Auto ‘very difficult policy to understand,’ says broker-turned-parliamentarian
S8E12 – Objection Overruled: Law Firm Advertising
Incident involving a car door, punches in the face considered an accident – L.L. and Intact Insurance Co., Re 2019 CarswellOnt 3604
Structures now unique in ability to preserve ODSP benefits
Aviva Canada insurance changes leave some drivers scrambling
Despite budget cuts, Ford ‘guarantees’ anyone who needs legal aid will get it
Changing ODSP’s Definition of Disability Will Hurt
2019 CMA Health Summit – Patient Program Application Form
‘Feeling bionic!’ Disabled take big steps forward with Surrey’s robotic walker
Norman Doidge, MD, is a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst and author of The Brain That Changes Itself and The Brain’s Way of Healing. He is on the research faculty at Columbia University’s Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research and on the faculty at the University of Toronto’s department of psychiatry.
 According to Dr. Beltesky’s affidavit on this motion, he was told by the man who served the summons that he needed to follow the instructions in the letter from Mr. Zuber. He interpreted the letter to mean that he was obliged to send his complete chart to Mr. Zuber’s office. He consulted some unnamed colleagues who advised that since the letter was worded as it was, he should send his file which he did.
 Dr. Beletsky deposed that he also called Mr. Zuber’s office and spoke to a woman sometime between December 19 and 21 as directed. He believes it was Colleen Skynner. Ms. Skynner told him that “they required my full chart, meaning all documentation, every single related page.” Dr. Beletsky felt that he was misled by Mr. Zuber’s letter into sending his patient’s records to defence counsel even though he knew that he was not supposed to disclose those records without the patient’s consent.
 Mr. Zuber is an experienced, senior personal injury lawyer. The letters that accompanied the summons to witness are standard form letters that he has used for years. This is not a case where a law clerk inadvertently sent out a letter under his name. Rather, the content of the letter reflects a standard operating procedure that he has used for many years without any apparent complaint until now.
 The letter, summons and follow-up telephone call with Dr. Beletsky caused Dr. Beletsky to deliver the content of his file to Mr. Zuber’s office. In this case, the documentation produced is exactly the same as that previously provided. One can well imagine that there may be circumstances where some redaction would be appropriate or irrelevant but embarrassing confidential information could have been inadvertently disclosed. It is a matter of chance that that did not occur in this case.
 I find that a fair-minded and reasonably informed member of the public would be troubled by defence counsel’s conduct but would not remove him as counsel of record on the facts in this case. Frankly, it is a close call. The result may well have been different if the circumstances in preceding paragraph had occurred or if the discussions between Ms. Skinner and Dr. Beletsky had strayed further into confidential matters. I am mindful of the Court of Appeal’s admonition that removal of counsel should occur in only the rarest of cases. In this case, removal is not necessary in the interests of justice.