The Appellant, Dr. Makis, was a practicing doctor who was terminated after professional complaints were made against him. In turn, he sued the Respondent, Alberta Health Services (“AHS”), for wrongful termination and other physicians for a number of torts related to the complaints. He also alleged a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy involving the Respondents, legal counsel, and the judiciary.

Dr. Makis unsuccessfully applied to have the Respondents declared vexatious litigants. The Respondents successfully applied to strike or summarily dismiss Dr. Makis’ Actions. Dr. Makis was also found to be a vexatious litigant. As a result of that Order, Dr. Makis was required to obtain permission to Appeal the Respondents’ Applications, pursuant to Rule 14.5(1)(j).

The Court considered whether there was an important question of law or precedent, with a reasonable chance of success, and which would not unduly hinder the progress of the Action or cause undue prejudice.

On the Application to have the Respondents declared vexatious litigants, Justice Pentelechuk found that the Appeal lacked a reasonable chance of success. In particular, the Court noted that the Respondents were Defendants in the Action and the proper remedy for unnecessary litigation by a Defendant is a Costs Award.

On the Applications to have Dr. Makis’ Actions dismissed, Justice Pentelechuk granted Dr. Makis leave to Appeal. The Court noted that Dr. Makis failed to attend the proceedings wherein the Applications to summarily dismiss his Actions were heard. However, Justice Pentelechuk stated that the Respondents were not entitled to Summary Judgment by default, and were it not for the vexatious litigant Order, Dr. Makis would be entitled to an Appeal as of right. Leave was therefore granted to Appeal. However, Security for Costs was Ordered against Dr. Makis as a condition of Appeal.