He claimed coaching people on health internationally was not practice of medicine
In proceedings against a man who engaged in “cancer coaching” after the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) cancelled his licence to practise medicine in the province, the Alberta Court of Appeal did not permit him to appeal a contempt order.
In College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta v Makis, 2026 ABCA 198, the applicant practised medicine in Alberta from 2013–16.
Since February 2019, the month he lost his licence, the applicant has provided information on alternative cancer treatments to people internationally through Substack articles, his social media accounts, and his YouTube channel. He claimed that these activities did not constitute the practice of medicine.
Before the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, the CPSA applied for a permanent injunction against the applicant. The CPSA asserted that hr held himself out as a licensed Alberta physician and engaged in activities amounting to the practice of medicine.
The applicant sought to adjourn the application to reschedule the matter as a full special chambers hearing.
The chambers judge granted the special hearing request. However, on Aug. 15, 2025, the chambers judge imposed an interim injunction until the hearing of the CPSA’s permanent injunction application.
The interim injunction prevented the applicant from representing or implying that he was a regulated CPSA member or otherwise licensed to practise medicine in the province.
The applicant applied for permission to appeal against the interim injunction order and for a stay pending appeal. Last Jan. 21, the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the application.
Before the Court of King’s Bench, the CPSA applied for a civil contempt order against the applicant and a permanent injunction restricting him from:
- practising medicine in Alberta
- using the titles, abbreviations, or initials in s. 2 of Schedule 21 of Alberta’s Health Professions Act, 2000
- offering or providing any cancer-treatment-related health services to the public
The CPSA alleged that the applicant continued to practise medicine in Alberta without a license and to represent himself as a medical doctor, physician, oncologist, radiologist, and nuclear medicine specialist despite the interim injunction and his lack of a licence in the province.
On Mar. 4, the special chambers judge issued a permanent injunction enjoining the applicant on the same terms as the interim injunction. The special chambers judge found the applicant in contempt of the interim injunction order.
The special chambers judge ordered the applicant to purge his contempt by immediately ceasing his provision of medical advice and treatment and his practice of medicine without a licence and removing all offending titles, initials, and abbreviations from his public materials.
If the applicant failed to do so, the CPSA could obtain a warrant for his arrest and detention. Afterward, he would have to appear before the court to face the possibility of imprisonment.
The applicant applied for permission to appeal from the special chambers judge’s order and for a stay pending appeal. The applicant claimed that:
- He only provided research and coaching, rather than operating a medical practice
- His activities did not harm the public
- Any risk to the Alberta public was essentially moot due to his conditional approval to practise medicine in Florida
The CPSA applied for security for costs. In response to the CPSA’s application, the applicant stated that he transferred his primary residence to Florida for legitimate professional reasons and that his wife held a power of attorney to sell their Edmonton home.
Permission to appeal denied
Regarding the special chambers judge’s contempt finding, the Court of Appeal of Alberta ruled that giving the applicant permission to appeal would not serve the interests of justice.
Assuming that the application presented reasonable grounds to proceed and did not abuse the process, the appeal court saw no important question of law or precedent, no important question engaging the interests of justice, and no reasonable chance of success on appeal.
The appeal court held that the applicant failed to establish that any delay arising from the appeal would not significantly prejudice the CPSA and the public.
Next, the appeal court deferred to the sanction imposed by the special chambers judge, who reasonably exercised his discretion and gave sufficient weight to the relevant considerations. The appeal court found:
- no palpable and overriding error
- no important question of law or precedent regarding the special chambers judge’s imposition of a permanent injunction after finding contempt
- no reasonable chance that its panel would determine that the special chambers judge erred in principle or in law by issuing the permanent injunction or an order otherwise unreasonable in the circumstances
Given its denial of permission to appeal, the appeal court described the applicant’s stay application and the CPSA’s cross-application for security for costs as moot. The appeal court awarded the CPSA $3,000 in lump sum application costs.
