# 2012-159 Medical and Dental Care, Medical Record

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–01–18

The grievor, who was the subject of an administrative review after the awarding of medical employment limitations following his tour in Afghanistan, alleged that his supervisor had inappropriately accessed and copied documents from his medical file. The grievor sought an apology and the provision of appropriate supervisor training so that similar incidents could be avoided in future.

The issue before the Canadian Forces Grievance Board (the “Board”) was whether the grievor's supervisor had obtained information through unauthorized access of the grievor's medical file.

In his denial of the grievance, the Initial Authority, the Commanding Officer Joint Personnel Support Unit, referred to a Unit Investigation that had been conducted and found the allegations to be unfounded. The investigation had determined that medical documents were strictly controlled by Canadian Forces Health Services and staff had no access to them. The Initial Authority was of the opinion that the documents referenced by the grievor had been freely given by him to his supervisor who was assisting the grievor with his response to the disclosure within the administrative review process. The grievor had signed a consent form specifically authorizing his supervisor to divulge and discuss information regarding his personal and medical condition for the purposes of administrative support. The Initial Authority found no evidence that the grievor's supervisor had acted unprofessionally with the information provided to him and denied the grievor's request for redress.

Upon review of the record of conversation log, relevant to the period in question, the Board found that the grievor's supervisor was aware of certain medical information in furtherance of his role but did not have access to the grievor's medical file. The log sheet included references to medical information gathered in support of the grievor's representation, some of which appeared to have been provided by the grievor himself.

The Board found no indication that the grievor's supervisor had improperly accessed the grievor's medical file. On the contrary, the medical documentation noted on the log sheet appeared to have been provided in the context of supporting the grievor in preparing his representations to disclosure. The Board found, on the balance of probabilities, the grievor's allegations to be unfounded as there was no evidence of impropriety. The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.

As an observation, the Board noted that it would have been appropriate in the circumstances, to inform the grievor of any recourse available to him through the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–06–28

The FA agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied. The FA also concurred with the Board's observation.