Alberta Court of Appeal Refuses to Restore Ex-Doctor’s Appeals Due to Lack of Security for Costs
In a significant legal decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal has dismissed an application to restore two appeals filed by a former nuclear medicine physician and his professional corporation. The ruling, issued on April 23, 2025, in the case of Makis v Alberta Health Services, 2025 ABCA 139, highlights the consequences of failing to meet procedural requirements in legal proceedings.
The court’s decision centered on the applicant’s failure to post the required security for costs by the time of the application hearing. Security for costs is a legal requirement in many jurisdictions, ensuring that the opposing party is protected from potential legal fees if the case is unsuccessful. By not meeting this obligation, the applicant effectively barred his own appeals from proceeding further within the Alberta court system.
This case is the latest chapter in a long and complex legal saga involving the former physician. The disputes stem from multiple interconnected events, including the termination of his contracts with the Cross Cancer Institute and the University of Alberta. These events led to a series of legal actions initiated by the applicant, including complaints against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) and allegations of wrongful termination against Alberta Health Services (AHS).
In a second, separate lawsuit, the applicant alleged a widespread criminal conspiracy involving numerous individuals, including physicians, lawyers, and members of the judiciary. He claimed this conspiracy aimed to undermine his professional career. His allegations extended to claims of contractual breach, negligence, and misfeasance in public office. Perhaps most dramatically, he asserted that his removal from the cancer institute resulted in the “murders of or serious harming of 2456 Alberta cancer patients.”
The legal system has previously addressed the applicant’s litigation behavior. In 2018, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench designated him as a vexatious litigant, a label reserved for individuals who persistently bring frivolous or abusive legal actions. However, this designation was partially overturned in 2020 when the Court of Appeal of Alberta allowed part of his appeal against the order.
The current decision underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and the consequences of failing to do so. By refusing to restore the appeals, the Alberta Court of Appeal has effectively closed another door on the applicant’s ongoing legal battles, leaving him with limited options to pursue his claims within the provincial court system.
Alberta Court of Appeal Refuses to Restore Ex-Doctor’s Appeals Due to Lack of Security for Costs
The Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision to dismiss the application to restore the appeals was based on the applicant’s failure to post the required security for costs. According to the court, the applicant was required to post $10,000 as security for costs by the time of the application hearing, a procedural step he failed to take. This failure was deemed significant, as security for costs is a critical mechanism to ensure that respondents are protected from potential legal fees should the appeal be unsuccessful.
The court’s decision was unanimous, with the panel emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal proceedings. The justices noted that the applicant’s failure to comply with the security for costs order was not a mere technicality but a substantive requirement that goes to the heart of the court’s ability to manage its processes efficiently. The court also highlighted the applicant’s history of non-compliance with court orders, which further supported their decision to deny the application to restore the appeals.
The case has drawn attention to the broader issue of vexatious litigation and the challenges it poses to the judicial system. The applicant’s history of filing multiple lawsuits, including complaints against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA), Alberta Health Services (AHS), the University of Alberta, and numerous individual physicians, lawyers, and members of the judiciary, has raised concerns about the potential for abuse of the legal system. While the applicant has denied any wrongdoing, his actions have been characterized by some as an attempt to harass and intimidate those he perceives as having wronged him.
The court’s decision also serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural fairness and the need for all parties to comply with court orders. By failing to post the required security for costs, the applicant effectively undermined his own ability to pursue his appeals, leaving the court with little choice but to dismiss the application. This outcome underscores the balance that courts must strike between providing access to justice and preventing abuse of the legal process.
As the legal community continues to grapple with the challenges posed by vexatious litigants, the Makis v Alberta Health Services decision provides a clear example of how courts can and do take steps to manage such cases. The ruling also serves as a cautionary tale for litigants about the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the potential consequences of failing to do so.
For now, the former physician and his professional corporation must consider their next steps in the face of this significant setback. The decision to dismiss the application to restore the appeals effectively closes off another avenue for the applicant to pursue his claims within the Alberta court system, leaving him with limited options to seek redress for his grievances.
Conclusion
The Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision to dismiss the application to restore the appeals highlights the critical importance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal proceedings. The failure to post security for costs, a substantive and non-trivial obligation, ultimately led to the dismissal of the case. This ruling underscores the court’s commitment to balancing access to justice with the need to prevent abuse of the legal system. The case also brings attention to the challenges posed by vexatious litigation and the measures courts take to manage such situations. As the legal community continues to navigate these complexities, the Makis v Alberta Health Services decision serves as a clear reminder of the consequences of non-compliance with court orders and the importance of procedural fairness.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Why did the Alberta Court of Appeal dismiss the application to restore the appeals?
The court dismissed the application because the applicant failed to post the required $10,000 security for costs by the time of the application hearing. This failure was deemed a significant procedural deficiency that could not be overlooked.
What is security for costs, and why is it important?
Security for costs is a payment required by the court to ensure that respondents are protected from potential legal fees if the appeal is unsuccessful. It is a critical procedural step that ensures fairness and efficiency in legal proceedings.
Is this the first time the applicant has faced issues with non-compliance in legal proceedings?
No, the applicant has a history of non-compliance with court orders and has filed multiple lawsuits against various parties, including medical professionals, legal entities, and members of the judiciary. This history of non-compliance was a key factor in the court’s decision to dismiss the application.
What does this decision mean for the broader issue of vexatious litigation?
The decision highlights the challenges posed by vexatious litigants and demonstrates how courts can take steps to manage such cases. It reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and the need to prevent abuse of the legal system.
What are the applicant’s next steps after this dismissal?
The applicant’s options are now limited, as the dismissal of the application to restore the appeals effectively closes off another avenue for pursuing his claims in the Alberta court system. He may need to seek legal advice to explore other potential avenues for redress, though his options are increasingly constrained.
