprofessional conduct to commence investigations. [MacEwan] 37. On or around October 17, 2016 - Dr. Makis contacted the AHS Board Chair and the AHS CEO with broad allegations of cover-up and conspiracy.

Around this time he was also found to have contacted the Incident Co-ordination Team at AHS. On October 18, 2016, the AHS legal counsel, Mr. Brent Windwick of Field Law, advised the legal counsel for Dr. Makis that the Board Chair and the CEO would not be communicating with Dr. Makis directly, and, further, that Dr. Makis is to refrain from sending any future correspondence directly to the Board or the CEO. The letter further requests that Dr. Makis refrain from contacting the Incident Co- ordination Team going forward. The letter directs Dr.

Makis and his legal counsel to direct all future communications with respect to AHS matters to the AHS legal counsel at Field Law. 38. October 17, 2016 - complaint made to the CPSA Registrar and separately to the AHS CEO and the AHS Board Chair with allegations of covering up of workplace violence and human rights abuses and conspiracy. The CPSA concluded there was insufficient evidence of alleged unprofessional conduct to commence investigations. [Parliament] 39.

October 17, 2016 - complaint made to the CPSA Registrar and separately to the AHS CEO and Chair of AHS Board re- iterating the same allegations made in the complaint on September 9, 2016. The CPSA concluded there was insufficient evidence of alleged unprofessional conduct to commence investigations. [McEwan] 40. October 24, 2016 - complaint made to the PIC, repeating allegations in the June 16, 2016 complaint with additional allegations of reprisal and a request to provide more documents. The PIC concluded that a response was already provided and will not be initiating an investigation. [West] 41.

October 24, 2016 - complaint made to the PIC, repeating allegations in the June 16, 2016 complaint with additional allegations of reprisal and a request to provide more documents. The PIC concluded that a response was already provided and will not be initiating an investigation. [MacEwan] 42. October 24, 2016 - complaint made to the PIC, repeating allegations in the June 16, 2016 complaint with additional allegations of reprisal and a request to provide more documents. The PIC concluded that a response was already provided and will not be initiating an investigation. [Parliament] 43.

November 15, 2016 - complaint made to the Minister of Health, with allegations of breach of public trust and misuse of public funds. [Parliament] 44. November 15, 2016 - complaint made to the Minister of Health with allegations of breach of public trust and misuse of public funds. [Mador] 45. Letter dated November 22, 2016 - the plaintiff asked Dr. Theman for a response to his October 11, 2016 letter. 46. November 22, 2016 - a second

Article 16 Complaint was filed to the Office of the Provost and Vice-President at the University of Alberta as well as the Dean of Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of Alberta with a total of six allegations of academic and research misconduct, sabotage, defamation, trespassing, tampering with mail, plagiarism, threats and abuse of position, requesting immediate removal and resignation. [McEwan] 47.

November 22, 2016 - follow-up to the CPSA Registrar with respect to conflicts of interest arising in the complaint review process, and further allegations of biases in CPSA investigations, asking for Dr. Caffaro to recuse himself from further participation in these complaints and to meet with Dr. Makis, as well as to be provided with documents with respect to investigations. The CPSA concluded that no further documents will be provided, will not be asking Dr. Caffaro to recuse himself, and Dr. Caffaro will not be directed to meet with Dr. Makis. Dr.

Caffaro further responds and states that it would not be appropriate to meet pending Dr. Makis’ hearing at the CPSA. [Caffaro] 48. November 24, 2016 - an appeal made to the CPSA Registrar for previously dismissed complaints with further allegations of sabotage, conspiracy and violations of the CPSA Code and Ethics and Standards of Practice. [Parliament] 49. November 24, 2016 - an appeal made to the CPSA Registrar for previously dismissed complaints with further allegations of sabotage, conspiracy and violations of the CPSA Code and Ethics and Standards of Practice were made. [MacEwan] 50.

November 24, 2016 - an appeal made to the CPSA Registrar for previously dismissed complaints with further allegations of sabotage, conspiracy and violations of the CPSA Code and Ethics and Standards of Practice. [Mador]

51. November 24, 2016 - an appeal made to the CPSA Registrar for previously dismissed complaints with further allegations of sabotage, conspiracy, defamation, and violations of the CPSA Code and Ethics and Standards of Practice. [McEwan] 52. November 25, 2016 - follow-up request made to the AHS CEO and the Minister of Health with respect to the complaint filed on October 14, 2016 with further allegations of verbal and physical abuse, improper investigations, retaliation, workplace violence, human rights abuses. [MacEwan] 53.

December 14, 2016 - an appeal made to the CPSA Hearings Director and the Registrar following the dismissal of complaints on November 15, 2016. Allegations of workplace violence, sabotage, threats to medical practice, harassment, conspiracy, human rights abuses, illegal reporting and other misconduct are re-iterated. [MacEwan] 54. December 15, 2016 - an appeal made to the CPSA Hearings Director and Registrar following the November 15, 2016 dismissal, stating that reasons for the dismissal were unreasonable. [McEwan] 55. December 16, 2016 - Dr.

