CLERK @isavag COURT PEED courrmenumser [(QO1- ORT]S | oss ang i Jurca courr CouRTOr QUEEN'S BENCH cenrre OF ALBERTA OF CALGARY JUDICIALCENTRE CALGARY PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE STANLEIGH, THAYNE BLUNSTON, and ‘MICHAEL YAR ZUK, on behalf of themselves and al other members of the proposed class DEFENDANT ALBERTA DENTAL. ASSOCIATION & COLLEGE Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, SA 2003, . C165 DOCUMENT STATEMENT OF CLAIM Mathew X. James ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF Machida James McGurk, Barisers PARTY FILING THIS 1800, 4445 Avenue SW DOCUMENT Calgary, AB T2P TS ‘Telephone: 403.221.8333 Fag a8 21.8339 Email janes @ mjmbarisarses La mete Sen NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: ‘You are being sued. You area defendant, Go tothe end ofthis document to see what you can do and when you must doit. Statement of facts relied on: Preliminary Averments 1. ‘The named Plaintiffs are individuals who reside in the Province of Alberta, and are licensed and authorized under the Health Professions Act, RSA 2000, e. H-7 to practice dentistry inthe Province of Alberta,The Defendant, the Alberts Dental Association and College (the “ADAC") is a corporation ereated or continued pursuant to section 1 of Schedule 7 of the Health Professions Act, as the professionel regulatory body for dentists in the Province of Alberta, ‘The Plaintiffs are regulated members of the ADAC. ‘The Plaintiffs are representatives of a class of persons more particularly described as dentists in Alberta with websites, the content of which is regulated by the ADAC. With respect fo some or all of the Plaintiffs and the members of the class of persons they represent, their website content (including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and related inemet-based communications and social media accounts) has been or presently is the subject of investigative or disciplinary proceedings undertaken by the ADAC, or has otherwise been scrutinized by the ADAC with the result that such content has been removed or modified atthe requestor direction of the ADAC under protest pending the ‘commencement and disposition ofthis Action, ‘The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other ‘members of a proposed class under the Class Proceedings Act, SA 2003, c, C-16.5, the _members of which are: (@) all dentists in Alberta with websites ("the Class Members”), and (b) all Class Members who are presently the subject of investigative or discipliniy proceedings relating to the contents af their websites ("the ‘Subelass Members”) ‘The Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, a Declaration thatthe Advertising Restrictions (as defined below), and the manner in which the Advertsing Restrictions are being administered and ‘enforced, violate section 2() ofthe Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part | of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK.), 1982, ¢. 11 ("the Charter”), which violation is not demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter. ‘The Plaintiffs further seek, inter alia, an Order staying, or alternatively rendering inoperative, all investigative and disciplinary proceedings currently outstanding againstthe Subclass Members, pending the final adjudication of the claim of the Plaintiffs brought on behalf of the Clare Membore for Advertising Restrictions (as defined below), ling on the consttutionality of the ‘The Plaintiffs further seek, infer alia, a Declaration that the Advertsing Restrictions (as. efined below), and the manner in which the Advertsing Restrictions are being. administered and enforced, violate section 45 ofthe Competition Act, RSC 1985, ¢. C-34 (the Competition Act"), entitling them to damages pursuant to section 36 of the Competition Act. Inthe alternative, in the event that this Action is not certified by the Court as a class proceeding, or in the event of de-cetification, the Plaimtffs bring this Action as nominal plaintiffs, on behalf of no less than 100 dentists who are directly affected by the Advertsing Restrictions insofar as they relate to website content, and who wish to ‘challenge the constitutionality thereof but who are reluctant to be named as plaintiffs for fear of retribution and repercussions from the ADAC. In the further alternative, the Plaintiffs bring this Action on behalf of themselves alone. Common Issues of the Class Members [At present, there are approximately 2500 dentists in Albert, all of whom are subjected to le impugned Adverising Restictlons, and the vast majority of whom engage in some form of website advertising. As such, the Class Members are so numerous that joinder in 4 single action is not practical. Further, the number of the Subclass Members, whose interests are directly affected by the outcome of this Action, is presently unknown js both @ practical and feasible means ‘of achieving a proceduraly fair and efficent resolution of the common issue, being the Proceeding with this claim by way of clas acti consttutionalty