2. The Plaintiff, Dr. Viliam Makis (“Dr.

Makis”), is an experienced and skilled Nuclear

Medicine physician who is licensed and authorized to carry on a medical practice in his
area of specialty in the province of Alberta.

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, Dr. Alexander J.B. McEwan (“Dr.McEwan”) is a physician at the Cross
Cancer Institute (“CCI”) in Edmonton, and Administrator and Academic Staff at
University of Alberta (“U of A”). He was Chair of Department of Oncology in Faculty of
Medicine & Dentistry at U of A, from about July 2007 until June 30, 2017, and oversaw
applications for academic appointments, and chaired meetings of the Joint Executive
and Division Directors’ Committee (“Oncology Executive Committee”) which reviewed
and approved academic appointments to the Department of Oncology at U of A.

5. The Defendant, Dr. Richard N. Fedorak (“Dr.Fedorak”), is a physician, and Administrator

and Academic Staff at U of A. At all material times he was the Dean of Faculty of
Medicine & Dentistry at U of A, and was responsible for the appointment of physicians to
the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry as Academic Staff or Academic Colleague.

6. The Defendant, Richard N. Fedorak Professional Corporation (“Fedorak P.C.”) is a

professional corporation of which Dr.Fedorak is the sole employee or contractor.

7. The Defendant, Dr. Matthew Parliament (“Dr.Parliament”) is a physician at CCI and

Academic Staff at U of A. At all material times he was the Medical Director of CCI, a
member of the Oncology Executive Committee and a Professor in the Department of
Oncology at U of A.

8. The Defendant, Matthew Parliament Professional Corporation (“Parliament P.C.”) is a

professional corporation of which Dr.Parliament is the sole employee or contractor.

9. The Defendant, Dr. Robert MacEwan (“Dr.MacEwan”) is a physician at CCI and

Academic Colleague at U of A. At all material times he was the Site Chief of Diagnostic
Imaging at CCI, and Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Radiology and
Diagnostic Imaging at U of A.

10. The Defendant, Robert MacEwan Professional Corporation (“MacEwan P.C.”) is a

professional corporation of which Dr.MacEwan is the sole employee or contractor.

Page 2 of 28
11. The Defendant, Dr.Randy Goebel (“Dr.Goebel”) is an Administrator and Academic Staff
at U of A. At all material times he was the Associate Vice-President Academic at U of A,
and oversaw formal complaint and disciplinary processes, and resolution of concerns
involving U of A Academic Staff.

12. The Defendant, University of Alberta, is a comprehensive university operating in

Edmonton, Alberta. University of Alberta is a statutory body, pursuant to the Post-
secondary Learning Act, SA 2003, c.P-19.5 (the “Act”) and amendments thereto.

13. Dr.McEwan, Dr.Fedorak, Fedorak P.C., Dr.Parliament, Parliament P.C., Dr.MacEwan,

MacEwan P.C., and Dr.Goebel are referred to herein collectively as the “Individual
Defendants”.

14. U of A and all individuals who accept an appointment as Academic Staff or Academic
Colleague at U of A agree to be bound by all U of A Policies, rules, and by-laws,
including the University of Alberta Policies and Procedures On-Line (UAPPOL).

15. U of A and all individuals who accept an appointment as Academic Staff at U of A also
agree to be bound by the Faculty Agreement pursuant to Section 84 of the Act.

16. U of A Administrative leaders expressly covenant with U of A Academic Staff and

Academic Colleagues to demonstrate ethical behavior and professionalism, respect,
accountability, transparency and engagement in carrying out their administrative
functions and responsibilities under the UAPPOL and Faculty Agreement.

Background

17. On or about August 2013, Dr.Makis entered into a contractual agreement with U of A
and was appointed as Clinical Academic Colleague with the rank of Clinical Lecturer in
the Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging effective August 01, 2013 to June
30, 2015 by the Dean of Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, pursuant to the Academic
Colleagues Policy and Recruitment Policy of UAPPOL (the “Radiology Appointment”).

18. The Radiology Appointment provided, inter alia:

a) that Dr.Makis would provide teaching to U of A students and residents;

b) Dr.Makis would participate in clinical research;

Page 3 of 28
 c) annual performance reviews of Dr.Makis’ research and teaching activities would
be conducted by the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry at U of A;

d) Dr.Makis would not receive any financial compensation or income;

e) U of A would extend Privileges to Dr.Makis including: issuance of a University

ONECard, entitlement to a secondary computing ID – Campus Computing ID
(“CCID”) to be used for University purposes such as accessing U of A Library
services and resources, eligibility to University Parking, eligibility for membership
in the Faculty Club, and Listing in the University Calendar;

f) Dr.Makis would be eligible for promotion pursuant to Criteria for Academic

Ranks, Promotions and Appointments for Clinical Academic Colleagues
procedures of Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry (the “FoMD Promotion Criteria”);

g) Dr.Makis would be subject to and bound by all relevant policies and procedures
of U of A and the rules and regulations set out by the appointing Faculty.

19. According to the “VII. Continuation of Academic Appointments” section of the FoMD
Promotion Criteria, the Radiology Appointment could be withdrawn on the basis of:

a) voluntary withdrawal by an individual;

b) failure to meet the criteria for reappointment.

20. The Plaintiffs say that it was an implied term of the Radiology Appointment contract that
U of A, its Administrators, Academic Staff, Academic Colleagues, officials, employees,
and agents would perform their duties and obligations under UAPPOL, under FoMD
Promotion Criteria and all other appointing Faculty rules and regulations, and under the
Faculty Agreement in good faith and act honestly toward the plaintiffs.

21. Dr.Makis loyally and dutifully performed his responsibilities pursuant to the Radiology
Appointment. Dr. Makis was a dedicated and hardworking physician who actively
participated in teaching U of A residents and students, participated extensively in clinical
research at CCI, and provided service to his medical discipline at CCI.

22. As a result of Dr.Makis’ dedication, hard work and research and teaching success,
Dr.Makis was promoted to the rank of Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of

Page 4 of 28
 Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging effective July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2020, pursuant to
the FoMD Promotion Criteria and UAPPOL, by Dr.Fedorak.

Academic Appointment in the Department of Oncology at U of A

23. In or about July 2014, Dr.Makis applied in writing to Dr.McEwan for a Faculty Evaluation
Committee Special Continuing Appointment in the Department of Oncology at U of A
(the “Oncology Appointment”) after Dr.McEwan encouraged Dr.Makis to apply to the
Department of Oncology as it provided more research opportunities than Radiology.