Makis advised the CPSA Hearings Director that he will not be pursuing the appeals with respect to the CPSA complaints made against Dr. David Mador and Dr. Matthew Parliament. 56. Dr. Caffaro and the plaintiff, with the assistance of his lawyer, entered a memorandum of understanding dated December 17, 2016. 57. January 18, 2017 - the

Article 16 Complaint was made to the Associate Vice President of Academics and Research at the University of Alberta with allegations of misconduct, sabotage, plagiarism, false testimony, defamation, academic misconduct and abuse of position. [McEwan] 58. January 24, 2017 - another appeal made to the CPSA Hearings Director claiming that the complaints and supporting documents were not fully reviewed or considered by the Director. [McEwan] 59.

January 24, 2017 - an appeal made to the CPSA Hearings Director and further documentation provided in support of same, claiming that not all supporting documents were fully reviewed or considered by the Complaints Director in the past. [MacEwan] 60. March 30, 2017 - further documents provided for the

Article 16 Complaint made to the Associate Vice-President of Academics and Research at the University of Alberta on January 18, 2017, to support allegations of academic and non-academic misconduct. [McEwan] 61. April 10, 2017 - further documents provided for the

Article 16 Complaint to the President of the University of Alberta to support allegations of academic and non-academic misconduct. [McEwan] 62. April 12, 2017 - further documents provided for the

Article 16 Complaint to the Associate Vice-President of Academics and Research at the University of Alberta in support of allegations of academic and non-academic misconduct. Several allegations were dismissed. [McEwan] 63. Sometime in April 21, 2017, Dr. Makis approached and communicated with a former colleague, Dr. Marguerite Wheeler, at a meeting in Toronto. He made threatening and intimidating remarks towards her and a complaint was filed with the CPSA by Dr. Wheeler.

This complaint was investigated and it was concluded that the matter should be sent to a hearing at the CPSA, which was held on January 15 and 16, 2018. 64. May 23, 2017 - complaint made to the HRC with allegations of workplace violence, harassment, humiliation, threats, intimidation, denial of medical or personal leaves, retaliation, inadequate investigation of complaints, and other misconduct. The complaint was dismissed. [MacEwan] 65. In an email dated June 1, 2017, the plaintiff refers to complaints that he had made to the CPSA against Dr. Sandy McEwan, Dr. Mador, Dr. Parliament, Dr.

Robert MacEwan and Sarah Rayner (the maker of the First Complaint). Dr. Makis then went on to advise that he was concerned that Dr. Wieler’s complaint, the Second Complaint, may be

an act of retaliation by Dr. McEwan. 66. June 1, 2017 - complaint was made to the CPSA with allegations of retaliation and sabotage. [McEwan] 67. June 21, 2017 - complaints made to the Premier of Alberta and Mayor of Edmonton with allegations of workplace violence, bullying, verbal abuse, sabotage of medical careers of physicians, misconduct of AHS Senior Executives at the CCI, improper or inadequate investigative processes at the AHS, fraud, sabotage, and other allegations. [Sikora] 68.

June 21, 2017 - complaints made to the Premier of Alberta and Mayor of Edmonton with allegations of workplace violence, bullying, verbal abuse, sabotage of medical careers of physicians, misconduct of AHS Senior Executives at the CCI, improper or inadequate investigative processes at the AHS, fraud, sabotage, and other allegations. [Parliament] 69. June 28, 2017 - appeal made to the HRC and a new complaint filed to the Minister of Health receiving a dismissal letter on May 29, 2017, with detailed allegations of discrimination. [MacEwan] 70. July 25, 2017 - further documents were provided for the

Article 16 Complaint to the investigator, in support of allegations of misconduct which were filed on November 22, 2016. [McEwan] 71. July 27, 2017 - second appeal made to the HRC and the Minister of Health following the receipt of the letter from the HRC on June 29, 2017, alleging not all supporting documents were reviewed by HRC. [MacEwan] 72. Email message dated Monday, August 28, 2017, from the plaintiff to Scott McLeod, the new registrar at the CPSA, copied to Dr. Caffaro, the Premier of Alberta, the Health Minister, and Heberling regarding the plaintiff’s composition of a report entitled: “A

Report on the Corruption in Alberta’s Health Care System – Volume 2: Corruption at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta”. 73. October 6, 2017 - third appeal made to the HRC Director following the receipt of the letter from the HRC on August 22, 2017, alleging that the HRC is siding with perpetrators of human rights abuses and is acting inappropriately. [MacEwan] 74. By way of email message dated October 19, 2017, at 2:26 p.m., the plaintiff asked David Kay and Dr. McLeod to confirm that the October 16, 2017, letter from Mr.

