McInerney v. MacDonald, (1992) 126 N.B.R.(2d) 271 (SCC)
Judge | La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court of Canada |
Case Date | Thursday June 11, 1992 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1992), 126 N.B.R.(2d) 271 (SCC);126 NBR (2d) 271;[1992] 2 SCR 138;1992 CanLII 57 (SCC);7 CPC (3d) 269;12 CCLT (2d) 225;[1992] SCJ No 57 (QL);[1992] ACS no 57;93 DLR (4th) 415;137 NR 35;317 APR 271 |
McInerney v. MacDonald (1992), 126 N.B.R.(2d) 271 (SCC);
126 R.N.-B.(2e) 271; 317 A.P.R. 271
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Elizabeth A. McInerney (appellant) v. Margaret R. MacDonald (respondent)
(21899)
Indexed As: McInerney v. MacDonald
Supreme Court of Canada
La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
June 11, 1992.
Summary:
A patient requested her doctor to provide copies of all documents in her medical file, including documents received from five other physicians who previously treated the patient and written opinions as to her health prepared by consultants. The doctor refused to produce copies of the documents originating from the other physicians and consultants. The patient applied for an order directing production of all documents.
The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, allowed the application. The court ordered production of all documents comprising her medical record. The doctor appealed.
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, Rice, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 103 N.B.R.(2d) 423; 259 A.P.R. 423, dismissed the appeal. The doctor appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, for reasons different than expressed by the Court of Appeal. The court agreed with the result that all documents were to be disclosed to the patient.
Equity - Topic 3606
Fiduciary or confidential relationships - What constitutes a fiduciary relationship - [See Medicine - Topic 3005].
Medicine - Topic 3005
Relation with patient - Nature of - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the characterization of a doctor-patient relationship as a fiduciary or trust relationship - The doctor had a duty to act with utmost good faith and loyalty and to hold information received from or about the patient in confidence - The fiduciary duty to provide access to medical records was grounded in the nature of the patient's interest in his or her records.
Medicine - Topic 3083
Relation with patient - Charts and records - Access to by patient - A patient's medical file included documents prepared by her doctor, documents prepared by five other physicians who previously treated the patient and consultants' written opinions as to the patient's health - All documents were used by her doctor in effecting treatment - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the patient was entitled to inspect and copy all of the documents upon request - The patient had a prima facie right to access in equity, there was no evidence that access would be harmful to the patient or a third party and the doctor offered no other compelling reason to justify nondisclosure.
Medicine - Topic 3083
Relation with patient - Charts and records - Access to by patient - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that absent regulatory legislation a patient was entitled to inspect and copy all information in the patient's medical file which the doctor considered in administering advice or treatment - The doctor's obligation to disclose was based in equity (fiduciary duty), not contract - The doctor owned the physical records, but held the information in a fashion akin to a trust - The doctor had a discretion to deny access, but only on proper principles and non-arbitrarily - The doctor had the onus of justifying non-access (e.g., disclosure harmful to patient or a third party) - The court stated that "[i]n the ordinary case, these records should be disclosed upon request of the patient unless there is a significant likelihood of a substantial adverse effect on the physical, mental or emotional health of the patient or harm to a third party".
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244, refd to. [para. 18].
Halls v. Mitchell, [1928] S.C.R. 125, refd to. [para. 18].
Kenny v. Lockwood, [1932] O.R. 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].
Henderson v. Johnston, [1956] O.R. 789, refd to. [para. 19].
Canson Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Boughton & Co. et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 534; 131 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 20].
Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880; 33 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 21].
Emmett v. Eastern Dispensary and Casualty Hospital (1967), 396 F. 2d 931 (D.C. Cir.), refd to. [para. 21].
Cannell v. Medical and Surgical Clinic (1974), 315 N.E. 2d 278 (Ill. App. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].
Mitchell and St. Michael's Hospital, Re (1980), 112 D.L.R.(3d) 360 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 23].
Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 28].
Strazdins v. Orthopaedic & Arthritic Hospital Toronto (1978), 7 C.C.L.T. 117 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 32].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Beatty, H., The Consumer's Right of Access to Health Care Records (1986), 3:4 Just Cause 3, p. 3 [para. 36].
Canada, Report of the Task Force on Privacy and Computers (1972), p. 14 [para. 18].
Ellis, M.V., Fiduciary Duties in Canada (1988), p. 10-1 [para. 19].
Emson, H.E., The Doctor and the Law: A Practical Guide for the Canadian Physician (2nd Ed. 1989), p. 214 [para. 27].
Hopper, A., The Medical Man's Fiduciary Duty (1973), 7 Law Teacher 73, refd to. [para. 19].
Knoppers, B., Confidentiality and Accessibility of Medical Information: A Comparative Analysis (1982), 12 R.D.U.S. 395, p. 431 [para. 27].
Krever Report - see Ontario, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Confidentiality of Health Information.
Meagher, A.J., P.J. Marr and R.A. Meagher, Doctors and Hospitals: Legal Duties (1991), pp. 2 [para. 19]; 289 [para. 23].
Miller, R.D., Problems in Hospital Law (4th Ed. 1983), pp. 276, 277 [para. 24].
Ontario, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Confidentiality of Health Information (1980), vol. 2, pp. 469 [para. 34]; 487 [para. 35].
Picard, Ellen I., Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada (2nd Ed. 1984), p. 3 [para. 19].
Rozovsky, L.E., and F.A. Rozovsky, The Canadian Law of Patient Records (1984), pp. 73-74 [para. 15].
Westin, A.F., Computers, Health Records and Citizen Rights (1976), p. 27 [para. 16].
Counsel:
Brian A. Crane, Q.C., and Wayne Brynaert, for the appellant;
J. George Byrne and Barry R. Morrison, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;
Clark, Drummie & Company, Saint John, N.B., for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on February 5, 1992, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On June 11, 1992, La Forest, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.