24. During a July 17, 2014 meeting of the Oncology Executive Committee, Dr.McEwan
brought Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment application to the Committee for review.

25. During an April 23, 2015 meeting of the Committee, Dr.McEwan put forward a motion to
start the process of bringing Dr.Makis into Department of Oncology at U of A, and the
motion was carried unanimously by members of the Oncology Executive Committee.

26. In or about June 2015, Dr.Makis fulfilled all of the requirements of the Oncology
Appointment application process pursuant to UAPPOL and all Faculty of Medicine &
Dentistry rules and regulations, including presenting a seminar of his research at Special
Oncology Rounds at CCI on June 23, 2015, and holding meetings with six Oncology
Executive Committee members, including Dr. Parliament on May 28, 2015.

27. During the May 28, 2015 meeting with Dr.Parliament, Dr.Parliament praised Dr.Makis’
research efforts but discouraged Dr.Makis’ research collaboration with Dr.McEwan
regarding “unproven therapies” and suggested that Dr.Makis pursue different research
topics than Dr.McEwan, such as “cost-effectiveness in medical research”.

28. During a September 17, 2015 meeting of the Oncology Executive Committee,
Dr.McEwan brought his final recommendation of Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment to the
Committee and the Committee unanimously approved Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment
with anticipated start date in the upcoming academic year in or about July 2016. Faculty
of Medicine & Dentistry rules and regulations required Dr.McEwan to forward the
Committee’s decision to the Dean, Dr.Fedorak, for his approval and signature.

Page 5 of 28
 Undermining Dr.Makis’ research work and teaching at CCI

29. On May 29, 2015, Dr.Makis provided a written research proposal to his U of A Radiology
colleagues at CCI. In response, Dr.MacEwan initiated written and verbal attacks on
Dr.Makis’ research proposal and undermined Dr.Makis in front of his U of A colleagues.

30. During a June 9, 2015 CCI physician meeting, Dr.MacEwan attacked Dr.Makis’ and
Dr.McEwan’s research work including a research project that received grant funding
from Medical Imaging Trial Network of Canada (MITNEC), which Dr.MacEwan rejected.

31. Unbeknownst to Dr.Makis, by way of an August 23, 2015 email to senior Alberta Health
Services (“AHS”) and U of A Administrators including Dr.Parliament, Dr.MacEwan
repeatedly undermined and defamed Dr.Makis, insisted that Dr.Makis should be fired in
absence of due process, and proposed a detailed plan that would see Dr.Makis removed
from CCI as a result of Dr.MacEwan soliciting and even coercing formal written or
anonymous complaints against Dr.Makis from Dr.Makis’ CCI and U of A colleagues.

32. Unbeknownst to Dr.Makis, in or about August 2015, Dr.Parliament authorized and

encouraged Dr.MacEwan to begin soliciting complaints against Dr.Makis from Dr.Makis’
CCI and U of A colleagues.

33. From about August 2015 until about December 2015, Dr.MacEwan repeatedly
undermined and defamed Dr.Makis to Dr.Makis’ CCI colleagues and repeatedly solicited
written complaints from them via email, and via private unauthorized meetings held in
Dr.MacEwan’s CCI Office. Dr.MacEwan did not inform U of A of these actions.

34. In or about October 2015, AHS Officials announced a temporary mechanical breakdown
and shutdown of the cyclotron located at CCI, and approached Dr.McEwan about using
U of A Medical Isotope and Cyclotron Facility (“MICF”) located at U of A south campus,
which was funded by a Government of Canada Ministry - Natural Resources Canada to
address the impending medical isotope shortage across Canada.

35. In or about November 2015, Dr.McEwan told Dr.Makis that Dr.Parliament and other
senior AHS Officials were attempting to “steal my cyclotron”, and that if Dr.Parliament
and AHS succeeded in stealing Dr.McEwan’s MICF cyclotron and brought it under AHS
control instead of it staying under U of A control, that we would both be “out of a job”.

Page 6 of 28
36. Dr.McEwan is an owner of a U of A spin-off company, Belgravia Tech Inc., whose
purpose is to sell throughout Canada the medical isotopes that the MICF cyclotron is
capable of producing. In or about November 2015, Dr.McEwan told Dr.Makis that if
Dr.McEwan could hold onto his MICF cyclotron, and could steal AHS’ Edmonton
Radiopharmaceutical Centre (ERC) from AHS and bring it under his U of A Department
of Oncology, that Dr.McEwan’s company would have all it needed and he could retire.

37. In or about November 2015, Dr.McEwan told Dr.Makis that Dr.Parliament verbally
attacked Dr.McEwan in regards to Dr.McEwan’s and Dr.Makis’ clinical research work at
CCI and its costs to CCI, and that Dr.Parliament had decided to “slash” Dr.McEwan’s
salary by up to a third. Dr.McEwan also told Dr.Makis that Dr.Parliament wished to shut
down all research in Diagnostic Imaging at CCI, and that Dr.Makis should apply for a
funded Academic Staff position at U of A in order to protect himself from Dr.Parliament.

38. Unbeknownst to Dr.Makis, in or about December 2015, Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament and

Dr.McEwan solicited two written complaints against Dr.Makis from Dr.Makis’ CCI
colleagues, and held several unauthorized and unofficial meetings to plot the filing of the
complaints and Dr.Makis’ removal from CCI, in the absence of any notice to U of A.
Dr.Parliament arranged to have Dr.Makis removed from CCI by force using CCI security.

39. On or about December 30, 2015, without prior notice to Dr.Makis or U of A,

Dr.Parliament sent his subordinates to ask Dr.Makis to leave CCI voluntarily pending
investigation of the two solicited complaints.

40. In or about January 2016, during a formal monthly meeting of CCI Radiologists,
Dr.MacEwan told Dr.Makis’ U of A Radiology colleagues that Dr.Makis would not return
to CCI, and that Dr.Makis’ AHS income would be used to recruit a new Radiologist.

41. In or about January 2016, each of Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament and Dr.McEwan, without
any notice to U of A, made a number of false, erroneous or exaggerated statements to
senior AHS and U of A Administrators about Dr.Makis, and demanded that Dr.Makis not
be permitted to return to CCI to resume his medical practice and clinical research.

42. In or about August 2016, Dr.McEwan threatened the careers of Dr.Makis’ CCI, Oncology
and U of A colleagues who had written or were contemplating writing letters in support of
Dr.Makis returning to CCI to resume his medical practice, research and teaching.