of the Advertising Restrictions, as each of the Class Members and ‘Subelass Members should be readily identifiable from information and records within the custody and control ofthe ADAC.Individual members of the proposed class may not have a significant imerest in individually controlling the prosecution of their claim by way of separate actions, and individualized litigation would also present the potential for varying, inconsistent and contrary judgments, and would therefore exacerbate the delay and expense to all parties to this Action and other interested persons resulting from multiple proceedings on the same issues. The questions of fact and law common to the prospective class members predominate over any questions of factor law affecting only individual prospective class embers. The Advertsing Restrictions In or around 2007, pursuant to section 3(1)() of the Health Professions Act, the ADAC Aesigned, authored and implemented a code of ethiss (“the Code of Ethics"), The Code of Ethies is binding upon all regulated members of the ADAC. Certain provisions of the Code of Ethics contain specific restrictions on the advertising and promotional activites (of regulated members. More specifically, the ADAC has implemented the following restrictions in the Code of Ethics (collectively, “the Advertising Restrictions") Article 86: Advertsing and Promatonl Activites No deni shal engage or be included in aversingor any form of prometional atityicling I eeconi avertsing sucha we ses wah 5) fiefs, misleading, devepine, ambiguus er awe: 1b) may create unreasonable expecatons in a patient or pteal patent shout the resus tha dents, othe proecies they perform can achieve, ©) sincapable of objective veieton; 2) makes lms that the serves a superior quality other dentists ©) expres elas or implies that ent ea specialist, or has specialist training unless the denis i epitered inv specialty recognized by the Alberts Denial Assocation sd Colles; or tends to ham the dinty an honour ofthe aon Ants BA: False, Misleading or Deceptive Inalladverisina and promotional activities, statements mus be avoided which8) conaina misepesentation offi 1) mica fact necessary to make the statement when considered asa whole not misleading Stremens ill be evaluated on + case-by-case basis considering how patents are tkely to respond to the impreston made 2y the sdveniemen as whole. The issue fe whether the dvertsemeny, taken a3 whole ie or misleading Aiea B42: Objetvaly Verifable In all sdveising and promational activites, a dems isnot to make statements tha ae not objectively verifiable. Subjective satemenss about the quality of dena services end or petit fae raise tical concers. Objeatvely verifable meas “eapble of being proven by fits Independent of pesoral fesags, belies, opinions or interpretations”. Exprened or imple represertions that the adverised or promoted services are soperorn quality to thot proviced by exer ceniss ae nat objeivey verifiable. In parla, patents may misinterpret snemen of option as implied saremens of Yat. The one ison the deni fo be ale to provide pon. Fequtsobjecsiveverfeaon of ary statement in adverisng or promotional eetivites. A demist Shall no! utile advising or promotional activites to publi the equipment, materia, oF ‘echigus used In thle del practic ifthe adverement oF promatinal activity expres "epeseats or implies that ac equipment, mater, or technigns ee euperie in quality to these ‘of ether dents, or implies hot superior ress are achevabe or tht superior den cre i rovided Article B46: Courses and Cetfctes ‘A dentist may aéverise only tat he ot she has obtained 2 DDS degre, a DMD degree, or ote Univesity or College degree suchas dens specialty recognized by the Councl ofthe Alberta Dental Assocation and College. No oer courses and programs o denial avard can be lized inadveising and promotional ectvits by or fr or including any dents) or dentists) name(s); all such advertising and promotional actives i the respnsibiiy of the dens) who mast ‘1sure htt comple with the Code of Eis of the Altera Dental Associaton snd Calle [Atle B47: Us of Tiles and Announcement of Specialization “The provisions in this section are designed o help the public make a clear dsinction and an infornedseleccon between a praitoner who his achieved specialty sate and. general practitioners. All members ofthe Alberta Dental Astoviation and College may use the tes Doctor, De and Des. However, only those dente who are expres authorized bythe Alberta Dental Assocation atd College may ase any ies tht imply specilty satu including, Gut nat limited otha lowing recognize ies for special aras of ental practice: (@)—_Endodontis, (®) Oratand Maula Surgeon {2 Ontiadontist and Derofacisl Onhopedi; (8) Pediatrie Deas (©) Periodontist (—Proshodonist; (@) Oral Medicine an Pathology Specials; () Oral and Maxifofcal Radiologist,(© Public Heath Des, ‘A dentist mus ensure that eo he oly uses speci tiles if he or he i authorized todo so by the Altera Dental Associaton and Colee. A dete mst no do anything wih would lead the