3. The Plaintiff, Viliam Makis Professional Corporation (“Makis P.C.

”) is a professional
corporation of which Dr. Makis is the sole employee or contractor.

4. The Defendant, Alberta Health Services (“AHS”), is a corporation and a regional health
authority, which operates all hospitals in Alberta, including the Cross Cancer Institute
(“CCI”).

5. The Defendant, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (“CPSA”), is a

corporation which regulates the practice of medicine in Alberta, pursuant to the Health
Professions Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.H-7 as amended (the “Act”).

6. AHS and all physicians who accept an Appointment to the Medical Staff of AHS agree to
be jointly bound by The Alberta Health Services Medical Staff Bylaws (“AHS Bylaws”)
and Alberta Health Services Medical Staff Rules (“AHS Rules”).

7. AHS by and through its medical administrative leaders engages, administers and
oversees the AHS Bylaws processes in respect of Triggered Initial Assessment,
Triggered Review and the resolution of Concerns in respect of physicians who have
been appointed to the AHS Medical Staff (the “AHS Administrative Function”).

8. CPSA by and through its medical administrative leaders registers physicians and issues
medical practice permits, develops and administers standards of practice and code of
conduct and investigates and resolves physician-related complaints pursuant to the Act
(the “CPSA Administrative Function”).

9. AHS medical administrative leaders expressly covenant with AHS Medical Staff to
demonstrate ethical behaviour and professionalism, respect, accountability,
transparency and engagement in carrying out their administrative functions and
responsibilities under the AHS Bylaws and AHS Rules.

10. CPSA medical administrative leaders expressly covenant with physicians licensed to
practice medicine in Alberta to demonstrate ethical behaviour and professionalism,
respect, accountability, transparency and engagement in carrying out their administrative
functions and responsibilities under the Act.

11. In addition to AHS’ role pursuant to the AHS Bylaws and AHS Rules, AHS is a private
contracting party who enters into service contracts with individual physicians or

Page 2 of 23
 corporations to provide medical and other services to patients and hospitals on behalf of
AHS.

Background

12. On or about June 26, 2013 by a letter in writing Dr. Makis was offered a position with
AHS as an NMP based at the CCI (the “Offer”). At the time Dr. Makis received that offer
he had an established and successful medical practice working as an NMP at a hospital
in Brandon, Manitoba.

13. At the time the Offer was extended and prior to acceptance it was represented to Dr.
Makis by AHS officials that the position being offered was permanent and would be long
term in nature.

14. In reliance on the representations as aforesaid and the terms of the written Offer, Dr.
Makis accepted the Offer and agreed to leave his successful practice in Brandon,
Manitoba and relocate to the CCI in Edmonton, AB. (“Agreement 1)

15. Agreement 1 was executed on August 2, 2013

16. Agreement 1 provided, inter alia:

a) That Dr. Makis would work out of the CCI and provide 210 days of annual
service on behalf of the nuclear medicine department in areas of clinical
reporting, therapy clinics, teaching and research;

b) Dr. Makis would perform an equitable portion of on-call for the Nuclear
Medicine Service;

c) His annual remuneration would be $646,335.00; and,

d) He was entitled to a relocation allowance of up to $10,000 to pay for his move

from Brandon, Manitoba.

17. Agreement 1 was contingent upon Dr. Makis getting licensure with the Alberta College of
Physicians and Surgeons, an appointment to the AHS Medical Staff and clinical
privileges for CCI, medico-legal protection from the CMPA and a security check.

18. Dr. Makis met all of the contingent requirements of Agreement 1 and he and his family
relocated to Edmonton. Dr. Makis commenced work at CCI on August 2, 2013.

Page 3 of 23
19. Several months after commencing work pursuant to Agreement 1, Dr. Makis was
presented with a Medical Services Agreement (the “MSA”) between Makis P.C. and
AHS.

20. The MSA provided, inter alia:

a) The Initial Term of the MSA would be November 1, 2013 to October 31, 2016
unless earlier terminated or extended in accordance with the terms of the
MSA;

b) If AHS wished to extend the Initial Term of the Agreement with Makis P.C. for
a period of up to three years it shall deliver notice requesting an extension not
less than ninety days before the expiry date of the term;

c) That Makis P.C. would provide Nuclear Medicine services to the AHS
Edmonton Zone including providing consultative support in the area of
Diagnostic Imaging and the Department of Oncology at the CCI site, provide
timely communication of results to clinicians, provide other related duties as
required and respond in a timely manner in the event that concerns are
received from the patient, legal representative or family members about
patient care (the “Services”);

d) AHS would perform an annual performance review;

e) The Services would be provided exclusively by Dr. Makis and Makis P.C.
could not assign the MSA without AHS’ prior written consent;

f) Dr. Makis would enter into a Contractor/Practitioner Agreement (“CPA”) with

Makis P.C. to provide the Services under the MSA;

g) Remuneration of Makis P.C. would be $646,335.00 per annum payable in

twelve equal monthly instalments; and,

h) Makis P.C. is and shall remain an independent contractor of AHS.