Boyer and the enclosed Notice of Hearing were official and legitimate CPSA documents. 75. In a string of emails, the plaintiff asks Mr. Boyer on October 18, 2017, for copies of the CPSA’s investigation records as stated in Mr. Boyer’s letter of October 16, 2017. On October 19, 2017, at 11:21 a.m. the plaintiff asked Mr. Boyer to verify that the letter that he sent dated October 16, 2017, was an official CPSA document authorized by the CPSA and that Mr. Boyer represented the CPSA. Mr. Boyer responded in the affirmative to the plaintiff’s questions the same day at 2:25 p.m.

Finally, the plaintiff sent an email to Dr. Macleod on October 19, 2017, at 11:06 p.m. copied to many, including the Premier and the Health Minister, attaching a letter pre-dated October 20, 2017, regarding the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation of CPSA documents and breach of public trust by Dr. Caffaro. 76. By email dated October 20, 2017, at 7:45 a.m., Dr. McLeod confirmed that Mr. Boyer was legal counsel for the CPSA and that the Notice of Hearing was real. 77. By email dated October 20, 2017, at 11:01 a.m., the plaintiff advised Dr.

McLeod that he had filed a police report with the Edmonton police department reporting threats by or on behalf of Dr. Caffaro with forged or fraudulent government documents. It appears the police report was made at 10:15 a.m. 78. An email message string occurs between the plaintiff and Dr. McLeod starting October 20, 2017 and ending on November 2, 2017. The gist of the communications is that the plaintiff wanted Dr. Caffaro and Heberling fired by the CPSA. 79.

October 28, 2017 - complaint made to the CPSA alleging CPSA officials of corruption, scandal, covering up of abuse, conspiring, colluding, sabotaging, manipulating complaint processes, abuse of positions, breach of public trust, malfeasance and misfeasance, and requesting Dr. Caffaro’s removal. [Caffaro] 80.

January 14, 2018 - complaint to the CPSA Registrar and Minister of Health with allegations of unlawful, improper and unprofessional conduct, conspiracy, sabotage, providing misleading, false and erroneous information, failing to address or review documentation, covering up physical assault, bullying and verbal abuse, refusing to investigate certain allegations and other allegations. [Caffaro] 81. October 20, 2017 - complaint made to the CPSA Registrar alleging fraudulent misrepresentations, breach of public trust, intimidations and attacks. A report was also made to the EPS. [Boyer] 82.

October 28, 2017 - complaint made to the CPSA alleging the CPSA officials of corruption, scandal, covering up of abuse, conspiring, colluding, sabotaging, manipulating complaint processes, abuse of positions, breach of public trust, malfeasance and misfeasance, and requesting Heberling’s removal. [Heberling] 83. On or around November 29, 2017, Dr. Makis contacted AHS staff and medical leaders through their work and personal emails. He was directed by Mr.

Mark Raven-Jackson to cease and desist contacting these individuals either directly or indirectly and to direct all such future communications to the office of Field LLP. 84. By email message dated December 6, 2017, the plaintiff submitted six requests to access personal information from the CPSA in accordance with the Personal Information Protection Act , SA 2003, c P-6.5 85. By email messages dated December 6, 2017, the plaintiff submitted a request to access information pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , RSA 2000, c F-25 [ FOIP Act ]. 86.

January 14, 2018 - complaint to the CPSA Registrar and Minister of Health with allegations of unlawful, improper and unprofessional conduct, conspiracy, sabotage, providing misleading, false and erroneous information, failing to address or review documentation, covering up physical assault, bullying and verbal abuse, refusing to investigate certain allegations and other allegations. [Caffaro] 87. Or about January 15, 2018, the plaintiff filed a complaint to the CPSA about Dr. Caffaro. Dr. Makis by an email dated January 18, 2018 advised several people that he had made the complaint. 88.

On or about February 2, 2018, the plaintiff made a complaint to the CPSA about Heberling. 89. February 4, 2018 - requesting the Associate Vice-President of Academics and Research at the University of Alberta to immediately re-open the

Article 16 Complaint with respect to professional misconduct. Re-opening was not granted. [McEwan] 90. February 2, 2018 - complaint made to the CPSA Director of Professional Conduct and Privacy Commissioner alleging unlawful, improper, unprofessional and unethical conduct. [Heberling] 91. February 26, 2018 - complaints made to the OIPC with respect to AHS’ request to disregard 53 FOIP Act access requests from Dr.

Makis and allegations of false, erroneous, deliberate, misleading, defamatory and nonsensical claims or statements, bad faith, malicious intent, blatant violation of FOIP Act and more allegations of misconduct by various AHS officials. Requesting the OIPC to instruct AHS to provide 53 FOIP ACT access requests. [Mack] 92. On April 3, 2018, Dr. Makis contacted several Alberta Health Service employees by email with an inquiry about Dr.