Db to bive that specialty services are being rendered by a quifed specialist in the deta tee which uch ent the cave ‘ter than ellowships in species as acredied by te Canadian Dental Assocation and ‘eeoprized by the Albera Dental Avsocstion and College, a dentist wsing the attainment of Fellowship ina direct advertisement to the publi is making epesetation which is mislesng or deceptive Suh use of a ellowaip sas is misleading because of the Ukelhood tht it wil indicate tothe putin the atainnent of «specialty status. However, when such use does not oft with the ove principles the law, the atin’ of fellowship satus may be indested in scientific papers, curiculum via, tied party payment forms and leterhead and saonary highs nat Used for the diet soliton of patients In advertising and promotional ects, a dentist shall ot refer to any fellowships except for felowships inspects as acceded by the Canadian Dent Astcition and recogize by the ‘Alberta Denial Assocation nd Coleg, “A specialist may ase advertisements and promotional activities that indict tht hey are Specs in an areas recognaed by the Alera Denial ASsocation and College. However, 8 pecs rust ensure hat any aveisements promotional activites do not expressly represent ‘Or inply tht they are specialists areas not recognized by the Albera Dental Asocaion and Colee Article B48: General Practitioner Announcement of Services ‘A gener dentist who wishes t ensounce, adverts, o promate the services availble in their [practice are perited oanaoutce the aalbliy of those services 29 long a be he avoids ny ommunicatos tht exes o imply specialization Genera denise sha ale clesy sate that the sevies ate being provided by 8 gene prctitionerA dente shall at ennounce avalible servges in any way tit wl be false, misleading o deceptive In any adsersing oe promotional ctv Tor seve abe proviced by a general enti, a statment at the services ae provided by general dents mus be ince. A general dense may ot expesl epeseat of imply 10 the publi tat he shes ertied or specialized in anarea of dentsry nat recognized a speci are bythe Alberta Dental Associaton and College ‘Arte BS: Fes and Compensation for Service ‘A denis isespnsible or establishing fees or profsions serves performed fr his o er owe practice. Any fe advertising by denis shall be intended primey to provide infermation fhe public and must cour othe princpes applicable nal advering ond promatioal actives, scout in Atcle Ba ‘The Advertising Restrictions have been designed and implemented in @ manner that contravenes the Charter rights ofthe Class Members to achieve objectives which exceed or ate wlira vires the mandate of the ADAC, with caleulated or alternatively reckless: isregard for the rights of the Class Members, the public interests and the harms that result from the foreseeable violation of those rights and interests,16 The overall implementation and enforcement strategy adopted by the ADAG, including, joa of the Advertising Restrictions insofar as they relate to information on websites, hes created a climate of tionand bullying, withthe intended or foreseeable result thatthe Class Members are practicaly precluded fiom engaging in forms of expression otherwise protected by the Charter, including expression that does not directly fall within the express provisions of the Adverising Restrictions. ‘an overbroad interpretation and unduly aggressive applic in Many of the Class Members who have been subjected to investigative and disciplinary proceedings by the ADAC have been harassed into making changes to their websites to avoid disciplinary prosecution and the continued time and expense of protracted ‘communications with the ADAC. Some members have been olTered immunity from isciplinary prosecution, or reduced penalties, in exchange for making a formal complaint tothe ADAC about the websites of ether dentists, ‘The ADAC has acted, and continues to act, in a high-handed, ‘manner in the investigation and enforcement of the Advertising Restrictions; and has sbitrary and capricious failed to apply the Advertising Restrictions consistently. Dr. Lawrence Stanleigh Dr. Stanleigh sa dentist with e practice in Calgary, Alberta In November of 201, following a complaint from another dentist whose website content ‘was under investigation by the ADAC, the ADAC commenced an investigation into a. ‘website being maintained by Dr. Stanleigh, as being purportedly in contravention of the: Advertising Restrictions, In February of 2015, after over 3 yeats of investigation, Dr. Stanleigh removed substantially all of the content ftom his website. Inthe course of the investigation, Dr. Stanleigh was directed by the ADAC to remove portions of his website content, including the following: 4 particulars of his background and experience, such as courses and programs taken ‘and awards received;19. 