Stevenson, J., did not participate in the judgment.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
M.(K.) v. M.(H.), [1992] 3 SCR 6
...v. Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574; McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; Hovenden v. Annesley (1806), 2 Sch. & Lef. 607, 9 R.R. 119; referred to: Cook v. Lewis, [1951] S.C.R. 830; Doe on the demise of Count......
-
Hodgkinson v. Simms et al., (1994) 49 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
...(1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 369 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1982] 1 S.C.R. xi; 42 N.R. 352, refd to. [para. 33]. McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; 137 N.R. 35; 126 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 317 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 34]. Harry v. Kreutziger (1978), 95 D.L.R.(3d) 231 (B.C.C.A.), refd to......
-
L.L.A. v. Beharriell, (1995) 190 N.R. 329 (SCC)
...to. [para. 81]. Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 81]. McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; 137 N.R. 35; 126 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 317 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 81]. Roe v. Wade (1973), 410 U.S. 113 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 81]. Gr......
-
R. v. Neil, [2002] 3 SCR 631
...8 C.C.C. (3d) 18; Teoli v. Fargnoli (1989), 30 Q.A.C. 136; R. v. Parsons (1992), 100 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 260; McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; Hodgkinson v. Simms, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377; Montreal Trust Co. of Canada v. Basinview Village Ltd. (1995), 142 N.S.R. (2d) 337; Enerchem ......
-
M.(K.) v. M.(H.), [1992] 3 SCR 6
...v. Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574; McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; Hovenden v. Annesley (1806), 2 Sch. & Lef. 607, 9 R.R. 119; referred to: Cook v. Lewis, [1951] S.C.R. 830; Doe on the demise of Count......
-
Hodgkinson v. Simms et al., (1994) 49 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
...(1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 369 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1982] 1 S.C.R. xi; 42 N.R. 352, refd to. [para. 33]. McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; 137 N.R. 35; 126 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 317 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 34]. Harry v. Kreutziger (1978), 95 D.L.R.(3d) 231 (B.C.C.A.), refd to......
-
L.L.A. v. Beharriell, (1995) 190 N.R. 329 (SCC)
...to. [para. 81]. Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 81]. McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; 137 N.R. 35; 126 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 317 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 81]. Roe v. Wade (1973), 410 U.S. 113 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 81]. Gr......
-
R. v. Neil, [2002] 3 SCR 631
...8 C.C.C. (3d) 18; Teoli v. Fargnoli (1989), 30 Q.A.C. 136; R. v. Parsons (1992), 100 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 260; McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; Hodgkinson v. Simms, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377; Montreal Trust Co. of Canada v. Basinview Village Ltd. (1995), 142 N.S.R. (2d) 337; Enerchem ......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 25, 2022 ' July 29, 2022)
...v The Queen, [1984] 2 SCR 335, (Attorney General) v Thouin, 2017 SCC 46, Kenny v Lockwood, [1932] OR 141 (CA), McInerney v MacDonald, [1992] 2 SCR 138, R v Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, Champoux v Jefremova, 2021 ONCA 92, Lac Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd, [1989] 2 SCR 574, Roy......
-
Passing The Buck: Payment Of Productions In Personal Injury Litigation
...the Rules of Civil Procedure 4 Go right to Rule 30.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure 5 McInerney v. MacDonald, 1992 CanLII 57 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138 at p. 154: "['?'] If the physician reasonably believes it is not in the patient's best interests to inspect his or her medical records, t......
-
Pharma In Brief - Overview Of Select Legal Issues Facing The Future Of Personalized Medicine
...industry publication. Footnotes An Act Respecting Health Services and Social Services, (CQLR c S-4.2, s.7) 2 McInerney v. Macdonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138. 3 Bill S-201, An Act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination, 2nd Sess, 41st Parl, 2013, (first reading 17 October 4 In Canada, a ......
-
Ownership Of Athlete Biometric Data In Canadian Sports
...annual global revenues, whichever amount is higher. Further, in the landmark Supreme Court of Canada case of McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138, the Court stated that while a physical medical record belongs to the person or organization responsible for its creation, the biometric i......
-
The Rise of Personal Health Information Class Actions
...and para 103; Wakeling v United States of America, 2014 SCC 72. 6 See R v Mills, [1999] 3 SCR 668 at para 108. 7 McInerney v MacDonald, [1992] 2 SCR 138 [McInerney]. 8 See ibid at 149. 9 See, for example, E-health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act, SBC 2008,......
-
Civil Claims for Violation of Privacy
...at para 46 [ G(HR) v L(MS) ]. 468 Coco , above note 43 at 48. 469 Halls v Mitchell , [1928] SCR 125 [ Halls ]; McInerney v MacDonald , [1992] 2 SCR 138. INFORMATION AND PRIVACY LAW IN CANADA 128 care to the patient. 470 Outside of relationships that are obviously confidential, the circumsta......
-
Class Actions in Employment-related Disputes
...and para 103; Wakeling v United States of America, 2014 SCC 72. 6 See R v Mills, [1999] 3 SCR 668 at para 108. 7 McInerney v MacDonald, [1992] 2 SCR 138 [McInerney]. 8 See ibid at 149. 9 See, for example, E-health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act, SBC 2008,......
-
Upsetting the Apple Cart: Certifying Class Actions for Food Labelling Reform
...and para 103; Wakeling v United States of America, 2014 SCC 72. 6 See R v Mills, [1999] 3 SCR 668 at para 108. 7 McInerney v MacDonald, [1992] 2 SCR 138 [McInerney]. 8 See ibid at 149. 9 See, for example, E-health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act, SBC 2008,......