McEwan, Dr. Parliament, Dr. MacEwan, and Mr. Quinn West, as well as several others employed at the CCI with respect to their present employment status. 93. April 3, 2018 - complaint made to the AHS Director of Employee Relations with allegations of unprofessional and unlawful conduct, repeated violation of the FOIP Act , obstruction of requests, providing false, erroneous and misleading information, defamation, and deception. Requesting his immediate suspension. [Mack] 94. April 10, 2018 - Dr. Makis contacted Ms.

Mona Sikal, the AHS Executive Director of Employee Relations and Workforce Strategies, to follow-up on several recent complaints he made about the AHS Executive Director of Provincial Medical Affairs Integration team (Mr. Jamie Rice) and the AHS Director of Information Access and Privacy Assessments (Mr. Chris Mack). Dr. Makis was again directed to contact Mr. Raven-Jackson, with respect to any matters related to his ongoing litigation. Dr. Makis immediately made one further contact with Ms. Sikal and was again directed to abstain from doing so. 95.

April 5, 2018 - complaint made to the AHS Director of Employee Relations and the RCMP with allegations of unprofessional and unlawful conduct, breach of public trust, launched illegal AHS TCI Investigation, conspiracy, defamation, fraud, violation of various statutes, sabotage, covering up physical assaults and harassment, and fabricating testimonies, and requesting Rice’s immediate suspension and termination. [Rice] 96. May 3, 2018 - Dr. Makis authored a letter addressed to Dr.

Abdulaziz Al-Sugair, the Chairman of the Department of Radiology at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [the “King Faisal”]. Dr. Makis carbon copied the letter to the Minister of Health and Deputy Premier of Alberta, the Leader of the United Conservative Party of Alberta, the CEO of AHS and the Medical Director of the Diagnostic Imaging of the Edmonton Zone. In this letter, Dr. Makis discloses the particulars of the lawsuits commenced by him in Alberta, as well as he makes reference to two ongoing CPSA investigations with respect to Dr. MacEwan and Dr.

Parliament. There were, however, no ongoing CPSA investigations with respect to Dr. MacEwan and Dr. Parliament at the time. 97. May 10, 2018 - Dr. Makis sent an email to several individuals including the CPSA Registrar, the Health Minister, an MLA, the legal counsel for CPSA and AHS and others. The email enclosed a letter addressed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (“OIPC”). The letter was also sent separately to the OIPC. In the letter, Dr.

Makis requests an update with respect to the complaint he made on March 15, 2018, to the OIPC in regards to how the CPSA allegedly withheld and improperly redacted the information that he sought under the Personal Information Protection Act . 98. May 17, 2018 - Dr. Makis sent an email to AHS legal counsel, and carbon copied several other individuals including the Health Minister, the AHS Zone Clinical Director of Diagnostic Imaging, the Premier of Alberta, and an MLA. The email enclosed a letter addressed to Chief of the EPS and several other attachments. The letter was also sent separately to the EPS.

The letter concerns the same complaints that were made to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) on April 5, 2018. It alleges a breach of public trust by Mr. Jamie Rice, the AHS Executive Director of Provincial Medical Affairs Integration Team. The email attachments further state that the RCMP have advised Mr. Makis that his complaint is not within their jurisdiction and as such they have not investigated his complaint. [Rice] 99. May 18, 2018 - Dr.

Makis sent an email to several individuals including the Associate Registrar of the CPSA, the CPSA Registrar, AHS and CPSA legal Counsel, and others enclosing a letter addressed to the Associate Registrar of CPSA with respect to an investigation into the alleged misconduct of the CPSA Complaints Director and Assistant Registrar, Mr. Caffaro, filed on January 14, 2018. In the letter Dr. Makis requests an update on the investigation into the complaint. [Caffaro] 100. May 18, 2018 - Dr. Makis sent an email to the Director of Professional Conducts at the CPSA, Ms.

Barron, and carbon copied the CPSA and AHS legal counsel, and the Registrar of CPSA. The email contained an enclosed letter and email correspondence addressed to Ms. Barron, regarding a complaint with respect to the alleged misconduct of the CPSA Investigator, Heberling, filed on February 2, 2018. The attached email correspondence shows that Dr. Makis sent an email to Ms. Barron on May 16, 2018, with a request for an update on the investigation of the complaint. The letter shows that several days later he again requested an update on the investigation. [Herberling] 101.

May 18, 2018 - The plaintiff sent a letter to Sharon Barron requesting information from her. 102. May 18, 2018 - The plaintiff sent a letter to Bryan Salte requesting information from him. 103. June 5, 2018 - Dr. Makis sent an email to AHS legal counsel and carbon copied the CPSA legal counsel, the Health Minister, the Premier of Alberta, an MLA, the Chief Medical Officer (“CMO”) of AHS, the CPSA Registrar, the AHS Executive Director of Provincial Medical Affairs Integration Team and several other individuals. The email summarizes the complaint made against Mr.