20, . the type of equipment being used at his office; ©. descriptions of the type of work and services that he provides and does not provide in his practice; 4. the areas of dentistry in which he takes a special interest, and his related ‘experience in those areas; €. his experience and qualifications in specifi aiche areas of dentistry, more specifically his education, knowledge and experience in the diagnosis of TMS dysfunction and orofacial pain; general statistical information from credible, verifiable and identifiable sources; speci materials and techniques used in his pracce; I the benefits and drawbecks of diferent procedures, techniques and equipment; 1. general information about recent advancements in dentistry |. reference wo his service inthe Canadian Armed Feces; at the Foothills Dental Clinic; k. reference to one year of parttime pra |. testimonials from curent and former patients; m, before and after photographs; 1. biographical information, including charitable work, leadership positions in various organizations including those outside dentistry, and awards he has received; and ©. such futher and other particulars as shall be proved atthe trial ofthis Action, During the course of over 3 years of investigation, despite frequent and numerous requests fiom Dr, Stanleigh, the ADAC’s Complaints Director declined or refused to either conclude the investigation and direct the matter to a disciplinary hearing or dismiss the complain against him. During the course of over 3 years of investigation, Dt. Stanleigh made frequent and ‘numerous requests for guidance and direction from the Complaints Director about whether specific items of content would be acceptable within the Advertising Restrictions, and the Complaints Director provided partial and selective responses 10 those queries, which responses and directions were often contradictory. The ADAC issued a 33 page document, the specifics of which are known to the ADAC and shall be proved at tral, setting out the alleged infractions of the Advertising Restrictions, the21 23. essence of which was that virtually all of Dr. Stanleigh's website content was considered by the ADAC to be non-compliant with the Advertising Restictions. Daring the course of over 3 years of investigation, Dr. Stanleigh made frequent and humerous changes to his website content, attempting to follow the directions of the Complaints Director, t an approximate expense of $10,000, the specifies of which shall, be proven at trial, Following threats by the ADAC’s Complaints Director of lengthy and ‘expensive disciplinary proceedings and potential administrative penalties and sanetions, Dr. Stanleigh removed substantially all content from his website, under protest, pending the outcome ofa constitutional challenge tothe Advertising Restr On or about 20 February 2015, immediately following Dr. Stanleigh’s removal of substantially all content from his website the Complaints Director of the ADAC closed the files for two complaints made against Dr. Stanleigh: one being a malpractice complaint by a former patient, and the ther being the complaint against him by another dentist relating to his website During the course of over 3 years of investigation, both the Complaints Director and the Executive Director of the ADAC made it clear to Dr. Stanleigh that the completely ‘unrelated malpractice complaint would not be dismissed until the issues with his website were resolved, Dr. Thayne Blunsion Dr. Blunston is a doctor of dental surgery, with a practice in Airdrie, Alberta In July of 2010, De. Blunston received a complaint about an advertisement he had taken ‘ut in the Yellow Pages for the year 2009 to 2010. Dr. Blunston responded to the complaint, and made enquiries of the Complaints Director of the ADAC on whom he might contact within the ADAC to seek some guidance. The ADAC provided no response26, 27, 2. 29. 30, 31 On or about 30 May 2012, Dr. Blunston reesived a complaint in relation to his website. ‘The nature ofthe complaint was reference to himself as a “Calgary area periodontist” and reference to his dental hygienists as “periodontl therapists", Dr. Blunston responded to the Complaints Director on 20 June 2012, indicating that those references were an error ‘on the part of his website company, which had been corrected. ‘Ten months later, on 22 March 2013, Dr. Blunston received a 17 page communication. from the Complaints Director of the ADAC, outlining continued concems about his ‘website content, In February of 2014 the ADAC, through legal counsel, sent a 62 page communication in ‘chart form, outlining the changes to website ccntent expected by the ADAC, The chart incorrectly referenced the website content of ancther dentist, and Dr. Blunston requested ‘2 communication regarding alleged violations of the Advertising Restrictions specific to bis own website In May of 2014, following a year of investigetion and after incurring epproximetely $15,000 fn legal fees in attempting to deal with the ADAC, Dr, Blunston considered it necessary to completely deactivate and reconstruct his website at a cost of approximately $20,000. This new website was launched in May of 2015, (On 2 June 2015, Dr. Blunston received a communication from the regulatory assistant of the Complaints