Page 7 of 28
43. The Plaintiffs say that the defendants, or some of them, entered into a conspiracy to
prevent Dr.Makis from performing research, teaching and providing service to his
discipline at CCI, from December 2015 onward. In furtherance of this conspiracy:

a) Dr.MacEwan attacked Dr.Makis’ research work in front of Dr.Makis’ colleagues,

repeatedly undermined and defamed Dr.Makis to AHS and U of A Administrators
and colleagues, solicited complaints against Dr.Makis, requested that Dr.Makis
be fired or removed from CCI in the absence of due process, and told Dr.Makis’
Radiology colleagues in January 2016 that Dr.Makis was not returning to CCI;

b) Dr.Parliament authorized and encouraged Dr.MacEwan to solicit complaints

against Dr.Makis; plotted, arranged and enacted Dr.Makis’ removal from CCI;
and undermined and defamed Dr.Makis to AHS and U of A Administrators;

c) Dr.McEwan solicited complaints against Dr.Makis, undermined and defamed

Dr.Makis to AHS and U of A Administrators and demanded that Dr.Makis not be
permitted to return to CCI, and threatened the careers of Dr.Makis’ colleagues
who were supportive of Dr.Makis’ return to CCI;

d) Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament and Dr.McEwan held a number of private,

unauthorized and unofficial meetings together on or about December 2015 to plot
and arrange Dr.Makis’ removal from CCI, in the absence of any notice to U of A.

44. The Plaintiffs say that the improper and unlawful actions and steps taken by each of the
defendants Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament and Dr.McEwan in soliciting complaints against
Dr.Makis; in undermining and defaming Dr.Makis; in plotting, arranging, and enacting
Dr.Makis’ removal from CCI; and in taking active steps to prevent Dr.Makis’ return to CCI
were all contrary to their duties and responsibilities at law, under the UAPPOL and under
the Faculty Agreement.

45. The Plaintiffs say that as a result of the conspiracy, Dr.Makis was interfered with and
impaired in carrying out his duties and responsibilities under the Radiology Appointment,
and the Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result.

Page 8 of 28
 Undermining and Terminating Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment at U of A

46. Notwithstanding the improper and unlawful removal of Dr.Makis from CCI by
Dr.Parliament, Dr. Makis continued to loyally and dutifully conduct clinical research
pursuant to the Radiology Appointment.

47. On November 22, 2016, Dr.Makis sent a written complaint in respect of each of
Dr.McEwan’s, Dr.Parliament’s and Dr.MacEwan’s misconduct in regards to the
undermining of Dr.Makis’ research, teaching and Radiology Appointment at CCI (the
“McEwan Complaint”) to Dr.Fedorak and the U of A Office of the Provost.

48. By way of a November 29, 2016 letter to the U of A Provost, Dr.Fedorak acknowledged
receiving the McEwan Complaint but failed or refused to take any further action
regarding the misconduct reported therein.

49. By way of a January 25, 2017 letter, Dr.Goebel informed Dr.Makis that Dr.Goebel had
been designated by the U of A Provost to serve as his designate and adjudicator for the
McEwan Complaint, pursuant to Article 16 of the Faculty Agreement.

50. By way of an April 11, 2017 letter, Dr.Makis was informed by the Vice Dean of the
Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry that Dr.McEwan had failed or refused to deliver the
Oncology Executive Committee’s decision and unanimous approval of Dr.Makis’
Oncology Appointment to Dr.Fedorak, as required by Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry
rules and regulations and UAPPOL, and that as a result, Dr.Fedorak had not finalized
Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment.

51. On May 8, 2017, by way of email, Dr.Makis asked Dr.Fedorak and Dr.Goebel to take
action to address Dr.McEwan’s improper handling of Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment
application and to address the ongoing damages to Dr.Makis’ medical career.

52. On May 11, 2017, Dr.Fedorak responded to Dr.Makis via email and refused to take any
action to address Dr.McEwan’s improper handling of Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment
application stating: “you were never the recipient of a Special Continuing Academic
appointment”. Dr.Fedorak also failed or refused to acknowledge the Oncology Executive
Committee’s unanimous approval of Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment.

Page 9 of 28
53. By way of a May 25, 2017 letter, Dr.Goebel informed Dr.Makis that he would not
investigate Dr.Makis’ concerns regarding the misconduct of each of Dr.MacEwan,
Dr.Parliament and Dr.McEwan in respect of the undermining of Dr.Makis’ research,
teaching, Radiology Appointment and Oncology Appointment. Dr.Goebel agreed to
investigate only one allegation - that Dr.McEwan threatened the careers of Dr.Makis’
CCI, Oncology and U of A colleagues who had supported Dr.Makis’ return to CCI, but
Dr.Goebel then refused to place Dr.McEwan on administrative leave.

54. The plaintiffs say that the defendants, or some of them, entered into a conspiracy to
undermine and or terminate Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment at U of A, and impair
Dr.Makis’ future academic medical career at U of A. In furtherance of this conspiracy:

a) Dr.Parliament interviewed Dr.Makis on behalf of the Oncology Executive

Committee on May 28, 2015 but failed or refused to provide a written evaluation
of Dr.Makis to the Committee in support of Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment;

b) Dr.Parliament, Dr.McEwan and Dr.MacEwan plotted together, arranged and

enacted Dr.Makis’ removal from CCI, knowing that Dr.Makis’ Oncology
Appointment had already been approved by the Oncology Executive Committee;

c) Dr.Parliament, Dr.McEwan and Dr.MacEwan repeatedly undermined and

defamed Dr.Makis to senior AHS and U of A Administrators, and demanded that
Dr.Makis not be permitted to return to CCI, knowing that these actions would
prevent Dr.Makis from receiving the Oncology Appointment, and could prevent
Dr.Makis from having a future academic medical career at U of A;

d) Dr.McEwan failed or refused to forward the Oncology Executive Committee’s

unanimous approval of Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment to Dr.Fedorak, knowing
that this would prevent Dr.Makis from receiving his Oncology Appointment;

e) Dr.McEwan and Dr.Fedorak worked together to terminate or withdraw Dr.Makis’

Oncology Appointment application, without any notice to Dr.Makis or U of A, in
the absence of any due process, and without documenting their actions at U of A;

f) Dr.Fedorak failed or refused to acknowledge, investigate or address each of the

defendants’ Dr.MacEwan’s, Dr.Parliament’s and Dr.McEwan’s misconduct; once
Dr.Fedorak was informed of the misconduct on or about November 2016;

Page 10 of 28
 g) Dr.Goebel failed or refused to acknowledge, investigate or address each of the
defendants’ Dr.MacEwan’s, Dr.Parliament’s and Dr.McEwan’s misconduct
regarding the Oncology Appointment; once Dr.Goebel was made aware of the
misconduct on or about January 2017.