21. In addition to the foregoing terms, the MSA stipulated that the MSA could be terminated:

a) By mutual consent in writing;

Page 4 of 23
 b) By AHS or Makis P.C. giving twelve months’ notice in writing to the other party;
or

c) Immediately by AHS paying Makis P.C. an amount equal to twelve months of

remuneration ($646,335.00).

22. The pre-contractual representations described in paragraph 10, above, and the fact AHS
almost invariably renewed these types of agreement gave rise to a reasonable
expectation by the Plaintiffs that AHS would extend or renew the MSA beyond October
31, 2016 and said reasonable expectation was relied and acted upon by Makis P.C. in
executing the MSA.

23. Makis P.C. executed the MSA on November 29, 2013.

24. Makis P.C. and Dr. Makis executed the CPA on November 29, 2013

25. AHS executed the MSA on January 15, 2014.

26. Dr. Makis’ and Makis P.C.’s duties and responsibilities under the Agreement 1, the MSA
and the CPA included providing clinical therapy and diagnostic imaging services to
patients of the CCI.

Alleged Concerns

27. Dr. Makis and Makis P.C. loyally and dutifully performed the services under Agreement
1, the MSA and the CPA and met all obligations of those agreements. Dr. Makis was an
excellent NPM and an extremely dedicated and hardworking physician who contributed
greatly to the clinical care provided to patients of the CCI and to cancer research and
clinical trials that were taking place at the CCI.

28. Commencing in early 2014, Dr. Makis raised concerns with AHS medical administrative
leaders and management on Nuclear Medicine physician coverage, scheduling and
workloads as between Nuclear Medicine therapy and diagnostic imaging which, if left
unaddressed, had the potential to negatively impact the quality of patient care and
ongoing cancer research projects at the CCI. Further, Dr. Makis proposed a meeting
involving the Nuclear Medicine Physicians to AHS medical administrative leaders which
was refused.

Page 5 of 23
29. AHS failed, refused or neglected to address Dr. Makis’ concerns and instead took steps
to prevent or suppress Dr. Makis from voicing his legitimate concerns to his colleagues
by way of threat and intimidation.

30. As a result of the threats and intimidation, on or about August 20, 2014 Dr. Makis
initiated a formal complaint against the AHS medical administrative leader who was the
Site Leader for Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine at CCI to whom he reports and
who was responsible for the threats and intimidation.

31. AHS medical administrative leaders and management failed, refused or neglected to
follow the formal complaint process under the AHS Bylaws with respect to Dr. Makis’
complaint notwithstanding that the subject of Dr. Makis’ complaint had been the subject
of serious complaints previously. Further, the substance of Dr. Makis’ complaints were
never addressed nor resolved by AHS. Instead AHS, by and through its medical
administrative leaders and management, began a campaign directed at discrediting Dr.
Makis and removing him from practice at the CCI rather than taking appropriate steps to
address the valid concerns raised including those related to physician coverage,
scheduling and workloads and their impact on cancer patient care and research at CCI.

32. In or about May 2015 five physicians with the CCI Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear
Medicine department including Dr. Makis initiated a written concern about the leadership
of the Site Leader in Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine which, if left
unaddressed, would continue to cause physician retention and recruitment problems for
the department. AHS’ response was to have the Site Leader in Diagnostic Imaging and
Nuclear Medicine, the person at whom the leadership concerns were levied, meet with
the physicians. AHS’ actions failed to address the substance of the concerns with
leadership in any meaningful fashion.

33. Unbeknownst to Dr. Makis, in or around August 2015, the Site Leader in Diagnostic
Imaging and Nuclear Medicine wrote to AHS leadership, both medical and
administrative, and indicated that:

a) Dr. Makis should be dismissed from CCI, AHS or both;

b) AHS should strongly consider not renewing the MSA and that he would begin
advocating for the same; and,

Page 6 of 23
 c) Nuclear Medicine technology staff be directed to write down their experiences
with Dr. Makis and, if they will not, then AHS Management should meet with
them to obtain the same.

34. Shortly thereafter, AHS Management met with Nuclear Medicine technology staff in an
attempt to encourage and obtain concerns or complaints about Dr. Makis for the purpose
of discrediting him and having him removed from CCI, AHS or both and to support non-
renewal of the MSA.

35. In so doing AHS by and through its medical administrative leaders and management
intentionally began taking active steps in an attempt to build a case to allow AHS to
engage their Administrative Functions through the administrative processes under the
AHS Bylaws for the improper and unlawful purpose of terminating or dismissing Dr.
Makis and not renewing the MSA. The actions and steps of AHS, its administrative
leaders and its medical administrative leaders were all contrary to their duties and
responsibilities at law and under the AHS Bylaws.

36. Unbeknownst to Dr. Makis, on or about December 3, 2015 three support staff (the
“Complainants”) initiated a written concern with respect to Dr. Makis’ communication of
an e-mail Dr. Makis had sent out on November 27, 2015 expressing some concerns and
problems Dr. Makis had noted with respect to the Nuclear Medicine Therapy program.

