14.5: Appeals only with permission

Case Summary

The Applicant, Dr. Viliam Makis (the “Applicant”), sought permission to Appeal a Decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of the decision of the Complaint Review Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (the “College”).The Applicant had filed two complaints with the College pursuant to the Health Professions Act, RSA 2000, c H-7, alleging harassment, abuse, and career sabotage (the “Complaints”). The Complaints Director determined there was insufficient evidence of unprofessional conduct and dismissed the Complaints.

On Application for Judicial Review, the Chambers Judge determined that the Applicant did not have standing to challenge the reasonableness of the Complaint Review Committee’s decision. Further, the Chambers Justice determined that the Applicant was bound by jurisprudence which held that a person who complains to a professional regulatory body has the same interest as any member of the public.

On Appeal, the College did not oppose the Application for permission to Appeal, but did submit that the Applicant’s right to Appeal should be limited to issues of procedural fairness. Khullar J.A. reviewed Rule 14.5 pertaining to permission to Appeal and noted that the test for permission to Appeal may manifest itself differently depending on the subject matter of the Appeal and the overall context of the Appeal. Her Ladyship emphasized that, fundamentally, if the Court is convinced the Appeal has no chance of success, permission to Appeal should not be granted.

Justice Khullar reviewed each of the Applicant’s arguments and found that there was no reasonable chance of success in any of the arguments save for the ones grounded in procedural fairness. Noting that the College’s position on this issue and the relatively low threshold for an arguable case on this basis, Justice Khullar granted the Applicant permission to Appeal limited to the question of procedural fairness.

View CanLII Details