55. The Plaintiffs say that the improper and unlawful actions and steps taken by each of the
defendants Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament, Dr.McEwan, Dr.Fedorak and Dr.Goebel in
undermining and or terminating or withdrawing Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment, were
all contrary to their duties and responsibilities at law, under the UAPPOL and under the
Faculty Agreement, and the plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result, including but
not limited to damage to reputation, academic medical career, research career,
academic promotions, and future earning opportunities at U of A.

Undermining and Terminating Dr.Makis’ Radiology Appointment at U of A

56. On or about May 1, 2017, while conducting research work pursuant to the Radiology
Appointment, Dr.Makis was suddenly unable to log into his U of A CCID account and
was unable to access the U of A Libraries, in the absence of any notice from U of A.

57. Dr.Makis immediately called U of A Information Technology who informed Dr.Makis that
they had just disabled Dr.Makis’ CCID and password, because they received instructions
that Dr.Makis was no longer an “active member of the academic staff”.

58. Dr.Makis informed Dr.Fedorak about the U of A account problems, and Dr.Fedorak
responded via email on May 11, 2017, stating: “as you were not teaching residents and
students, your Clinical Academic Colleague appointment could no longer continue”.

59. Dr.Fedorak did not give Dr.Makis any prior notice before unilaterally terminating all of
Dr.Makis’ U of A accounts, and did not provide Dr.Makis or U of A any formal notice that
Dr.Fedorak was terminating or withdrawing Dr.Makis’ Radiology Appointment.

60. The Plaintiffs say that Dr.Fedorak had no just or proper cause to unilaterally terminate
Dr.Makis’ U of A CCID, U of A email account, and deny Dr.Makis access to U of A
Libraries. Dr.Fedorak also had no just or proper cause to unilaterally terminate or
withdraw Dr.Makis’ Radiology Appointment, as Dr.Fedorak’s decision did not meet the
Radiology Appointment termination or withdrawal criteria as per FoMD Promotion
Criteria or the UAPPOL Academic Colleagues Policy.

Page 11 of 28
61. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs say that Dr.Fedorak failed or refused to inform himself
regarding Dr.Makis’ ongoing research work, had not conducted any annual performance
evaluations of Dr.Makis since 2013, and failed or refused to determine whether Dr.Makis
was willing and able to continue fulfilling his duties and responsibilities under the
Radiology Appointment, including participating in research and teaching.

62. The Plaintiffs say that the defendants, or some of them, entered into a conspiracy to
undermine and or terminate or withdraw Dr.Makis’ Radiology Appointment at U of A. In
furtherance of this conspiracy:

a) each of Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament and Dr.McEwan solicited complaints against

Dr.Makis, repeatedly undermined and defamed Dr.Makis to colleagues, plotted
and enacted Dr.Makis’ removal from CCI, and then took steps to prevent
Dr.Makis’ return to CCI, knowing that any of these actions would impair Dr.Makis’
ability to perform his duties under the Radiology Appointment;

b) Dr.McEwan threatened the careers of Dr.Makis’ colleagues who supported

Dr.Makis’ return to CCI, in order to prevent Dr.Makis’ return to CCI and impair
Dr.Makis’ ability to perform his duties under the Radiology Appointment;

c) Dr.Fedorak failed or refused to conduct annual performance reviews of Dr.Makis’

research and teaching, as required under the Radiology Appointment terms;

d) Dr.Fedorak and Dr.Goebel failed or refused to acknowledge, investigate or

address each of Dr.MacEwan’s, Dr.Parliament’s and Dr.McEwan’s misconduct in
respect of undermining Dr.Makis’ Radiology Appointment, in order to prevent
Dr.Makis from performing his duties under the Radiology Appointment;

e) Dr.Fedorak ordered the termination of Dr.Makis’ U of A email and U of A CCID

accounts, without any notice to Dr.Makis or U of A, knowing that these were
Privileges that Dr.Makis was entitled to receive from U of A pursuant to the
Radiology Appointment;

f) Dr.Fedorak unilaterally terminated or withdrew Dr.Makis’ Radiology Appointment

via email, and did so without providing a formal notice of termination to Dr.Makis
or U of A, without proper or just cause, and in absence of any due process;
knowing that the criteria for terminating or withdrawing Dr.Makis’ Radiology

Page 12 of 28
 Appointment pursuant to the FoMD Promotion Criteria or UAPPOL Academic
Colleagues Policy were not met;

g) Dr.Fedorak failed or refused to determine whether Dr.Makis was able and willing
to continue fulfilling his duties pursuant to the Radiology Appointment including
conducting research work, teaching and providing service to his discipline.

63. The Plaintiffs say that the improper and unlawful actions and steps taken by each of the
defendants Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament, Dr.McEwan, Dr.Fedorak and Dr.Goebel in
undermining and or terminating or withdrawing Dr.Makis’ Radiology Appointment, were
all contrary to their duties and responsibilities at law, under the UAPPOL, under FoMD
Promotion Criteria, and under the Faculty Agreement, and the plaintiffs have suffered
damages as a result, including but not limited to damage to reputation, academic
medical career, research career, academic promotion and future earning opportunities.

Cover-up of Dr.McEwan’s misconduct by the Office of the Provost at U of A

64. Dr.Goebel oversaw an Investigation pursuant to Article 16 of the Faculty Agreement, of

one allegation in the McEwan Complaint, from about July until about October 2017.
During the Investigation, Dr.Makis’ U of A and CCI colleagues were questioned whether
Dr.McEwan threatened their careers for supporting Dr.Makis’ return to CCI,
notwithstanding that they had to continue working with Dr.McEwan on a daily basis
during the Investigation, and were not offered any protection by Dr.Goebel or U of A.

65. Dr.Goebel oversaw the completion of an Investigation Report which Dr.Makis was
invited by Dr.Goebel to review on October 12, 2017. The Investigation Report concluded
that Dr.McEwan did threaten the careers of Dr.Makis’ colleagues but that these career
threats were made on behalf of AHS leadership and not from Dr.McEwan’s role as Chair
of Department of Oncology.

66. The Plaintiffs say that Dr.Goebel failed or refused to provide Dr.Makis with a copy of the
Investigation Report, Dr.Goebel failed or refused to take any disciplinary action against
Dr.McEwan pursuant to Article 16 of the Faculty Agreement, and Dr.Goebel dismissed
the McEwan Complaint by way of letter on November 6, 2017, without taking any action
to address any of the concerns contained in the McEwan Complaint.

