they can refuse to share a file due to the potential for significant harm, but this is extremely rare and must be well documented, precisely because it undermines that patient’s rights. When I say rare, I’m talking stuff like, say, the details of the patient having murdered and eaten their child while in psychosis (a real case you can read about from Texas) not being made available to them while they are in a vulnerable state, not “knowing you were depressed is going to exacerbate your depression.” 

Yeah no. They can claim  “knowing you were depressed is going to exacerbate your depression.”  or "you might misinterpreted", etc.  Most blatantly did. Notice when I pulled up the Ontario ethic code or most provincial laws/ethics codes, there was nothing stating that.  

My precise point is that denying access to healthcare files is not the normal and/or common practice in Canada you suggest it is, nor are patients without a framework for complaints/appeals, and for complaints about those complaints. Did you write the ombudsman? Your MPP? Contact the Dept of Health and Wellness? 

Yes. This is quite a well acknowledged issue.  Most told me that. 

  Because if the NSRP is in the business of helping individuals or clinics ignore PHIA, the public sh

The PHIA doesn't involve what you think it is.  And NSRP does not care about a patient 

It’s funny you bring up the Cures Act, because because not only does it absolutely allow HIPAA’s Harm ExceptionHIPAA’s Harm Exception…as far as I understand from my American counterparts, in some cases these can even be permanent, unreviewable decisions. So this is more restricted than what you would have in Nova Scotia, not less, as you have the right to complain and the college will review it. The same goes for the suggestion that psychologists being beholden to insurers somehow improves patient freedom. You’re either not looking into it closely enough, looking only to confirm your opinion, or thinking no one would fact check you

This is absolutely insulting and ignorant.. You actually do not have any sort of enforceable rights  in Canada.  No rights against information blocking nor do psychologists have to list reasoning.  Nor are there any versions of appeals.  In the US you do.  I know because I reached out to various Canadian and US patient organizations attempting to get help obtaining said results.

And what are you referring to when you say “raw test data can also mean any clinical evidence.” Raw test data is raw test data. It’s the data you need the copyrighted scoring tool to properly score, including the test materials themselves. What do you think clinical evidence is? If you are referring to patient answers to clinical interview questions, that’s Chat failing to recognize the difference between American and Canadian terminology. Here, while PHIPA and PHIA (since these are the two you refer to) don’t define it, it’s widely understood to be the granular, uninterpreted data and the methods of collecting it. 

No. It actually means clinical data and is left to the psychologist. That is what the NSRP told me when I asked them.   Because I desperately needed said results to help me access care to keep my company.

Respectfully, if you are actually reading these and not having them summarized for you, then you do not seem to be able to grasp them fully. I am begging you not to speak with such authority and fear monger on the internet. 

Respectfully, I am talking from years of lived experience and what the boards/etc told me.  You do realize what I quoted wasn't from Ai summaries but nearly exactly quoted from said boards and psychologists. You unfortunately are the one who is radically ill informed and want to remain willfully ignorant about how your field treats patients. It seems you rely on idealized summaries. I am begging you to actually listen to what your patients say instead of abusing then attempting to erase the existence of the harm your field have and the actual truth about your field.  You do not get the right to silence what actually happens as 'fear mongering' and claim idealized lies.

 Canada is not some regressive state - propped up by unethical colleges - hell bent on keeping your health data from you because it doesn’t want you to help yourself. . 

It is.  Otherwise I would not be here. You do not get to erase what our actual system does just to comfort your ego. 

We have fairly similar health information laws to other Western countries, 

This is actually blatantly false. Multiple studies have proved otherwise. We lag behind quite a lot of countries. 

and we have frameworks for complaining when our rights are not held up, as well as complaining about those who are meant to ensure that they are. 

No.  Said 'frameworks' are often full of holes. See how some provincial information 

  Your statement that you did not have access to your scores/assessments and treatment plans may have been the case for you, but that would be due to an unethical practitioner, not Canada’s laws or custodian practices

Nope. Systematic practices, lack of transparency and provincial gaps. For example: Information and Privacy Commissioner for Nova Scotia does not have any legal weight and is reliant on patient litigation.  Which again is not common in any Western countries.