Jamie Rice, and makes several new allegations that the AHS legal counsel and the legal counsel of Field LLP have breached the LSA’s Code of Conduct by covering up the corrupt and illegal activities of Mr. Rice and the CCI officials. The email threatens to file complaints to the LSA against the legal counsel involved in this matter. The email further emphasizes that the AHS and the CPSA have been involved in sabotage and have been corrupt and oppressive in their dealings with Alberta physicians, such as Dr. Makis. 104. June 8, 2018 - Dr.

Makis sent an email to the CEO and the Managing Director of Herman Medical Staffing GmbH, several leaders and directors of the King Faisal, the AHS Zone Clinical Director of Diagnostic Imaging, the Health Minister, an MLA, and counsel for AHS and CPSA. The email indicates that Dr. Makis’ application for a nuclear medicine position at the King Faisal has been terminated on June 8, 2018. Dr.

Makis alleges that the termination of the application was a direct result of the sabotage on his medical career and professional reputation committed by the AHS Administrators and as a result he will be seeking damages for the same in this Action. 105. August 6, 2018 - by email message the plaintiff provided the CPSA with a copy of his complaint to the LSA against Mr. Boyer.

106. August 7, 2018 - by email message the plaintiff provided the CPSA with a copy of his complaint to the LSA against his ownlawyer. [20] The Affidavits and entries sometimes refer to complaints which were in fact email messages asking about complaintspreviously made or adding to the complaints already filed. As well, some complaints were made relative to multiple individuals.However, the inescapable conclusion is that Dr. Makis has flooded every person and agency he could think of with paper.

He has voicedhis concerns far and wide and his reach continues to expand, even into the political arena. [21] Since hearing this Application, I have been copied by Dr. Makis with a number of documents as he continues to pursue newavenues to complain. III. The Parties’ Submissions A. The Applicants [22] AHS and CPSA jointly seek that Dr. Makis be declared a vexatious litigant and made subject to court access restrictions. Theyalso seek to extend that order to manage Dr. Makis’ interactions with other tribunals and professional organizations. The Applicants alsoallege Dr.

Makis is in contempt of court for breaching court orders. [23] AHS argues that the documentary record it has submitted amply illustrates Dr. Makis’ pattern of persistent, escalatingcomplaint-related misconduct in multiple fora, including this Court. His conduct includes numerous classes or “indicia” of abusivelitigation behavior. AHS also stresses that Dr. Makis indicates he intends to continue his conduct and initiate further complaints,proceedings, investigations, and appeals.

Future abusive conduct is therefore not just plausible but foreseeable and, as I have said, isoccurring. [24] AHS indicates this Court derives its jurisdiction both from the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2, ss 23-23.1 and a broaderinherent jurisdiction that flows from the Court’s authority to manage its processes and prevent abuse of the Court and court participants. [25] The CPSA’s submissions parallel those of the AHS. It stresses how Dr. Makis’ actions harass and intimidate individuals whocomplain about his conduct, or are involved in review of his actions.

This has diverted public resources and negatively affected theCPSA’s operation. The CPSA stresses that what the Applicants seek is a proportionate step because court access restrictions are agatekeeping step, and not a prohibition that bars access to the courts and other bodies. [26] CPSA observes that Dr. Makis’ complaints flow from his belief in a conspiracy intending to destroy his career and reputation.That is important because Dr. Makis’ beliefs help understand and predict what he will do next. [27] Like AHS, the CPSA seeks that Dr.

Makis be prohibited from initiating any further non-judicial proceedings, except withleave of this Court. While neither Applicant seeks to limit the ongoing Queen’s Bench actions, they do ask the Court to stop the ongoingextra judicial activities. B. Dr. Makis [28] Dr. Makis denies he is a vexatious litigant, or that he is in civil contempt of court orders. He stresses he is the target of muchunprofessional, abusive, and inappropriate conduct. The actors who have wronged him have the global objective of destroying himfinancially and professionally. Dr.

Makis says he has done nothing wrong, and that his complaint-related activities have beenexaggerated. [29] Dr. Makis argues that his non-court activities are irrelevant to the AHS and CPSA application. He points to Lang Michener vFabian (1987), (ON SC), 37 DLR (4th) 685, 59 OR (2d) 353 (Ont HCJ) for a principle that a person may only beidentified as vexatious on the basis of court proceedings. Anything he has done outside of his Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench litigationis therefore irrelevant. [30] In the three lawsuits in the Alberta Court Queen’s Bench, Dr.

Makis denies there is anything that could be classified asvexatious proceedings. [31] Additionally, Dr. Makis argues that his actions in relation to the CCI, AHS, and CPSA are ultimately part of his professionalobligations and duties, as set in the CPSA Code of Conduct and CPSA Standards of Practice. [32] He offers this explanation: . . . that every non-judicial and judicial proceeding brought by Dr.