Page 13 of 28
67. The Plaintiffs claim that Dr.Goebel conducted a deliberate cover-up of Dr.McEwan’s
misconduct in respect of the undermining of Dr.Makis’ research, teaching, academic
medical career, Radiology Appointment and Oncology Appointment.

68. The Plaintiffs claim that Dr.Goebel’s decision to force U of A victims of Dr.McEwan’s
career threats to continue working with Dr.McEwan during the course of the Article 16
Investigation, given the tremendous power differential, was deliberate and was intended
to leave the U of A victims in a toxic and unsafe workplace environment in order to
prevent or impede them from coming forward and testifying against Dr.McEwan.

69. The Plaintiffs claim that Dr.Goebel’s improper and unlawful exercise of his administrative
duties under the Faculty Agreement, in the investigation and dismissal of the Article 16
McEwan Complaint, and in the cover-up of Dr.McEwan’s misconduct, intentionally set
out to and did cause injury or damage to the Plaintiffs.

Cover-up of the sabotage of Oncology Appointment by U of A Information &

Privacy Office

70. On January 24, 2017, Dr.Makis filed an Access to Information request under the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.F-25 (the “FOIPP
Act”) for all documents pertaining to the Oncology Appointment (the “Oncology FOIPP”).

71. On March 24, 2017, the U of A Information & Privacy Office (“U of A Privacy”) released
109 pages of documents in response to the Oncology FOIPP, and within these
documents, deliberately redacted all positive comments that had been made about
Dr.Makis and his research work, by Dr.Makis’ colleagues and members of the Oncology
Executive Committee, in the course of Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment application.

72. Dr.Makis appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta
(“OIPC”) to review U of A’s improper document redactions and in a letter dated
December 15, 2017, the OIPC recommended that U of A Privacy release some of the
withheld or redacted information within the Oncology FOIPP documents, to Dr.Makis.

73. On January 5, 2018, U of A Privacy released some of the redacted information, which
included positive comments made by Dr.McEwan about Dr.Makis at the September 17,
2015 Oncology Executive Committee meeting: “The Chair outlined Dr.Makis’ education
indicating that he is a clinical powerhouse and working closely with Dr.McEwan on the

Page 14 of 28
 NET program with approximately 75 publications now and focusing his efforts on clinical
trials. His Primary appointment would be in Oncology and he would be part of the FEC
process this year”, however U of A refused to abide by all of the OIPC
recommendations.

Cover-up of Dr.McEwan’s Article 16 Investigation File by U of A Privacy

74. On November 8, 2017, Dr.Makis filed an Access to Information request pursuant to the
FOIPP Act, for all documents pertaining to Dr.McEwan’s Article 16 Investigation File,
including Dr.McEwan’s Investigation Report (“McEwan FOIPP”).

75. By way of a December 12, 2017 letter, U of A Privacy agreed to release to Dr.Makis
approximately 1150 pages of documents in response to the McEwan FOIPP.

76. On July 4, 2018, by way of letter to the OIPC, U of A Privacy admitted that it had failed to
comply with Section 11 of the FOIPP Act by failing to respond to McEwan FOIPP at all.

77. On July 9, 2018, the OIPC of Alberta Issued Order F2018-28 to the U of A, pursuant to
Section 72 of the FOIPP Act, to fully respond to the McEwan FOIPP access request.

78. On July 18, 2018, U of A Privacy released only 234 of 1150 pages of the McEwan
FOIPP documents, many of which were heavily redacted; and U of A Privacy failed or
refused to release Dr.McEwan’s Investigation Report to Dr.Makis at all, thereby failing or
refusing to comply with OIPC Order F2018-28.

79. The Plaintiffs claim that U of A Privacy’s actions in improperly withholding and or
redacting documents from Oncology FOIPP and McEwan FOIPP and in failing or
refusing to comply with the July 9, 2018 OIPC Order F2018-28, were all contrary to U of
A’s duties and responsibilities under the law and under the FOIPP Act.

80. The Plaintiffs claim that U of A Privacy conducted a deliberate cover-up of the sabotage
and termination of Dr.Makis’ Radiology and Oncology Appointments and academic
medical career, by improperly withholding and or redacting documents from the access
requests Dr.Makis made pursuant to the FOIPP Act involving the McEwan Article 16
Investigation File and Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment File, and in doing so, has caused
damages to the plaintiffs.

Page 15 of 28
 Cover-up of Dr.McEwan’s and Dr.Parliament’s U of A communications by U of A
Privacy

81. On December 4, 2017, Dr.Makis filed an Access to Information request pursuant to the
FOIPP Act, pertaining to personal information contained within Dr.McEwan’s and
Dr.Parliament’s U of A emails (“Oncology Emails FOIPP”).

82. On March 22, 2018, by way of letter, U of A Privacy agreed to release approximately 561
pages of documents to Dr.Makis, in response to the Oncology Emails FOIPP.

83. On May 2, 2018 and May 31, 2018, U of A Privacy released only 43 of the 561 pages to
Dr.Makis in response to the Oncology Emails FOIPP, many of which were heavily
redacted, and U of A Privacy failed or refused to release the remaining 518 pages.

Cover-up of Dr.Fedorak and Dr.Goebel’s U of A communications by U of A Privacy

84. On December 4, 2017, Dr.Makis filed an Access to Information request pursuant to the
FOIPP Act, pertaining to personal information contained within Dr.Fedorak’s and
Dr.Goebel’s U of A emails (“Administrator Emails FOIPP”).

85. On March 22, 2018, by way of letter, U of A Privacy agreed to release approximately 245
pages of documents to Dr.Makis, in response to the Administrator Emails FOIPP.

86. On July 18, 2018, U of A Privacy released only 37 of the 245 pages to Dr.Makis, in
response to the Administrator Emails FOIPP, many of which were heavily redacted, and
U of A Privacy failed or refused to release the remaining 208 pages.

87. The Plaintiffs claim that U of A Privacy’s actions in improperly withholding and or
redacting documents from Oncology Emails FOIPP and Administrator Emails FOIPP,
were all contrary to U of A’s duties and responsibilities under law and under FOIPP Act.

88. The Plaintiffs claim that U of A Privacy conducted a deliberate cover-up of the sabotage
and termination of Dr.Makis’ Radiology and Oncology Appointments and academic
medical career, by improperly withholding and or redacting documents from each of the
defendants’ Dr.McEwan’s, Dr.Parliament’s, Dr.Fedorak’s and Dr.Goebel’s U of A emails,
which were requested properly by Dr.Makis pursuant to the FOIPP Act, and in doing so,
has caused damages to the plaintiffs.