37. Dr. Makis was not made aware of this written concern by AHS until December 16, 2015
when the AHS Medical Director for the CCI wrote to Dr. Makis, provided him with the
written concern and asked him to review the concern and then to meet with him to
provide his perspective on the same.

38. The AHS Medical Director first postponed and then cancelled the meeting depriving Dr.
Makis of an opportunity to meet to provide his perspective on the concerns that had
been raised with his e-mail communication.

39. Unbeknownst to Dr. Makis, on December 23, 2015 one of the Complainants who had
jointly made the December 3, 2015 written concern, made a complaint to the CPSA with
respect to the same e-mail which was the subject matter of the earlier complaint to AHS
and some further texts, e-mails and social media posts that Dr. Makis had authored
(“CPSA Complaint”) which were alleged to be inappropriate and constitute disruptive
behaviour.

Page 7 of 23
 Triggered Initial Assessment and Voluntary Paid Administrative Leave

40. On December 29, 2015 AHS took the extraordinary step of initiating a Triggered Initial
Assessment (“TIA”) in respect of the December 3, 2015 complaint and the further
allegations contained in the CPSA Complaint (collectively the “Concerns”). This step
was extraordinary because AHS pursued a complaint that was made to CPSA and not
AHS and the fact that they took this step without prior notice to Dr. Makis and without
providing him an opportunity to respond.

41. The TIA is a process pursuant to the AHS Bylaws whereby a panel selected by
the AHS Zone Medical Director undertakes an investigation into the alleged Concerns by
reviewing documents and conducting some interviews to determine if the Concerns are
founded or substantiated and makes written recommendations to the Zone Medical
Director on whether any further action, investigation or other measures are required to
address any of the Concerns. The interviews are conducted by the TIA panel in private
without the presence of the person who is the subject of the Concerns.

42. In this case the purpose of the TIA was to investigate the Concerns which were
acknowledged by AHS to be completely unrelated to Dr. Makis’ clinical care.

43. By letter dated December 29, 2015, AHS’ Acting Zone Medical Director advised Dr.
Makis that there would be a TIA to investigate the Concerns

44. Notwithstanding that the Concerns were completely unrelated to Dr. Makis’ clinical care
and Dr. Makis had not been afforded an opportunity to respond to the Concerns, the
Acting Zone Medical Director proposed that Dr. Makis agree to a voluntary paid
administrative leave until the TIA was concluded and the Zone Medical Director had
made a decision. AHS’ Acting Zone Medical Director threatened to take immediate
action under the AHS Bylaws to suspend Dr. Makis’ privileges if he did not agree to the
paid administrative leave.

45. The Acting Zone Medical Director represented to Dr. Makis that he was entitled to
procedural fairness and full disclosure of all allegations and documents, that the TIA
process would take twenty-eight days to complete and that a decision would be made
promptly upon conclusion of the same. In reliance on those representations and
believing that he would be permitted to return to his position at CCI, Dr. Makis agreed to
a voluntary paid administrative leave and temporarily ceased practice at the CCI. Dr.

Page 8 of 23
 Makis was requested to and did relinquish his hospital identification, CCI office keys and
access to his AHS e-mail account for the period of his voluntary paid administrative
leave.

46. By letter dated February 11, 2016, CPSA advised Dr.Makis that a CPSA Investigation
and Resolution Advisor was assigned to complete the investigation of the CPSA
complaint (“CPSA Investigation”). CPSA did not indicate that Dr.Makis’ conduct
warranted any type or form of restriction or limit on his ability to practice as NMP at CCI
during the CPSA Investigation.

AHS TIA Panel Process and Report

47. The AHS TIA investigation did proceed but was not completed in 28 days. The
TIA investigation extended for over 5 months and concluded with issuance of the TIA
panel report dated June 14, 2016 which was delivered to Dr. Makis’ counsel on June 17,
2016.

48. The TIA panel report disclosed that AHS medical administrative leaders, administrative
leaders, employees and management had made a number of false, erroneous or
exaggerated statements about Dr. Makis to the TIA panel most of which Dr. Makis was
completely unaware of and had no opportunity to respond.

49. The TIA report concluded that 5 of the 6 allegations against Dr. Makis were unfounded
or unsubstantiated and one allegation was founded.

50. The TIA panel made a number of recommendations to the Zone Medical Director the
majority of which were directed at all members of Diagnostic Imaging and the
Department of Oncology at CCI. Further, given their findings, the TIA panel
recommended that Dr. Makis take training in proper electronic communication
techniques, interpersonal communications and conflict resolution training and
appropriateness training. At no time did the TIA panel make any recommendations to in
any way restrict or limit Dr. Makis’ practice or privileges.

51. Dr. Makis promptly agreed to abide by the TIA panel recommendations including taking
whatever training was required of him and he indicated that he wanted to return to his
practice at CCI as soon as possible as the TIA panel process had been completed.

Page 9 of 23
 Zone Medical Director Decides to Refer Two Allegations to CPSA

52. On July 11, 2016, the Zone Medical Director contacted Dr.Makis’ counsel by telephone,
and offered Dr.Makis a consensual resolution in respect of the TIA, if Dr.Makis agreed to
relinquish his hospital privileges, agreed to not return to his practice at CCI, and agreed
to not request renewal of the MSA. Dr.Makis rejected these terms and requested new
terms that would allow him to return to his practice at CCI, which was denied.