Makis against the Applicants and any of their Officials,Administrators, Directors, Employees or Agents for the purpose of reporting unlawful and unprofessional conduct and reported harm thatwas inflicted on Alberta patients and healthcare workers to the appropriate authorities was brought in keeping with Dr. Makis’ legal andprofessional obligations, duties, and responsibilities … Dr. Makis has always put the lives, health, safety and well-being of Albertapatients and heathcare workers first, and has never pursued any non-judicial or judicial proceeding vexatiously, frivolously, orirresponsibly. [33] Dr.

Makis denies he has ever breached an implied undertaking. He argues that the documents he disclosed were his to use ashe saw fit. He instead complains that the CPSA and its lawyers have threatened and blackmailed him and his family in a criminalmanner, with the objective of forcing Dr. Makis to discontinue his complaints and litigation.

IV. Analysis A. Vexatious Litigant Court Access Restrictions [34] The AHS and CPSA applications seek something unusual, that this Court interdict Dr. Makis’ access to bodies other than theAlberta Courts. They argue that by doing so, this Court would be acting under its inherent jurisdiction. Neither Applicant indicated anylegislative basis to take this step.

Plainly, the Judicature Act, ss 23-23.1 ‘vexatious litigant’ provisions provide no authority. [35] Since this a new issue for the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, I will first review the jurisprudence surrounding the Court’sinherent jurisdiction, and examine why in Alberta (and Canada) there is sometimes an overlap or duplication between legislative andinherent jurisdiction authorities in relation to court access restrictions and the management of abusive litigants. 1.

The Court’s Inherent Jurisdiction [36] The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is implicated in this application in two separate and distinct ways, 1. the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench’s authority to control and manage its own processes, and prevent their abuse, and 2. a superior court of inherent jurisdiction has the authority to respond to any justiciable issue, provided that authority has not beenallocated by legislation to a different body.

These two aspects of this Court’s inherent jurisdiction intertwine when it comes to evaluating whether or not I have the authority to makethe unusual order sought by the Applicants. [37] Beginning with the first aspect of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, Judges have a broad authority to restrict a litigant’s activitywithin a particular dispute: Grepe v Loam, (1887) 37 Ch D 168 (UK CA). However, what is more complicated is how an abusive litigantmight be required to obtain permission, or “leave”, prior to engaging in new and distinct litigation.

Broader court access restriction ordersthat extend outside a single dispute are sometimes called “vexatious litigant orders.” What defines the “vexatious litigant” category ofcourt access restrictions is their scope. [38] There are two separate theories on where a court may obtain the authority to make one of these broader vexatious litigantorders. [39] The first is via legislation.

In 1975, the Alberta Legislature amended the Judicature Act to permit the Alberta Supreme Court,as the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench was then known, to with the consent of the Attorney General require that a person who engagedin abusive proceedings must obtain permission, or “leave”, to initiate future litigation in any court. In 2007, this provision was replacedwith the modern sections 23-23.1 that permit any Alberta Court to order a person who has engaged in “vexatious proceedings” to obtainleave to initiate a new action or continue existing litigation.

The Act provides that the Courts may take this step on application or on itsown motion. [40] As Thomas J explains in 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 548 at para 44, 13 CPC (8th) 92, thereason this legislation was enacted was a commonly held belief that no common law court had a jurisdiction to restrict future litigationthat might be abusive. That opinion had been expressed in a paper by I. H.

Jacobs which is often cited by the Supreme Court of Canada(most recently Quebec (Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions) v Jodoin, 2017 SCC 26 at para 21, [2017] 1 SCR 478): “TheInherent Jurisdiction of the Court” ((1970) 23:1 Current Legal Problems 23. At page 43, Jacobs states: The court has no power, even under its inherent jurisdiction, to prevent a person from commencing proceedings which may turn out to bevexatious. ...

The inherent jurisdiction of the court has, however, been supplemented by statutory power to restrain a vexatious litigantfrom instituting or continuing any legal proceedings without leave of the court. [41] I do not agree with Jacobs.

The UK Court of Appeal in two decisions, Ebert v Birch, [1999] EWCA Civ 3043 (UK CA) andBhamjee v Forsdick (No 2), [2003] EWCA Civ 1113 (UK CA), concluded, on the basis of historical research, that UK courts havealways had an authority to use misconduct in one matter as a basis to conclude that court access restrictions may be imposed on other andfuture litigation via the court’s inherent jurisdiction: see Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 at paras 17-25, 273 ACWS (3d) 533, leavedenied 2017 ABCA 63, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37624 (12 November 2017); 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), atparas 44-46.

The UK Court of Appeal concluded that the inherent and legislative vexatious litigant authorities overlap or co-exist, andcourts of inherent jurisdiction may exercise either authority. [42] The inherent jurisdiction authority identified by the UK courts is much broader and open-ended than what is authorized in theJudicature Act.

