College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta v Makis
June 17, 2026
What happens when a physician whose licence has been cancelled continues to hold themselves out as a medical authority and provide health advice to thousands of people online? In College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta v Makis, 2026 ABKB 159 and 2026 ABCA 198, the courts issued a permanent injunction, found the former physician in contempt, and denied leave to appeal – a stark reminder that regulatory bodies have powerful enforcement tools and courts will use them.
Background
Viliam (William) Makis practised medicine in Alberta between 2013 and 2016. His licence was cancelled by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) on February 12, 2019. After the cancellation, Makis built an online following- over 8,500 subscribers – providing what he called “cancer coaching” services through Substack, social media, and YouTube. He promoted alternative cancer treatments including ivermectin, fenbendazole, and mebendazole, including to children, despite disclaimers that his services were not medical advice.
In August 2025, CPSA obtained an interim injunction barring Makis from holding himself out as a licensed physician, using protected titles (doctor, oncologist, etc.), or providing health services or advice on cancer treatment. CPSA subsequently brought a civil contempt application alleging Makis continued to violate the injunction.
The Decision
On March 4, 2026, Justice Douglas R. Mah of the Court of King’s Bench found Makis in contempt of the interim injunction. The Court granted CPSA a permanent injunction on the same terms and ordered Makis to purge his contempt by immediately ceasing to practise medicine without a licence and removing all offending titles and abbreviations within 72 hours – on threat of an arrest warrant and possible imprisonment.
Makis sought permission to appeal and a stay of the order pending appeal. On June 17, 2026, Justice Kevin Feth of the Alberta Court of Appeal denied permission to appeal, finding no arguable merit in Makis’s position. The stay application and CPSA’s cross-application for security for costs became moot.
Key Takeaway
This case demonstrates the serious consequences of continuing to provide health services (even rebranded as “coaching”) without a licence, particularly when a regulatory body has already cancelled that licence and obtained court orders. For employers and organizations in the health sector, the case underscores the importance of verifying the credentials and regulatory standing of anyone providing health-related services. The courts will not hesitate to enforce professional regulatory boundaries, including through contempt proceedings and the threat of imprisonment.