Director, indicating that she was attempting to conclude matters on his file and that she had recently reviewed his website. Dr. Blunston was told that there were still concerns with his website, although specifies were not provided at that time. (On 19 June 2015, Dr. Blunston spoke with the Chairman of the Advertising Committee of the ADAC, who offered to assist him with the outstanding advertising complaint from ‘May of 2013 in relation to his old website. The Chairman told Dr. Blunston that once his old website and advertising are “cleaned-up”, “onside” and “within the rules", he would rot be targeted again by someone looking for violations, unless there was a new complaint. Dr. Blunston responded thatthe complaint should be dismissed because it was bbased upon his old website, which was no longer in existence, Within an hour of that ‘conversation Dr. Blunston received a communication ftom the regulatory assistant of theComplaints Director outlining 6 pages of alleged contraventions of the Advertising Restrictions based on Dr. Blunston's new website. There was no new complaint made to the ADA*C regarding Dr. Blunston’s new website Dr. Blunston made the changes as directed by the ADAC, and removed portions of his ‘website content, including the following: particulars of his background and experience, suchas courses and programs taken ‘and awards received; '. the type of equipment being used at his office; descriptions of the type of work and services tat he provides and does not provide in his practice; 4d. the areas of dentistry in which he takes a special interest, and his related experience in those areas; his experience and qualifications in specific niche areas of dentistry, more specifically his education, knowledge and experience in in the diagnosis of TMI dysfunction, orofacial pain, orthodontics, myofunctional therapy, sleep disorder breathing, and full-mouth rehabilitation; {general statistical information ftom credible, verifuble and identifiable sources, specific materials and techniques used in his practic; hy the benefits and drawback of ferent procedures techniques and equipment; 4. general information about recent advances in dentistry; 5. testimonials and reviews from curent and former patients; before and afer photographs of actual patients; 1. selPauthored biographical information of his eam members, 'm, alist of professional organizations of which he is amember;,33, 3s. 36. 37 38, 1. common publically-used terms such as “sedation dentistry” and “cosmetic dentistry" and 6. suc further and other particulars as shall be proved at tral Dr. Michael Yar Zuk De. Zuk is a dentist with a practice in Red Deer, Alberta, Dr. Zuk isan active and voeal lobbyist for changes in the dental profession. Dr. Zuk was fan elected member of the Council for the ADAC, and held that position for approximately one year before resigning. Dr. Zuk has been the subject of an extensive investigetion by the ADAC for content on his website allegedly in contravention ofthe Advertising Restrictions. DD. Zuk was sanctioned by the ADAC in a manner that demonstrates the inconsistent and ‘unequal application of the Advertising Restrictions. Specifically, Dr. Zuk was sanctioned for offering $10 off sports mouth guard certificates, while an orthodontist colleague was ‘ound not guilty of professional misconduct for offering a fee i-Pad for new orthodontic patients. Dr. Zuk has been subjected to inequitable limitations on business development under the ns. Dr. Zuk started @ company to promote membership pulse ofthe Advertising Rest in area-exclusive marketing programs for “High Speed Braces", a trademark owned by Dr. Zuk to promote a sub-category of orthodontics. The ADAC purports to be able to police the content of a membership website completely separate from the website ‘maintained by Dr. Zuk in relation to his dental practice. In July of 2010, Dr. Zuk authored a book entitled “Confessions of @ Former Cosmetic Dentist” exposing what are, in his view, serious problems in the area of cosmetic dentistry. In his book, Dr. Zuk wrote about a situation where Alberta dentists had taken patients from Alberta to Las Vegas, Nevada, for aggressive cosmetic dental treatments; expressed his views about the resultant risks to patients; expressed his concems about39, 40, 41 adequate malpractice protection outside of provincial boundaries; and generally opined ‘upon what he viewed as the over-promotion of veneers and cosmetic dentistry, and the: important role that orthodontics may have as an alternative to veneers. The ADAC demanded that Dr, Zuk cease publication of the book, and sanctioned him with a. disciplinary hearing for use of the term “Veneer Nazi”. Dr. Zuk has been subjected to over 8 yeats of investigation into his website content, on the basis of complains from a disgruntled former associate and competitors who, to the best of Dr. Zuk's knowledge, have been offered leniency in relation to compl their own websites in exchange for making formal complaints about Dr. Zuk’s website. i about Dr. Zuk