As the Master of the Rolls concluded in Bhamjee v Forsdick (No 2), at para 35: “… The possibilities are unlimited.What is important is that the remedy should always be proportionate to the mischief that needs remedying.” This is a prospective testwhich asks what future abusive litigation may occur, and then imposes court-ordered restrictions designed for that particular abusivelitigant: Hok v Alberta, at para 37; 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), at para 14. [43] Several Canadian appellate courts have explicitly adopted Ebert v Birch and Bhamjee v Forsdick (No 2): Tremblay vCharest, 2006 QCCA 204 at para 6, 147 ACWS (3d) 413, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 31410 (22 June 2006); Ayangma v CanadaHealth Infoway, 2017 PECA 13 at para 62, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38030 (4 October 2018).

The British Columbia and NovaScotia Courts of Appeal also recognize that legislation does not define or limit the inherent jurisdiction of Canadian courts to imposeproportionate court access restrictions: Household Trust Co v Golden Horse Farms Inc (1992), (BC CA), 13 BCAC302, 65 BCLR (2d) 355 (BCCA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, 23022 (19 November 1992); British Columbia (Attorney General) vLindsay, 2007 BCCA 165 at paras 24, 28-30, 238 BCAC 254, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 32026 (15 November 2007); HouwelingNurseries Ltd v Houweling, 2010 BCCA 315 at para 40, 321 DLR (4th) 317; Extra Gift Exchange Inc v Ernest & Twins Ventures

(PP) Ltd, 2014 BCCA 228 at para 32, 357 BCAC 55; Gichuru v Pallai, 2018 BCCA 78 at paras 74-81, leave to appeal to SCC filed,38123 (4 May 2018); Tupper v Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2015 NSCA 92 at para 27, 390 DLR (4th) 651, leave to appeal to SCCrefused, 36761 (10 March 2016). [44] Since 2016, this Court has adopted the inherent jurisdiction approach identified by the UK Court of Appeal, and has appliedthe Court’s inherent jurisdiction when it evaluated whether a potentially abusive litigant should be limited in his or her access to theCourts: Hok v Alberta, at paras 14-25; Thompson v International Union of Operating Engineers Local No 955, 2017 ABQB 210 atpara 56, 47 Alta LR (6th) 300, leave to appeal refused 2017 ABCA 193, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37974 (7 June 2018); 1985Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), at paras 42-78, Lee v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ABQB 40 at para 272, 403 CRR(2d) 194. [45] The Judicature Act, ss 23-23.1 authority to impose court access restrictions is generally seen as subsumed in or a subset of theCourt’s inherent jurisdiction to control abusive litigants.

Inherent jurisdiction provides a superior mechanism to investigate whether courtaccess restrictions are warranted, and how those restrictions should be structured: 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), atparas 42-78.

This Court’s usual procedure is that when a vexatious litigant application is initiated under Judicature Act, ss 23-23.1, theCourt instead proceeds to evaluate that application under its inherent jurisdiction: Templanza v Ford, 2018 ABQB 168 at paras 94-104,69 Alta LR (6th) 110. [46] As I previously noted, the Applicants have sought an unusual step, that this Court impose steps to manage Dr. Makis’activities in non-court tribunals and other bodies. This step implicates the second facet of the intrinsic powers of a superior provincialcourt of inherent jurisdiction.

This class of courts exercise “general jurisdiction over all matters of a civil and criminal nature”: Canada(Human Rights Commission) v Canadian Liberty Net, (SCC), [1998] 1 SCR 626 at para 26, 137 DLR (3d) 1. In theEnglish legal tradition, where there is a “justiciable right”, then there must be a “court competent to vindicate that right”: Canada(Human Rights Commission) v Canadian Liberty Net, at para 32.

When the Privy Council in Board v Board, (UKJCPC), [1919] AC 956 at 962-963 (UK PC) described the jurisdiction of the precursor to the modern Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, itsaid: If the right exists, the presumption is that there is a Court which can enforce it, for if no other mode of enforcing it is prescribed, thatalone is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the King's Courts of justice.

The only way to oust that jurisdiction is “…to plead that jurisdiction exists in some other Court.” [47] In short, this Court is the ‘catch all’ court to which anyone may turn to obtain a remedy in law that cannot be found anywhereelse. That is a functional test.

For example, McLachlin J (as she then was) in Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees vCanadian Pacific Ltd, (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 495, 136 DLR (4th) 289 concluded provincial superior courts have theauthority to grant an interlocutory injunction in labour disputes (para 5), even though labour agreements are considered a complete code,and even where that injunction did not relate to a cause of action that would be heard in a provincial superior court (para 17).

JusticeMcLachlin observed that this authority flows from that fact that the labour agreement provided “no adequate alternative remedy” (para6), and it was this gap in an otherwise complete scheme that gave the court inherent jurisdiction. That is the larger context in which I amconsidering whether this Court has jurisdiction to make an order that would affect Dr. Makis’ access to non-court tribunals.

Is there a gapor role in which the Court must act to provide the relief sought? [48] Governments have granted authority to a tribunal to impose controls analogous to the Judicature Act, ss 23-23.1 provisions.For example, Ontario has issued “Social Justice Tribunal Ontario (SJTO) Common Rules of Procedure”. Rule A8 states: A8 ABUSE OF PROCESS A8.1 The tribunal may make such orders or give such directions in proceedings before it as it considers proper to prevent abuse of itsprocesses.

