Eye On Regulation

• Emma
  Banfield

  Emma
  Banfield

  view bio

The recent decision of College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta v Makis, 2026 ABCA 198 is a timely reminder that courts will generally support regulators who have demonstrated the harms stemming from individuals representing themselves as regulated members when, in fact, they are not.

The applicant in this case was formerly licenced to practice medicine in Alberta, but cancelled by his regulator in 2019. He then turned to “cancer coaching” which entailed providing information on alternative treatments for cancer through various online resources and providing coaching services to client. The applicant argued these activities did not constitute practicing medicine, and pointed to various disclaimers included in his published materials as well as his requirement that any client be under the care of a licenced physician. The Regulator objected to his activities, arguing that he was holding himself out as a licenced physician in Alberta and that his activities fell within the practice of medicine.

The Regular sought and was granted an interim injunction which prevented the applicant from engaging in various activities until a full hearing of the permanent injunction application could be adjudicated. The applicant was later found in contempt of the interim injunction and the Regulator was granted a permanent injunction against the applicant in the same hearing. In order to purge his contempt, the applicant was ordered to immediately cease providing medical advice and treatment and otherwise practicing medicine without a licence, and ordered to remove all offending titles, initials, and abbreviations from his published materials. If the applicant failed to comply within the timelines imposed, the Regulator was empowered to obtain a warrant for his arrest and detention. The applicant sought permission to appeal finding of contempt and the imposition of the permanent injunction.

In adjudicating the applicant’s request, a justice of the Court of Appeal considered whether the appeal raised an important question of law, whether the proposed appeal had a reasonable chance of success, and whether the delay caused by granting a stay would not cause significant prejudice to the Regulator and the public. The Court of Appeal found that the applicant had made out none of these elements. The applicant also appealed the sanctions as disproportionate and procedurally unfair. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the prior decisionmaker had determined that a fine or costs award would be an insufficient deterrent, but that immediate imprisonment would be too drastic a punishment without first providing the applicant with the opportunity to purge his contempt. The Court of Appeal declined to interfere with the permanent injunction and finding of contempt, and awarded costs to the Regulator.

The Court of Appeal upheld the prior decision finding there was clear evidence the applicant intended to continue to breach the existing order, and that imposition of a permanent injunction was necessary. The Court of Appeal agreed that the most important factor was the Regulator’s right to ask for such an order under its public interest mandate. The Regulator had succeeded in establishing irreparable harm that could not be compensated in monetary damages.

Eye on Regulation is RMRF’s monthly newsletter for the professional regulatory community. Each month we offer:

• A Case: a brief summary of a recent and relevant case;
• Our Two Cents for Free: practical insight inspired by the files on our desks right now; and
• A Question: something to get you thinking about ways to enhance your work.

This newsletter is for information only and does not constitute legal advice.

Would you like to receive this Newsletter directly to your inbox each month?

Sign up here