The lawyer representing Canadian diplomats affected by mysterious health incidents in Havana has leveled serious allegations against our government. He claims officials deliberately suppressed evidence pointing to foreign interference as the cause of debilitating symptoms experienced by embassy staff and their families.
I’ve spent the past three weeks reviewing court documents and interviewing sources close to the case that has baffled medical experts for nearly seven years. What began as unexplained health complaints among diplomats stationed in Cuba has evolved into a complex legal battle with profound national security implications.
“The government had evidence suggesting these were targeted attacks, not environmental factors or mass hysteria,” said Paul Miller, the lawyer representing seven diplomats and their families in a $28 million lawsuit against the Canadian government. “Yet they chose a narrative that minimized their liability rather than protecting their people.”
The affected diplomats reported concussion-like symptoms without trauma—severe headaches, cognitive impairment, vision problems, and balance issues—after hearing strange sounds or feeling pressure sensations in their homes or hotel rooms. These symptoms, collectively termed “Havana Syndrome,” first emerged in 2016 among American diplomats before affecting Canadians in 2017.
According to documents I obtained through court filings, Global Affairs Canada initially classified these incidents as “likely attacks” in internal communications. However, public statements consistently characterized them as “unexplained health incidents” while exploring theories ranging from mass psychogenic illness to environmental toxins.
Dr. Leila Martinez, a neurologist who examined several Canadian patients but isn’t involved in the litigation, told me the symptoms align with known effects of directed energy weapons. “The pattern of injuries is consistent with pulsed microwave exposure, something well-documented in medical literature since the Cold War era,” she explained.
The lawsuit contends that Canadian officials failed to evacuate personnel promptly despite mounting evidence of danger, leaving diplomats and their families exposed for months after American counterparts had been withdrawn. Court records show Canadian security officials received intelligence briefings from U.S. counterparts suggesting targeted attacks as early as February 2017, but evacuation plans weren’t implemented until April 2018.
What makes this case particularly troubling is the suggestion that geopolitical considerations outweighed duty of care. Former intelligence analyst James Blackwood, who previously worked with the Communications Security Establishment, suggests Canada’s response was calibrated to maintain relations with Cuba. “There was significant economic and diplomatic pressure to avoid attributing these incidents to hostile action by a state actor,” Blackwood said.
The plaintiffs’ legal team submitted evidence that several affected diplomats had been working on sensitive files related to Cuba’s intelligence services or tracking foreign interference activities in Canadian affairs. This pattern, they argue, supports their contention that these weren’t random incidents but targeted operations.
Global Affairs Canada declined my request for an interview, citing ongoing litigation, but provided a statement maintaining they “took all incidents seriously” and “followed scientific evidence in their response.” They referenced a 2019 study by researchers at Dalhousie University that found evidence of brain injuries among diplomats but couldn’t determine the cause.
However, I’ve reviewed correspondence between senior officials at Global Affairs that suggests disagreement between security personnel and diplomatic leadership about how to characterize the incidents. In one email from May 2017, a security official wrote: “We continue to receive pushback from senior management on describing these as targeted attacks despite intelligence suggesting otherwise.”
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) had reportedly developed profiles of similar directed-energy weapon capabilities in a classified assessment. When I requested comment, CSIS responded that they “neither confirm nor deny investigations into specific foreign interference activities.”
The court will need to determine whether the government breached its duty by failing to protect its employees or by withholding critical information about the risks they faced. Beyond compensation, the plaintiffs seek recognition that these were likely attacks—something the U.S. government has increasingly acknowledged while Canada has remained more circumspect.
Dr. Cindy McMahon, who specializes in traumatic brain injuries at McGill University, says the affected diplomats face ongoing challenges. “Many continue to experience cognitive deficits that have ended promising careers and altered family lives irrevocably,” she told me. “The psychological toll of having your government question the legitimacy of your symptoms compounds the trauma.”
For the affected families, the legal battle represents more than compensation—it’s about accountability and recognition. One diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity due to security concerns, told me: “We were treated as inconvenient problems rather than victims. The suggestion that we were collectively imagining our symptoms was perhaps more painful than the attacks themselves.”
The case raises troubling questions about how governments balance diplomatic relationships against their fundamental obligation to protect their citizens. As this legal challenge unfolds in Federal Court next month, it may force a reckoning with how Canada responds to foreign interference targeting its personnel—and whether economic and diplomatic interests sometimes take precedence over their safety.
The broader implications extend beyond this specific case, touching on how democracies respond when targeted by tactics that deliberately operate below the threshold of traditional warfare. If these were indeed attacks, they represent a concerning evolution in how hostile actors might influence Canadian policy without triggering conventional diplomatic responses.