Page 16 of 28
 U of A’s Breach of the FOIPP Act

89. The Plaintiffs say that the defendant U of A breached its duties and responsibilities
under the law and under the FOIPP Act, by failing or refusing to comply with Dr.Makis’
Access Requests including the Oncology FOIPP, McEwan FOIPP, Oncology Emails
FOIPP and Administrator Emails FOIPP.

90. The Plaintiffs say that the defendant U of A further breached its duties and
responsibilities under the FOIPP Act, by failing or refusing to comply with the July 9,
2018 OIPC Order F2018-28 which ordered U of A to respond fully to McEwan FOIPP.

91. The Plaintiffs claim that U of A’s breach of its duties and responsibilities under the law
and under the FOIPP Act, have caused damages to the plaintiffs, including but not
limited to preventing Dr.Makis from resuming his Radiology Appointment, from receiving
his Oncology Appointment, from resuming his research and teaching, and from pursuing
academic promotion and financially compensated academic appointments at U of A.

Breach of Contract or Interference with Contractual Relations

92. The Individual Defendants were aware of Dr.Makis’ Radiology Appointment contract,
and Dr.Makis was rendered unable to meet the obligations of the Radiology Appointment
as a result of the actions of the Individual Defendants set out herein, which caused the
breach of contract thereby causing damages. The breach of the contract was induced by
the intentional, improper and unlawful actions of the Individual Defendants as set out
and particularized herein. There was no lawful or proper justification for the actions of
the Individual Defendants and the plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result.

93. Further or in the alternative, U of A by the improper and unlawful exercise of its
administrative duties under the UAPPOL, FoMD Promotion Criteria and Faculty
Agreement targeted the Plaintiffs and intentionally set out to and did cause injury or
damage to the Plaintiffs’ economic interests including but not limited to Radiology
Appointment, Oncology Appointment, ability to practice medicine, academic medical
career, research career, academic promotions, and future earnings potential.

Page 17 of 28
 U of A Fails to Perform Contractual Duties in Good Faith, Honestly and
Reasonably

94. U of A failed to perform its contractual duties honestly and reasonably and in so doing
has breached its duty of good faith performance of the Radiology Appointment contract.
The breaches of duty of good faith and honesty include but are not limited to the
following:

a) by failing or refusing to conduct annual performance reviews of Dr.Makis’

research and teaching in the Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging;

b) by refusing to investigate or apply the Discrimination, Harassment and Duty to

Accommodate Policy (UAPPOL), Ethical Conduct and Safe Disclosure Policy
(UAPPOL) and Article 16 of the Faculty Agreement to the misconduct committed
by each of Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament and Dr.McEwan against Dr.Makis in
regards to the undermining of the Radiology Appointment; once U of A became
fully aware of the misconduct in or about November 2016;

c) by failing or refusing to protect Dr.Makis from the bad faith, malicious and
predatory behaviour of each of Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament and Dr.McEwan;
once U of A became aware of this behaviour in or about November 2016;

d) by failing or refusing to investigate and or apply UAPPOL and Article 16 of the

Faculty Agreement, to Dr.McEwan’s undermining and terminating or withdrawing
of Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment; once U of A became aware of Dr.McEwan’s
misconduct in or about April 2017;

e) by improperly withholding and or redacting documents from Dr.Makis’ Access

requests made pursuant to the FOIPP Act, including Oncology FOIPP, McEwan
FOIPP, Oncology Emails FOIPP and Administrator Emails FOIPP, in order to
deliberately cover-up the involvement of each of Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament,
Dr.McEwan, and Dr.Fedorak in the undermining and or termination of Dr.Makis’
research, teaching, Radiology Appointment and Oncology Appointment;

f) by unilaterally terminating Dr.Makis’ U of A email account and U of A CCID,

thereby preventing Dr.Makis from accessing U of A libraries and other resources
which were privileges guaranteed to Dr.Makis by the Radiology Appointment;

Page 18 of 28
 g) by unilaterally terminating Dr.Makis’ Radiology Appointment, notwithstanding that
the criteria for termination or withdrawal of the Radiology Appointment as defined
in the FoMD Promotion Criteria and UAPPOL, were not met.

Misfeasance in Public Office

95. The defendants Dr. McEwan, Dr.Fedorak and Dr.Goebel were at all material times
senior U of A Administrators and holders of public office.

96. The Plaintiffs repeat and rely upon the facts as set out above and state that the
defendants Dr.McEwan and Dr.Fedorak deliberately violated the law in undermining and
or terminating Dr.Makis’ Radiology Appointment and Oncology Appointment.

97. In addition, the Plaintiffs state that the defendants Dr.Fedorak and Dr.Goebel, despite
having detailed knowledge that each of the defendants Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament and
Dr.McEwan violated the law and violated a number of UAPPOL policies, FoMD
Promotion Criteria and Faculty Agreement in undermining Dr.Makis’ research, teaching
Radiology Appointment and Oncology Appointment, deliberately chose not to investigate
Dr.MacEwan’s, Dr.Parliament’s or Dr.McEwan’s misconduct.

98. The plaintiffs further state that the defendants Dr.Fedorak and Dr.Goebel took deliberate
steps in bad faith to cover-up the misconduct of each of Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament and
Dr.McEwan; Dr.Fedorak deliberately and maliciously terminated the Radiology
Appointment and Oncology Appointment after being notified of the misconduct of each of
Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament and Dr.McEwan; and Dr.Goebel deliberately dismissed
Dr.Makis’ entire Article 16 complaint against Dr.McEwan after being made aware of the
misconduct of each of Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament and Dr.McEwan.

99. The conduct of each of the defendants Dr.McEwan, Dr.Fedorak and Dr.Goebel, as
detailed in the above paragraphs, was deliberate, unlawful conduct done in bad faith in
the exercise of public functions. The plaintiffs state that these U of A Administrators were
aware or were reckless to the fact that the conduct was unlawful and likely to cause
injury to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs state that these U of A Administrators failed to act in
accordance with their duties and responsibilities outlined in Sections 21, 82, 84 and 87
of the Act. As such, the plaintiffs state that these U of A Administrators are liable for
misfeasance in public office.

Page 19 of 28
 The Negligence

100. As a Post-secondary institution, U of A and its Administrators exercise a significant

amount of power and authority and can negatively or positively affect the academic
success, careers, and future lives of its Academic Colleagues. As such, U of A was in a
special relationship of trust with the plaintiffs.

101. This power and authority over Academic Colleagues including Dr.Makis, and the special
relationship of trust, give rise to a duty of care.

102. To ensure the proper administration of that power and authority, a number of U of A
policies have been created and enacted.

