right to examine and obtain copies of all the documents in the
physicians’ medical records.
[ 124] In deciding the case for the Supreme Court of Canada,
Justice La Forest accepted that the physicians or the medical
institution compiling the records owned them, and then he
called on equity to resolve the issue of whether the patient had
an enforceable right to a copy of the records. Justice La Forest
characterized the nature of the physician-patient relationship
as fiduciary and as imposing a duty of disclosure on the physicians, and thus McInerney v. MacDonald is frequently cited as
authority that physicians have fiduciary obligations.
[ 125] After Justice La Forest characterized the physician-
patient relationship as fiduciary, he made several points that are
particularly important to resolving the issues in the case at bar.
At paras. 20-21 of his decision, he made the important points
that while there are some fiduciary duties that are part of any
fiduciary relationship, the scope of a fiduciary’s obligations had
to be tailored to the nature of the particular fiduciary relation-
ship. He said that fiduciary relationships and fiduciary obliga-
tions are not all the same; he stated:
In characterizing the physician-patient relationship as “fiduciary”, I would
not wish it to be thought that a fixed set of rules and principles apply in all
circumstances or to all obligations arising out of the doctor-patient relation-
ship. As I noted in Canson Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton & Co.,  3 SCR
534, not all fiduciary relationships and not all fiduciary obligations are the
same; these are shaped by the demands of the situation. A relationship may
properly be described as “fiduciary” for some purposes, but not for others.
That being said, certain duties do arise from the special relationship of trust
and confidence between doctor and patient. Among these are the duty of
the doctor to act with utmost good faith and loyalty, and to hold information
received from or about a patient in confidence. . . .
The physician-patient relationship also gives rise to the physician’s duty to
make proper disclosure of information to the patient; see Reibl v. Hughes,
 2 SCR 880, at p. 884; and Kenny v. Lockwood, supra, at p. 155. The
appellant concedes that a patient has a right to be advised about the information concerning his or her health in the physician’s medical record. In my
view, however, the fiducial qualities of the relationship extend the physician’s duty beyond this to include the obligation to grant access to the
information the doctor uses in administering treatment.
[ 126] The point made by Justice La Forest that a relationship
may properly be described as fiduciary for some purposes, but
not for others, is important to the case at bar. I shall return to
this point below when I discuss Norberg v. Wynrib, supra. In
McInerney v. MacDonald, Justice La Forest placed the physician’s fiduciary duty to disclose information to the patient in the
context of the physician’s other fiduciary duties that he identified, including the duty of the physician to keep the patient’s