53. Shortly after Dr.Makis rejected the Zone Medical Director’s offer of consensual
resolution, on July 11, 2016 the Zone Medical Director issued his decision at the
conclusion of the TIA. The Zone Medical Director :

a) accepted the TIA panel’s conclusion that 4 of the 6 allegations were unfounded
and dismissed those concerns;

b) agreed that one allegation was founded;

c) disagreed with the TIA panel’s conclusion that one allegation was
unsubstantiated;

d) concluded that the TIA will not be assisted by any further investigation;

e) refused consensual resolution; and

f) decided that the founded and unsubstantiated allegations should be referred to

the CPSA to take whatever steps they deem appropriate.

54. At the time the Zone Medical Director made the decision to refer the founded and
unsubstantiated allegations to the CPSA he was well aware that those allegations were
already the subject of a CPSA investigation which had been initiated almost 7 months
earlier by one of the Complainants.

55. On or about July 29, 2016 AHS sent a notice advising Makis P.C. that it would not be
renewing the MSA at the end of its initial term without any explanation for the same.

56. Under the AHS Bylaws in order for AHS to refer those matters to the CPSA it was
necessary for the Zone Medical Director to either obtain the consent of Dr. Makis to the
referral of the two allegations to the CPSA or to have a meeting with Dr. Makis to

Page 10 of 23
 discuss and consider whether there is any other reasonable alternative to such a
referral.

57. On August 11, 2016, Dr. Makis advised AHS that he was ready, willing and able to
return to work, that he would take all of the training recommended by the TIA panel and
that he was no longer agreeing to Voluntary Paid Administrative Leave.

58. AHS refused to permit Dr. Makis to practice at CCI and refused to return his hospital
identification, CCI office keys and permit access to his AHS e-mail account.

59. Dr. Makis did not consent to the referral of the two allegations to the CPSA and on
September 1, 2016 Dr. Makis met with the Zone Medical Director for the purpose of
making him aware that there were other reasonable alternatives and that it was
unnecessary and unreasonable to refer those matters to the CPSA because, inter alia:

a) Those matters were already the subject of a complaint to the CPSA that was
initiated in December 2015 and their investigation was already well
underway;

b) The TIA panel had already conducted a detailed and thorough investigation
which required no further investigation, as the Zone Medical Director
admitted;

c) The Zone Medical Director referred to the TIA panel as an experienced and
independent investigation team and they reasonably recommended further
training to address the concerns with Dr. Makis’ communication and
interpersonal skills which Dr. Makis had immediately agreed to abide by; and,

d) Dr. Makis had voluntarily removed himself from a clinical therapy trial which
involved the Complainants so that he would not have any further interaction
with the Complainants.

60. Notwithstanding that the allegations were being investigated by the CPSA, on
September 8, 2016 the Zone Medical Director decided to and did refer the two
allegations to the CPSA to take whatever steps the CPSA deemed appropriate thereby
bringing the TIA process under the AHS Bylaws process to an end.

Page 11 of 23
 AHS Refuses to Permit Dr. Makis to return to Practice at CCI

61. With the conclusion of the TIA process and the Zone Medical Director’s decision with
respect to the same, Dr. Makis again advised AHS that he was no longer willing to
accept voluntary paid administrative leave and requested that his hospital identification,
office keys and AHS e-mail account be returned and that he be permitted to return to
practice at CCI.

62. AHS refused to return Dr. Makis’ hospital identification, office keys and AHS e-mail
account and has not allowed him to return to practice at CCI.

63. AHS had no proper or legal authority to prevent Dr. Makis from resuming practice at
CCI, attending at the hospital and accessing his office and e-mail account at the
conclusion of the voluntary paid administrative leave.

64. Notwithstanding the actions of AHS and CPSA as set out herein, the Plaintiffs had fully
cooperated with the TIA and CPSA processes.

65. On or about October 7, 2016 Dr. Makis received the CPSA report in respect of the CPSA
Complaint. The CPSA report disclosed that AHS medical administrative leaders,
administrative leaders, employees and management had made a number of false,
erroneous or exaggerated statements about Dr.Makis to the CPSA most of which
Dr.Makis was completely unaware of and had no opportunity to respond. The CPSA
found, as did the TIA Panel, that in respect of the one founded allegation that Dr. Makis’
conduct toward and communication with staff had crossed professional boundaries and
with respect to the other allegation before it that there was no evidence to support the
unsubstantiated allegation. Further, the CPSA indicated that these types of issues are
best managed collaboratively as a quality improvement opportunity under section 55(2)
(a.1) of the Health Professions Act. CPSA also advised that the complainant was
agreeable to taking part in the collaborative quality improvement process the CPSA was
proposing. The CPSA did not indicate that Dr. Makis’ conduct warranted any type or
form of restriction or limit on his ability to practise as a NMP at CCI.