103. Specific UAPPOL Policies such as the Academic Colleagues Policy, Recruitment Policy,
Discrimination and Harassment Complaint Procedure, Ethical Conduct and Safe
Disclosure Procedure; Faculty rules and regulations such as FoMD Promotion Criteria;
and Collective Agreements such as Faculty Agreement establish how the University and
its Administrators will use their power and authority over U of A’s Academic Colleagues.

104. U of A and its Administrators have the obligation to exercise prudence and due diligence
in carrying out their duties, which include, but are not limited to, the implementation,
administration and enforcement of all of U of A’s policies, rules and by-laws.

105. Academic Colleagues have the reasonable expectation that U of A, its Administrators,
Academic Staff, officers, employees and agents will exercise their power and authority
over them in a transparent, consistent, and predictable manner in accordance with U of
A’s policies.

106. U of A and the Individual Defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs, which includes
adhering to all U of A’s policies (including UAPPOL, FoMD Promotion Criteria) and
Faculty Agreement. The defendants were negligent in the carrying out of their duties.

107. As a result of the negligence of the defendants, the plaintiffs have suffered the damages
as set out herein. These damages were foreseeable and the defendants knew or ought
to have known that the plaintiffs would suffer these damages.

Page 20 of 28
 The Negligence of the Individual Defendants

108. The Individual Defendants were, at all material times, Academic Staff or Academic
Colleagues of the U of A and agreed to be bound by all U of A Policies (including
UAPPOL and FoMD Promotion Criteria) as well as the Faculty Agreement.

109. The Individual Defendants’ decisions not to honour and implement U of A’s policies and
Faculty Agreement were fuelled by their own personal, financial, political or social
motives and or gains.

110. Each of the Individual Defendants put their own motives and or gains ahead of their
professional obligations, thereby acting outside their capacity as Administrators,
Academic Staff or Academic Colleagues of the U of A.

Dr.MacEwan and MacEwan P.C.’s negligence

111. The plaintiffs state that Dr.MacEwan and MacEwan P.C. were negligent in:

a) ignoring their duties, responsibilities and obligations under the UAPPOL;

b) soliciting complaints against Dr.Makis, without any notice to U of A, in order to

get Dr.Makis fired or removed from CCI;

c) repeatedly undermining and defaming Dr.Makis to senior AHS and U of A

administrators, and Dr.Makis’ colleagues;

d) participating in unauthorized and unofficial meetings with Dr.Parliament and or

Dr.McEwan, without any notice to U of A or Dr.Makis, to plot, arrange and enact
the removal of Dr.Makis from CCI in order to impair the Radiology Appointment.

112. Dr.MacEwan and MacEwan P.C. breached their duty of care, which included, but was
not limited to honouring all of U of A’s policies and procedures, rules and by-laws.

Dr.Parliament and Parliament P.C.’s negligence

113. The Plaintiffs state that Dr.Parliament and Parliament P.C. were negligent in:

a) ignoring their duties, responsibilities and obligations under the UAPPOL and
under the Faculty Agreement;

Page 21 of 28
 b) failing or refusing to submit an evaluation of Dr.Parliament’s interview with
Dr.Makis to the Oncology Executive Committee in support of Dr.Makis’ Oncology
Appointment application;

c) authorizing and encouraging Dr.MacEwan to solicit complaints against Dr.Makis,

without any notice to U of A or Dr.Makis;

d) failing or refusing to protect Dr.Makis from the bad faith, malicious and predatory
behaviour of Dr.MacEwan; once they were informed of the behaviour in or about
August 2015 and failing or refusing to inform U of A of the same;

e) organizing unauthorized and unofficial meetings with Dr.MacEwan and or

Dr.McEwan, without any notice to U of A or Dr.Makis, to plot, arrange and enact
the removal of Dr.Makis from CCI in order to impair the Radiology Appointment
and Oncology Appointment;

f) repeatedly undermining and defaming Dr.Makis to senior AHS and U of A

Administrators, and Dr.Makis’ colleagues.

114. Dr.Parliament and Parliament P.C. breached their duty of care, which included, but was
not limited to honouring all of U of A’s policies and procedures, rules and by-laws.

Dr.McEwan’s negligence

115. The plaintiffs state that Dr.McEwan was negligent in:

a) ignoring his duties, responsibilities and obligations under UAPPOL, FoMD

Promotion Criteria and the Faculty Agreement;

b) soliciting complaints against Dr.Makis, without any notice to U of A or Dr.Makis,

in order to get Dr.Makis fired or removed from CCI;

c) repeatedly undermining and defaming Dr.Makis to senior AHS and U of A

Administrators, and Dr.Makis’ colleagues;

d) failing or refusing to protect Dr.Makis from the bad faith, malicious and predatory
behaviour of each of Dr.MacEwan and Dr.Parliament; once he was informed of
the behaviour in or about December 2015;

Page 22 of 28
 e) participating in unauthorized and unofficial meetings with Dr.Parliament and or
Dr.MacEwan, without any notice to U of A or Dr.Makis, to plot, arrange and enact
the removal of Dr.Makis from CCI in order to impair the Radiology and Oncology
Appointments;

f) threatening the careers of Dr.Makis’ CCI, Oncology and U of A colleagues who

supported Dr.Makis’ return to CCI;

g) failing or refusing to forward the Oncology Executive Committee’s September 17,

2015 unanimous approval of Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment to Dr.Fedorak for
final signature, without any notice to U of A or Dr.Makis, in order to prevent
Dr.Makis from receiving his Oncology Appointment;

h) working with Dr.Fedorak to unilaterally terminate, without any notice to Dr.Makis

or to U of A, and without documenting any of his actions, Dr.Makis’ Oncology
Appointment, thereby negatively impacting Dr.Makis’ academic medical career,
research career and future earning and academic opportunities at U of A.

116. Dr.McEwan breached his duty of care, which included, but was not limited to:

a) Honouring, administering and enforcing UAPPOL policies, FoMD Promotion

Criteria, and Faculty Agreement;

b) Exercising his administrative power and authority in a transparent, consistent and

reasonable manner, in accordance with all of U of A’s policies and procedures,
rules and by-laws.