produced a satirical video, a cartoon, a lobby newsletter and websites critical of the ADAC, for which the Complaints Direstor and Executive Director of the ADAC commenced a $9,000,000 defamation lawsuit against Dr. Zuk, which lawsuit is being funded by the ADAC. The ADAC has permitted the Complaints Director, who is a plaintiff in that defamation action, to contirue investigating Dr. Zuk's wet ‘The ADAC has directed Dr. Zuk to remove portions of his website content, including the following: 1. descriptions of the type of work and services that he provides and does not provide in his practice; specific materials, techniques and equipment used in his practice; before and after photographs of acl treatments; 4. testimonials from current and former patients information about the courses he has atended relating to his practice; references to and passages from his book, which are nota form of advertising or promotional aetivity and do not properly fall within the Advertising Restrictions; 18 references to the trademarked term “High Speed Braces"; hi statements critical of the ADAC; and i. such further and other particulars as shall be proved atthe tial ofthis Action.Infringement of Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 2. 43. 44, 45, 46. 41, The Advertsing Restrictions imposed by the ADAC, and the manner in which they have ‘been implemented and enforced by the ADAC, infinge upon the Plaintiffs’ freedom of ‘expression as guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Charter ‘The infringement of the Plaintiffs’ freedom of expression is not demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter. The Advertising Restrictions, in their present form, are ‘ot a rational, non-dispropontonate, minimally-inuusive means of achieving a pressing and substantial state objective. Rather, the Advertising Restrictions are disproportionate, impairing and overbroad, in that they unduly prohibit or restrict commercial expression Which is not untruthful, inaccurate, or otherwise capable of misleading or misinforming the public ‘The website content of the Class Members includes not only commercial expression, but also the expression of information to enable patients and potential patients to make informed decisions with grester ease, and is accordingly the expression of information for the public benefit. iff freedom ‘of expression and should be struck down, in whole or in part, as being of no force and ‘The Advertising Restrictions in the Code of Ethies unduly restrict the Pl effect, by operation of section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982; with a corresponding Onder directing the ADAC to rewrite the impugned provisions of the Advertising Restrictions with more specificity, and in such a manner as to not unduly infringe upon the Plaintiff" section 2b) rights Some Class Members who have been harassed by the ADAC into making changes to their websites, to avoid further investigative and disciplinary proceedings, have incurred expenditures to make those changes in an attempt to meet the moving-target and ever- changing direetions of the Complaints Director of the ADAC. Such Class Members have sustained special damages on account of the out-of-pocket expenses associated with the ‘modifications to their websites. ‘The Plaintiffs plead and rely upon section 24 ofthe Charter0, 50, Infringement of the Competition Act The Advertsing Restrictions imposed by the ADAC, and the manner in which they have been implemented and enforced by the ADAC, violate section 45 ofthe Competition Act, entitling the Class Members to damages under section 36 ofthe Competition Act. ‘The operations of the ADAC are directed by a Council, established pursuant to sestion 5 ofthe Health Professions Act. The Council is composed af members who are dentists, all cof whom are competitors and compete with the Plaintiffs (and Class Members) in the market for the supply of dental services to consumers in Alberta, In designing, implementing and enforcing the Advertising Restrictions, the members of the Council have conspired, agreed or arranged with each other (and the ADAC) to fix, msintai ‘contol, prevent, lessen or eliminate the supply of dental services. ‘The Advertising Restrictions prevent Class Members ftom engaging in forns of expression that would encourage more competition in the market for the supply of dental services to consumers in Alberta. Pricing is one manner through which Class Members compete for patients, yet the ADAC has enforced the Advertising Restrictions to impose strict limits on what can be published on the websites of Class Members in relation to fees, and has pursued investigative and disciplinary proceedings tilizing the Advertising Restrictions against certain Class Members who have published information on their Websites relating to their fees, Additionally, Class Members compete for patients by offering different services and differentiating the types of services they offer in competition with each other and other dentists, but the ADAC has enforced the Aavertsing Restrictions to impose restrictions on what can be published about services, and has pursued investigative and disciplinary proceedings utilizing the Advetising Restrictions against certain Class Members who have provided information or their ‘websites about the types of services they offer. In doing so, the ADAC has utilized the Advertising Restrictions to restrict competition among dentists in Alberta and precluded patients In Alberta from making informed decisions in their choice of dentist. As aresult of being unable to fully and freely compete for patients, the Class Members have sustained losses and damages, the specifics of which shall be proved at trial or in accordance with a procedure set by the Court inthis Action.5. 