66. Notwithstanding that neither the TIA investigation nor the CPSA investigation indicated
that any restrictions or limits be placed on Dr. Makis’ ability to practise as a NMP at CCI,
AHS refused to permit Dr. Makis to return to his practice at CCI.

Page 12 of 23
67. The plaintiff says that the defendants entered into a conspiracy to prevent Dr.Makis from
returning to his practice at CCI until after Dr.Makis’ MSA expired on October 31, 2016 or
at all. In furtherance of this conspiracy:

a) Notwithstanding that the TIA investigation was independent of the CPSA

investigation and both were to remain confidential until their completion, the Zone
Medical Director and CPSA Officials exchanged confidential information about
the investigations prior to their completion, and co-ordinated their decisions with
respect to the investigations.

b) After consulting with the CPSA Complaints Director on or about February 29,
2016, The Zone Medical Director intentionally and unnecessarily extended the
TIA investigation, which resulted in a four month delay in the completion of the
investigation.

c) Starting on or about March 18, 2016, CPSA Officials intentionally stalled or

delayed the progress of the CPSA investigation until after the Zone Medical
Director referred two allegations to the CPSA. During this time, the CPSA
Investigation and Resolution Advisor provided Dr.Makis with deliberately
misleading or erroneous updates about the CPSA investigation and did not
respond to Dr.Makis’ request to discuss the progress of the CPSA investigation
until after the Zone Medical Director’s referral was made.

d) Notwithstanding that the CPSA Investigation and Resolution Advisor informed

Dr.Makis, by letter dated September 7, 2016, that she would not consider any
information gathered by or findings made by AHS in respect of the TIA, CPSA
failed to advise the Zone Medical Director of the same, and did not object to the
Zone Medical Director’s referral to the CPSA until after Dr.Makis’ MSA had
expired or at all.

e) Notwithstanding that, by letter dated September 13, 2016, Dr.Makis informed the
Zone Medical Director of CPSA’s refusal to review any information gathered by
or findings made by AHS in respect of the TIA, the Zone Medical Director failed
to follow-up with CPSA about his referral, refused to reconsider the referral and
consider reasonable alternatives, and refused to permit Dr.Makis to return to his
practice at CCI, until after Dr.Makis’ MSA had expired or at all.

Page 13 of 23
 f) CPSA Officials failed to review or respond to the Zone Medical Director’s referral
to the CPSA, until after Dr.Makis’ MSA had expired.

g) CPSA Officials intentionally stalled or delayed the resolution portion of the CPSA
complaint process until after Dr.Makis’ MSA had expired.

68. The plaintiff says that at a time unknown to the plaintiff, prior to the Zone Medical
Director’s July 11, 2016 decision to refer two allegations to the CPSA, the defendants
became aware that witness testimonies in the CPSA Report were inconsistent with or
contradictory to testimonies in the TIA Report and that upon learning of this, the
defendants entered into a conspiracy to conceal, willfully ignore or disregard the
inconsistent or contradictory testimonies until after Dr.Makis’ MSA expired, in order to
prevent Dr.Makis from returning to his practice at CCI. In furtherance of this conspiracy:

a) Upon obtaining all of the witness testimonies in respect of the CPSA

Investigation save for Dr.Makis, CPSA Officials intentionally stalled or delayed
the progress of the CPSA investigation for six months, until the Zone Medical
Director completed his referral to the CPSA.

b) Notwithstanding that Dr.Makis provided the entire TIA report to the CPSA
Investigation and Resolution Advisor in July 2016, CPSA Officials failed to review
the TIA report until after Dr.Makis’ MSA had expired or at all.

c) CPSA Officials had originally planned to delay the release of the CPSA Report
until after Dr.Makis’ MSA had expired. Dr.Makis complained about this delay to
both AHS and CPSA medical administrative leaders, and as a result, the CPSA
Report was issued to Dr.Makis just prior to the expiry of Dr.Makis’ MSA, however
CPSA Officials failed to forward the CPSA report to the Zone Medical Director
until after Dr.Makis’ MSA expired, or at all.

d) Notwithstanding that Dr.Makis informed the Zone Medical Director about the
inconsistent or contradictory testimonies in the CPSA and TIA reports by letter
dated October 18, 2016, the Zone Medical Director refused to consider the CPSA
report, refused to reconsider his referral to the CPSA, refused to permit Dr.Makis
to return to his practice at CCI, failed to obtain a copy of the CPSA Report from
CPSA or Dr.Makis, and failed to discuss the inconsistent or contradictory

Page 14 of 23
 testimonies with Dr.Makis or CPSA, until after Dr.Makis’ MSA had expired, or at
all.

AHS and CPSA continue to target the plaintiff

69. The plaintiff commenced this action against AHS by filing a statement of claim on
October 27, 2016.

70. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff informed the CPSA Registrar that the plaintiff had
commenced this action against AHS and provided the CPSA Registrar with a copy of the
statement of claim.