Dr.Fedorak and Fedorak P.C.’s negligence

117. The plaintiffs state that Dr.Fedorak and Fedorak P.C. were negligent in:

a) ignoring their duties, responsibilities and obligations under UAPPOL, FoMD

Promotion Criteria and the Faculty Agreement;

b) failing or refusing to conduct annual performance reviews of Dr.Makis’ research

and teaching as required by the terms of the Radiology Appointment;

c) working with Dr.McEwan to unilaterally terminate or withdraw, without any notice

to Dr.Makis or to U of A, Dr.Makis’ Oncology Appointment application;

Page 23 of 28
 d) failing or refusing to acknowledge, investigate or address each of Dr.MacEwan’s,
Dr.Parliament’s, and Dr.McEwan’s misconduct; once they were informed of the
misconduct in or about November 2016;

e) failing or refusing to protect Dr.Makis from the bad faith, malicious and predatory
behaviour of each of Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament and Dr.McEwan; once they
were informed of the behaviour in or about November 2016;

f) ordering the termination of Dr.Makis’ U of A email and U of A CCID accounts,

without any notice to Dr.Makis or U of A;

g) unilaterally terminating or withdrawing Dr.Makis’ Radiology Appointment via

email, without providing a formal notice of termination to Dr.Makis or U of A,
without proper or just cause, and in the absence of due process;

h) failing or refusing to determine whether Dr.Makis was able and willing to continue
fulfilling his duties pursuant to the Radiology Appointment, before proceeding to
terminate Dr.Makis’ Radiology Appointment.

118. Dr.Fedorak and Fedorak P.C. breached their duty of care, which included, but was not
limited to:

a) Honouring, administering and enforcing UAPPOL policies, FoMD Promotion

Criteria, and Faculty Agreement;

b) Exercising their administrative power and authority in a transparent, consistent

and reasonable manner, in accordance with all of U of A’s policies and
procedures, rules and by-laws.

Dr.Goebel’s negligence

119. The Plaintiffs state that Dr.Goebel was negligent in:

a) ignoring his duties, responsibilities and obligations under the UAPPOL and under
the Faculty Agreement;

b) failing or refusing to acknowledge, investigate or address each of Dr.MacEwan’s,

Dr.Parliament’s, and Dr.McEwan’s misconduct; once he was informed of the
misconduct in or about January 2017;

Page 24 of 28
 c) failing or refusing to protect Dr.Makis from the bad faith, malicious and predatory
behaviour of each of Dr.MacEwan, Dr.Parliament and Dr.McEwan; once he was
informed of the behaviour in or about January 2017;

d) failing or refusing to provide Dr.Makis with the McEwan Article 16 Investigation

Report;

e) failing or refusing to take disciplinary action pursuant to Article 16 of the Faculty

Agreement in respect of the Investigation findings that Dr.McEwan did threaten
the careers of Dr.Makis’ colleagues who were supportive of Dr.Makis’ return to
CCI, but that Dr.McEwan did so on behalf of AHS Leadership.

120. Dr.Goebel breached his duty of care, which included, but was not limited to:

a) Honouring, administering and enforcing UAPPOL policies and Faculty

Agreement;

b) Exercising his administrative power and authority in a transparent, consistent and

reasonable manner, in accordance with all of U of A’s policies and procedures,
rules and by-laws.

Damages

121. U of A is vicariously liable for the actions of each of its Administrators, Academic Staff,
Academic Colleagues, officials, agents, and employees.

122. U of A has, through the actions of several of its Administrators, Academic Staff, officers,
employees and agents, purposely and with malicious intent initiated and proceeded with
UAPPOL, FoMD Promotion Criteria and Faculty Agreement 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) Practicing medicine in his area of medical discipline;

b) fulfilling his Radiology Appointment contractual obligations;

c) conducting research in the disciplines of Radiology and Oncology;

d) conducting teaching in the disciplines of Radiology and Oncology;

Page 25 of 28
 e) providing service to the disciplines of Radiology and Oncology;

f) receiving the Oncology Appointment;

g) furthering his academic medical career and research career;

h) pursuing academic promotions at U of A;

i) pursuing financially compensated Academic Staff positions at U of A;

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

123. The Plaintiffs are entitled to common law damages for the defendants’ interference with
contractual relations or inducing breach of contract with respect to Radiology
Appointment in an amount to be proven at trial.

124. The Plaintiff Dr.Makis seeks damages as a result of U of A’s breach of its duty to
perform its contractual duties in good faith, honestly and reasonably in an amount to be
proven at trial.

125. The Plaintiffs seek damages as a result of U of A’s breach of its duties and
responsibilities under the FOIPP Act, in an amount to be proven at trial.

126. As a result of the defendants’ actions as set out herein, Dr. Makis will have to relocate
his family to resume a similar academic medical practice and Dr. Makis and Makis P.C.
are entitled to damages with respect to the same in an amount to be proven at trial.

127. The actions of U of A Administrators or some of them, as set out herein, constitute
misfeasance in public office and have caused damages to the Plaintiffs in an amount to
be proven at trial.

Punitive Damages

128. By reason of the facts set out herein and in particular the high-handed, shocking,
egregious and reprehensible conduct of the defendants, the plaintiffs claim aggravated,
exemplary or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

Page 26 of 28
 Remedy sought:

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

a. General Damages for negligence, misfeasance in public office, breach of the

FOIPP Act, breach of the duty of good faith, and the intentional and malicious
infliction of harm to Dr. Makis, his reputation, his research work, his teaching, and
his academic medical career in the amount of $5,000,000 or such other amount
as may be proven at trial;
b. Special damages for expenses related to job search, licensing, accreditation and
relocation in amount of $100,000 or such other amount as may be proven at trial;
c. Aggravated damages in the amount of $1,000,000;
d. Punitive or exemplary damages in the amount of $5,000,000; for bad faith or the
high-handed, egregious and reprehensible conduct of the Defendants as
hereinbefore set out;
e. Interest on the above-claimed awards pursuant to the Judgment Interest Act,
S.A. 1984, C.J-0.5, as amended;
f. Such further and other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate, having regard to all of the circumstances;
g. Costs of this action on a solicitor and own client basis or such other basis as the
Court deems just.

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

a. General Damages for negligence, misfeasance in public office, breach of the

FOIPP Act, and the intentional and malicious infliction of harm to Makis P.C. in
the amount of $5,000,000 or such other amount as may be proven at trial;
b. Special damages for expenses related to job search, licensing, accreditation and
relocation in amount of $100,000 or such other amount as may be proven at trial;
c. Aggravated damages in the amount of $1,000,000;
d. Punitive or exemplary damages in the amount of $5,000,000 for bad faith or the
high-handed, egregious and reprehensible conduct of the Defendants as
hereinbefore set out;
e. Interest on the above-claimed awards pursuant to the Judgment Interest Act,
S.A. 1984, C.J-0.5, as amended;

Page 27 of 28
 f. Such further and other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate, having regard to all of the circumstances;
g. 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 28 of 28