2. 33. 4 35, ‘The Plaintiffs plead and rely upon sections 36 and 45 ofthe Competition Act. Further, or alternatively, the acts particlarized in raragraphs 49 to 50 are in breach of sections 21 and 22 of the Criminal Cade, KSU 1985, €. C-46, im that the ADA has aided or abetted the commission of an offence under section 4S ofthe Competition Act. Punitive Damages Further, the Plaintiffs state that the ADAC has conducted its affairs in relation to the Advertising Restrictiors in an arbitrary, capricious, high-handed and arrogant manner, ‘with a wanton and callous istegard forthe interests of the Class Members and the public at lange. The Plaintiffs accordingly seek an award of punitive and exemplary damages in ‘an amount to be determined by the Court. Forensic Audit of ADAC Financials ‘The ADAC has failed to properly account to the Plaintiffs regarding expenditures of "ADAC funds in the past two years ‘According to the 2014 Financial Statements of the ADAC, 13 employees of the ADAC are being paid $2.7 Million in annual salaries. Moreover, to the best of the Plaintiffs? knowledge, the ADAC is funding the defamati the Complaints Director and the Executive Director of the ADAC, and there have been action commenced against Dr. Zuk by further instances of apparent improper or unauthorized use of ADAC funds, the specifies ‘of which shall be proved in this Action, Formal requests have been made of the ADAC {for more specific information relating to the expenditure of ADAC funds, but the ADAC ‘has neglected or refused to provide the information requested, the specifies of which are ‘known tothe ADAC and shall be proved at trial The Plaintiffs seek an Order directing the ADAC to provide the Plaintiffs, or their forensic accountants, acess to the books and records of the ADAC for the years 2013‘and 2014, including all supporting and source documentation in relation tothe Financial ‘Statements ofthe ADAC for those years. Remedy sought: 57. On the basis of the above, the Pl 4 An Order cetfing this ation as a class proceeding and appointing the Paintifs 48 representative pluntfs forthe proposed class, being the Class Members, ot such othe clasas may be cried bythe Court tiffs seek the following relief: b. An Order staying all investigative and disciplinary proceedings relating to the Advertising Restrictions currently outstanding against the Subclass Members, pending the final adjudication ofthis Action, A Declaration that the Advertising Restrictions, and the manner in which the Advertsing Restrictions are being administered and enforced, violate section 2(6) of the Charrer, and are of no force and effect by operation of section 52 of the Constitution Act 1982. 4. A Declaration that the Advertising Restrictions, and the manner in which the Advertsing Restrictions are being administered and enforced, violate section 45 of the Compertion Aer. ©. Special damages in an amount to be determined at tral, or in accordance with ‘Whatever procedure is set by the Cour in tis Action £ Damages pursuant to section 36 of the Competition Act, in an amount to be determined at tril, or in accordance with whatever procedure is set by the Court inthis Action, Punitive or exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the Court. hh, An Onder directing the ADAC to provide the Plaintiffs, or theit forensic accountants, access tothe books and records ofthe ADAC. J. Costs ofthis atin, J. Costs ofthe investigation and prosecution of ths Action pursuant to section 36(1) ‘ofthe Competition Act. 1k, Such further or other remedies that the Court may deem just and appropriate i the circumstances of this ease.NOTICE TO THE. DEFENDANT. You only havea shot ine todo something to defend yourself pins this claim: 20 day if you are served in Albeta 1 month f you are served ouside Alberta but in Canada 2 months if you are served ouside Canade ‘You can respond by filing a statement of defence of a demand for notice inthe office ofthe clerk ofthe Court of Queen’s Bench at Calgary, Alberta, AND serving your statement of defence or a demand for notice on the plaintifP's(s") address for service. WARNING Ifyou 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. Ifyou do not file, or do not serve, or are late indoing either of these things, a court may give a judgment tothe plaintif(s) against you.