71. The plaintiff says that as a direct result of the plaintiff commencing this action, the
defendants entered into a conspiracy to prevent Dr.Makis from obtaining a medical
license outside of Alberta and impair Dr.Makis’ ability to practise medicine and earn
income. In furtherance of this conspiracy:

a) In April 2017, Dr.Makis attended a conference in Toronto, Ontario, that was also
attended by several AHS medical administrative leaders and employees. During
the conference, one of the AHS employees allegedly made a number of
comments about Dr. Makis to CPSA by telephone. This AHS employee had
previously made a number of false, erroneous or exaggerated statements about
Dr. Makis during the CPSA Investigation.

b) Notwithstanding that this AHS Employee did not file a formal written complaint to
the CPSA against Dr.Makis, in May 2017 the CPSA Associate Complaints
Director opened a new Complaint File against Dr.Makis pursuant to Section 56 of
the Act, without prior notice to Dr.Makis and without providing him an opportunity
to respond. CPSA Officials also failed to provide Dr.Makis with documents which
allegedly formed the basis of the new Complaint File.

c) In June 2017, CPSA informed Dr.Makis that a CPSA Investigation and

Resolution Advisor was assigned to complete an investigation with respect to the
Complaint File, notwithstanding that the allegations made by the AHS Employee
against Dr.Makis, as claimed by the CPSA Associate Complaints Director, were
not related to patient care, were not related to a workplace, and that the
complainant was neither a colleague nor co-worker of Dr.Makis.

Page 15 of 23
 d) Notwithstanding that an unresolved CPSA complaint impaired Dr.Makis’ ability to
obtain a medical license outside Alberta and impaired Dr.Makis’ ability to practise
medicine and earn income, all of which CPSA was aware, CPSA Officials
intentionally stalled or delayed the new investigation for four months without any
explanation and failed to respond to Dr.Makis’ requests to meet and discuss the
allegations.

e) CPSA Officials failed to provide Dr.Makis with an investigation report or any

investigation related documents and intentionally deprived Dr.Makis of due
process.

f) In October 2017, the CPSA Complaints Director referred the Complaint File to a
Hearing pursuant to the Act, without prior notice to Dr.Makis and without
providing him an opportunity to respond, and CPSA published Dr.Makis’ name on
its public website under the section “Hearings at the College”.

72. The actions and steps taken by CPSA, its medical administrative leaders, its
administrative leaders, its managers (collectively the “CPSA Officials”) and its
employees in furtherance of these conspiracies as set out and particularized herein,
were all contrary to their duties and responsibilities at law and under the Act.

73. The plaintiff says that CPSA, its Officials and its employees have breached their duty to
perform their administrative functions, duties and responsibilities under the Act in good
faith, honestly and reasonably, the particulars of which include but are not limited to the
following:

a) by providing AHS with confidential information about Dr.Makis, and assisting

AHS in preventing Dr.Makis from returning to his practice at CCI;

b) by stalling or delaying the CPSA investigation, issuance of the CPSA report, and
resolution process of the CPSA Complaint, in order to prevent Dr.Makis from
returning to his practice at CCI;

c) by failing to review the TIA Report and the Zone Medical Director’s referral to the
CPSA until after Dr.Makis’ MSA had expired; and

Page 16 of 23
 d) by opening a new Complaint File, initiating a new investigation against Dr.Makis,
and depriving Dr.Makis of due process in order to impair Dr.Makis’ ability to
practise medicine and earn income.

AHS Actions Constitute Constructive Dismissal or Constructive Termination

74. AHS’ refusal to permit Dr. Makis to return to practice at CCI, attend at the hospital,
access his office or e-mail account so as to discharge the duties, responsibilities and
powers under Agreement 1 and the MSA amounts to repudiation of those agreements
and constitute unilateral changes to fundamental or essential terms of those Agreements
which has resulted in constructive or actual termination of those agreements.

AHS and CPSA Induced Breach of Contract or Interfered with Contractual

Relations

75. Further or in the alternative, AHS and CPSA were aware of Agreement 1, MSA and the
CPA, and Dr. Makis or Makis P.C., as the case may be, were rendered unable to meet
the obligations in one or more of those agreements as a result of the actions of AHS and
CPSA set out herein which caused the breach of one or more of those contracts thereby
causing damages and leading to non-renewal of the MSA. The breaches of those
contracts was induced by the intentional, improper and unlawful actions of AHS and
CPSA as set out and particularized herein. There was no lawful or proper justification
for the actions of AHS and CPSA and the Plaintiffs or either of them has suffered
damages as a result.

76. Further or in the alternative, AHS by the improper and unlawful exercise of its
Administrative Functions under the AHS Bylaws and CPSA by the improper and unlawful
exercise of its Administrative Functions under the Act, targeted the Plaintiff and
intentionally set out to and did cause injury or damage to the Plaintiff’s economic
interests including but not limited to Agreement 1, MSA and the CPA and his ability to
practice medicine in his area of specialty in Alberta.

AHS’ Malfeasance in Public Office

77. The allegations against Dr. Makis were not of such a nature and degree that they
warranted the extensive AHS Bylaw and CPSA processes initiated by AHS and CPSA.
This is particularly so in the case of the TIA where the process was initiated and Dr.