A8.2 Where the tribunal finds that a person has persistently instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted a proceeding in a vexatiousmanner, the tribunal may find that person to be a vexatious litigant and dismiss the proceeding as an abuse of process for that reason. Itmay also require a person found to be a vexatious litigant to obtain permission from the tribunal to commence further proceedings or takefurther steps in a proceeding. [49] Ontario tribunals such as the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario use this authority in a manner analogous to the way in which Iam asked to treat Dr.

Makis, see for example: Olumide v Ottawa (City), 2018 HRTO 1591; Sajatovic v McCarthy Tétrault, 2018 HRTO1557; Pavlovic v Street Populate, 2018 HRTO 1431. As these decisions illustrate, the Ontario tribunals use the same legal andprocedural rules as the courts in evaluating whether a person’s access to a tribunal should be restricted. [50] There is no equivalent authority granted to Alberta tribunals, nor did the parties draw my attention to any analogousmechanism to subject Dr. Makis to gatekeeping.

Therefore, there is a potential gap or role for this Court. [51] The Applicants did rely upon a decision of Lee, J, Institute of Chartered Accounts of Alberta v Erdmann, 2009 ABQB 530,480 AR 1, as a basis for restricting Dr. Makis’ access to Alberta tribunals. In that case, Lee, J. made an order which prohibited Erdmannfrom “... making complaints or threatening to make complaints about any person to any regulatory body, public body, police force,government agency, or any other body or organization whatsoever ...”.

However, there was no analysis in that case as to the Court’sjurisdiction to make such an order and it is plain that none of the so called bodies, forces or agencies sought the order that was made. Idon’t see the decision as helpful. [52] However, subsequent to that decision this Court has addressed the question of whether the Court’s inherent jurisdiction tomanage abusive litigants extends beyond court litigation. [53] In Hok v Alberta, Verville J concluded at paras 18, 54 that this Court’s inherent jurisdiction includes a remedy where an

abusive litigant misuses non-court tribunals and bodies that cannot protect themselves from abuse and injury, citing Productions PixcomInc v Fabrikant, 2005 QCCA 703 at paras 22-23, 142 ACWS (3d) 86, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 31137 (19 January 2006): … this inherent jurisdiction extends to provide superior courts the authority to shelter tribunals and other bodies that are unable to controlvexatious litigants … [54] I note that subsequently this broader authority has also been identified by the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal:Ayangma v Canada Health Infoway, at paras 62-63. [55] There is no doubt that the Courts are able to enjoin activities which unfairly burden others.

When it comes to vexatiouslitigants, that is what the Court does, in a restricted way. In keeping with the fundamental right of access, the substantial effect of a leaveto file or proceed requirement imposed upon such a litigant is very limited: Hok v Alberta, at paras 30-34 and 1985 Sawridge Trust vAlberta (Public Trustee), at para 8, citing Wong v Giannacopoulos, 2011 ABCA 277 at para 8, 515 AR 58. It involves pre-screening formerit, before the action may be undertaken.

This is a “gatekeeping” step: Lofstrom v Radke, 2017 ABCA 362 at para 3. [56] As well, while access to the Courts is a fundamental right, there is no commensurate right of access to the various bodieswhich have suffered the brunt of Dr. Makis’ tsunami. [57] Since the Court could enjoin a behaviour on proof of unfairness, where there is vexatiousness, which is by definition abusiveand therefore unfair, the Court can make any proportionate order which offers a degree of protection against that unfairness.

Thatprotection can range from restricting Court access, to requiring legal representation, or paying costs: Hok v Alberta, at para 34. [58] Ordinarily, of course, the person or body burdened by the unfair behaviour must seek injunctive relief. However, where theCourt finds that someone has acted vexatiously and is likely to continue to do so, surely protecting those who may plausibly be abusedshould follow as a matter of course without the need for separate applications. Avoiding costs, formality and multiple applications areexcellent reasons to justify this approach.

This is the “culture shift” in civil litigation: Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 SCR 8. [59] As Stratas JA observed in Canada v Olumide, 2017 FCA 42 at paras 17-20, courts are a “… community property that existsto serve everyone, not a private resource that can commandeered in damaging ways to advance the interests of one. …”. They have finiteresources that cannot be squandered.

Surely, the same is true of other public bodies that serve to enforce rights, administer professions,and to scrutinize potential government misconduct. [60] Justice Stratas continues to observe the disproportionate effect that an abusive actor may have. Control of abusive litigationand dispute processes is not: … just a zero-sum game where a single vexatious litigant injures a single innocent litigant. A single vexatious litigant gobbles up scarcejudicial and registry resources, injuring tens or more innocent litigants. Surely, this principle must also apply to non-court institutions. [61] Furthermore, to requir

[…]