Page 17 of 23
 Makis was obliged to voluntary cease practice without at least obtaining his response to
the allegations. As both the TIA panel and the CPSA found the sole founded allegation
should have been dealt with through training for Dr. Makis or a collaborative process as
a quality improvement opportunity rather than causing irreparable damage to Dr. Makis’
professional reputation and his career by preventing him from returning to practise.

78. Further, the actions of AHS and CPSA by and through a number of their managers,
agents, officers and employees were intended or designed to see to the removal of Dr.
Makis from practice at CCI and to prevent the renewal of the MSA contract.

79. AHS intentionally, improperly, unlawfully and contrary to the AHS Bylaws, encouraged
and solicited complaints and concerns with Dr. Makis for the purpose of engaging AHS’
powers under the administrative process pursuant to the AHS Bylaws. Once AHS’
powers were so engaged they proceeded to exercise those powers unreasonably and
for the collateral, improper and unlawful purpose of preventing Dr. Makis from practising
medicine in his area of specialty at CCI and Dr. Makis or Makis P.C. from fulfilling the
obligations under Agreement 1, the MSA and CPA and causing the non-renewal of the
MSA all of which occurred as a result of the same.

80. The functions of AHS’ managers, medical administrative leaders and administrative
leaders (collectively the “AHS Officials”) as set out more fully herein in respect of the
initiation, management and administration of the TIA, the statements made by the AHS
Officials at the TIA, the decisions arising from the TIA, the refusal to permit Dr. Makis to
return to practice and the failure to renew the MSA were public functions.

81. The conduct of the AHS Officials as set out more fully herein was deliberate and
unlawful and the AHS officials knew it was both unlawful and likely to injure the Plaintiffs
which it did.

AHS Fails to Perform Contractual Duties in Good Faith, Honestly and Reasonably

82. In addition to AHS’ duties and responsibilities at common law and under the AHS Bylaws
in respect of its Administrative Function and administrative processes under the AHS
Bylaws, AHS, as a private contracting party, owes the Plaintiffs a duty to perform their
contractual duties honestly and reasonably and not capriciously or arbitrarily.

Page 18 of 23
83. AHS has failed to perform its contractual duties honestly and reasonably and in so doing
has breached its duty of good faith performance of Agreement 1 and the MSA, The
breaches of duty of good faith include the solicitation of complaints or concerns to
engage the AHS Bylaws administrative process, the threat to immediately suspend Dr.
Makis’ privileges if he did not agree to paid administrative leave, the protracted nature of
the TIA, the false erroneous and exaggerated statements made to the TIA panel, the
continued refusal to permit Dr. Makis to perform the Services, the failure to provide
procedural fairness, failure to conduct performance reviews, the initiation, management
and administration of the TIA process and the unreasonable decisions arising from the
same, the failure of AHS to use reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute in respect of
the performance and delivery of the services under the MSA, the referral of allegations
to the CPSA, the refusal to renew the MSA and the actions taken by AHS its
management and staff to bring about the termination of the Plaintiff’s medical practice at
CCI.

84. AHS knowingly mislead and acted dishonestly in relation to the performance of
Agreement 1 and the MSA. Dr. Makis and Makis P.C. reasonably relied on AHS’
indications that Dr. Makis’ position would be long term in nature, the MSA would be
renewed and that AHS would act honestly and in good faith in respect of its contractual
obligations. Instead, once a conflict arose between the Plaintiffs and a certain AHS
medical administrative leader instead of resolving the disputes in a manner consistent
with its agreements and with the AHS Bylaws, AHS proceeded to use administrative
processes under the AHS bylaws to effectively place Dr. Makis on permanent paid
administrative leave until the end of the MSA and not renew the MSA. In so doing, AHS
did not have appropriate regard for the legitimate contractual interests of Dr. Makis,
Makis P.C. and undermined those interests in bad faith.

Damages

85. AHS is vicariously liable for the actions of each of the AHS Officials, its agents, and
employees.

86. CPSA is vicariously liable for the actions of each of the CPSA Officials, its agents, and
employees.

Page 19 of 23
87. The Plaintiff, Dr. Makis is entitled to common law damages for AHS’ wrongful
termination, AHS’ and CPSA’s interference with contractual relations or inducing breach
of contract with respect to Agreement 1, MSA and CPA or any and all of those
agreements in an amount to be proven at the trial of this matter.

88. The Plaintiff, Makis P.C. is entitled to contractual and common law damages for AHS’
wrongful termination, AHS’ and CPSA’s interference with contractual relations or
inducing breach of contract with respect to the Agreement 1, MSA and CPA or any and
all of those agreements. The contractual damages for breach of the MSA include
damages equal to 12 months of remuneration which is $646,335.00 as expressly as set
out in Agreement 1 or such other amount as may be proven at the trial of this matter.

89. Since the Zone Medical Director rendered his decision on September 8, 2016 AHS has
continued to make voluntary monthly payments to Makis P.C. but has given notice that
such payments will cease on October 31, 2016 when the MSA would have ended but for
its earlier constructive or actual termination.

90. AHS and CPSA have failed, refused or neglected to pay any common law damages to
either of Dr. Makis or Makis P.C. for their actions.

91. Further, AHS and CPSA have failed, refused or neglected to pay any contractual
damages to Makis P.C. including the contract termination payment owing to Makis P.C.
pursuant to clause 7.1(c) of the MSA.

92. AHS is the sole regional health authority in Alberta and is solely responsible for all
hospitals and provincial cancer clinics. Accordingly, as a result of the defendants’
actions as set out herein and refusal to permit Dr. Makis to return to practice Dr. Makis
will have to relocate his family to resume a similar NMP practice and Dr. Makis is entitled
to damages with respect to the same in an amount to be proven at trial.

93. AHS and CPSA have through the actions of several of their managers, agents, officers
and employees purposely and with malicious intent initiated and proceeded with AHS
Bylaw and CPSA processes and made decisions in respect of the same which were
unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and which were intended to and which have
prevented Dr. Makis from:

a) practising medicine in his area of specialty;

Page 20 of 23
 b) fulfilling his contractual obligations; and,

c) having his MSA contract renewed

all of which has defamed and embarrassed him and otherwise caused damage to him,
his reputation and his medical career for which Dr. Makis is entitled to a significant
award of damages.

94. The Plaintiff seeks damages as a result of AHS’ breach of its duty to perform its
contractual duties honestly and reasonably in an amount to be proven at trial.

95. The Plaintiff seeks damages as a result of CPSA’s breach of its duty to perform its
administrative functions, duties and responsibilities under the Act in good faith, honestly
and reasonably in an amount to be proven at trial.

96. Further, AHS’ and CPSA’s actions as set out herein and the termination of the MSA and
Agreement 1 and the refusal to renew his MSA was all done in bad faith and in a high
handed and egregious manner which warrants punitive, exemplary or aggravated
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

97. The actions of AHS officials or some of them constitute misfeasance in public office and
have caused damage to the Plaintiffs or either of them in an amount to be proven at trial.

Remedy sought:

98. Wherefore the Plaintiff, Dr. Viliam Makis claims against the Defendants, as follows:

a. General Damages for misfeasance in public office, breach of the duty of good
faith and the intentional and malicious infliction of harm to Dr. Makis, his
reputation and his medical career in the amount of $3,000,000.00 or such other
amount as may be proven at trial;
b. General damages for wrongful or constructive dismissal in the sum of
$1,292,670.00 representing 24 months of remuneration in lieu of notice or such
other amount as may be proven at trial;
c. Further or alternatively, general damages for interference with contractual
relations or inducing breach of contract in the amount $1,292,670.00 or such
other amount as may be proven at trial;

Page 21 of 23
 d. Special damages for expenses related to job search, licensing, accreditation and
relocation in the amount of $50,000.00 or such other amount as may be proven
at trial;
e. Aggravated, punitive or exemplary damages in the amount of $500,000.00 for
bad faith or the high-handed and egregious conduct of the Defendants as
hereinbefore set out.
f. Interest on the above-claimed awards pursuant to the Judgment Interest Act,
S.A. 1984, C.J-0.5, as amended.
g. Such further and other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate, having regard to all of the circumstances.
h. Costs of this action on a solicitor and own client basis or such other basis as the
Court deems just.

99. Wherefore the Plaintiff, Viliam Makis Professional Corporation claims against the
Defendants, as follows:

i. General Damages for misfeasance in public office, breach of the duty of good
faith and the intentional and malicious infliction of harm to Makis P.C. including
the failure to renew the MSA in the amount of $3,000,000 or such other amount
as may be proven at trial;
j. Contractual damages for termination of the Medical Services Agreement in the
sum of $646,335.00 representing 12 months of remuneration;
k. Damages in the amount of $1,939,005.00 representing the remuneration for a
further 3 year term of the MSA at current rates or such other amount as may be
proven at trial;
l. Further or alternatively, general damages for interference with contractual
relations or inducing breach of contract in the amount $1,292,670.00 or such
other amount as may be proven at trial;
m. Special damages for expenses related to job search, licensing, accreditation and
relocation in the amount of $50,000.00 or such other amount as may be proven
at trial;
n. Aggravated, punitive or exemplary damages in the amount of $500,000.00 for
bad faith or the high-handed and egregious conduct of the Defendants as
hereinbefore set out.

Page 22 of 23
 o. Interest on the above-claimed awards pursuant to the Judgment Interest Act,
S.A. 1984, C.J-0.5, as amended.
p. Such further and other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate, having regard to all of the circumstances.
q. Costs of this action on a solicitor and own client basis or such other basis as the
Court deems just.

NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT(S)

You only have a short time to do something to defend yourself against this claim:

20 days if you are served in Alberta

1 month if you are served outside Alberta but in Canada

2 months if you are served outside Canada.

You can respond by filing a statement of defence or a demand for notice in the office of the
clerk of the Court of Queen’s Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, AND serving your statement of
defence or a demand for notice on the plaintiff’s(s’) address for service.

WARNING

If you do not file and serve a statement of defence or a demand for notice within your time
period, you risk losing the law suit automatically. If you do not file, or do not serve, or are late
in doing either of these things, a court may give a judgment to the plaintiff(s) against you.

Page 23 of 23