Havana Syndrome: Ex-Spies Want Parliamentarians to Probe Russia Claim and Ottawa's Care

Former Canadian spies and senior security officials want parliamentarians to independently investigate whether Russia used sonic weaponry against Canadian diplomats in Cuba and how Ottawa treated those officials after they fell ill.

The call was reported Sept. 28, 2026. It has two parts. The first concerns cause. The second concerns aftercare, disclosure and compensation. Both are federal responsibilities and fall to the intelligence oversight system in Ottawa. The Globe and Mail

Andy Ellis, former assistant director of operations at CSIS, said he has "little doubt that Russia targeted Canadians and Americans in Cuba." CSIS is Canada's civilian spy agency. Ellis said the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, needs to investigate whether the diplomats have been unfairly treated. NSICOP is a committee of MPs and senators with top-secret clearance that reviews security and intelligence files.

The argument for an NSICOP review rests in part on new detail about intelligence activity in Havana. The Globe and Mail reported that a Canadian diplomat was sharing intelligence with American spies in Havana. Canadians used satellite equipment brought into Cuba under diplomatic cover by the U.S. between 2016 and 2018.

That period matches the onset of illness. Canadian and U.S. officials in Cuba began experiencing symptoms including dizziness, headaches, blurred vision and memory loss between 2016 and 2018, allegedly caused by sonic attacks linked to Russia. The allegation gained renewed attention after the diplomats' lawsuit was amended in summer 2024, following U.S. media reporting that Havana Syndrome could have been caused by sonic weaponry tied to Russian military operatives targeting adversaries' intelligence operations.

Litigation and secrecy

Ten Canadian diplomats and their families filed a lawsuit in 2019. They allege they were denied leading-edge health care and that the government withheld critical information and played down brain injuries. The case remains the central legal vehicle for the dispute over duty of care, internal warnings and medical support. Duty of care is the legal obligation of an employer to protect staff.

Canada's Department of Justice confirmed it invoked Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act in the lawsuit. Section 38 is the federal rule for protecting sensitive national security information in court proceedings. Its use limits what can be disclosed in open court and places the Federal Court in the position of weighing injury claims against national security confidentiality.

The secrecy fight is long standing. Nine Canadian diplomats said in 2021 that Canada's government withheld information on new cases. That complaint echoed earlier claims from 2018, when brain-injured diplomats said duty of care for their concussion-like injuries was trumped by the federal government's political interests. The diplomats asked Ottawa in November 2018 to launch a public inquiry into its handling of the file.

Ottawa's operational response in Havana unfolded while the cause remained unknown. Ottawa removed families of diplomats posted at Canada's embassy in Cuba in April 2018. On June 12, Canada's ambassador told Canadian staff he had requested Cuban authorities provide greater surveillance of 17 homes. A Dec. 10, 2019 House of Commons Order Paper described Havana syndrome as Canadian diplomatic employees in Cuba suffering various health symptoms in 2017 and 2018. Reuters reported in December 2020 that more than a dozen Canadian embassy staff and relatives stationed in Havana experienced symptoms similar to those reported by U.S. diplomats.

Competing findings

The push for an NSICOP investigation sits alongside official findings that point the other way. U.S. intelligence found no evidence linking a foreign power to Havana Syndrome injuries reported by some U.S. diplomats, a conclusion reported in January 2025. Advanced tests found no brain injuries or degeneration among U.S. diplomats with mysterious health problems once dubbed Havana Syndrome, according to research reported in March 2024.

In Ottawa, Canada's Interdepartmental Task Force determined there is no evidence to attribute the health symptoms experienced by Canada-based staff in Havana, Cuba, according to a report published Feb. 24, 2026. Global Affairs Canada A 2023 analysis by R.E. Bartholomew concluded that Havana Syndrome was a socially constructed catch-all category for an array of pre-existing health conditions.

The broader context here is institutional rather than medical. NSICOP can examine classified intelligence, foreign liaison and threat assessments behind closed doors, much like auditors allowed into a locked filing cabinet. A public inquiry can compel testimony and test the aftercare record in public, but it cannot easily resolve questions that turn on signals intelligence, sources and methods, or liaison with Washington.

Looking at what this means for the litigation, much turns on Section 38. If the Federal Court upholds broad non-disclosure, plaintiffs will struggle to test the Russia allegation or the claim that Ottawa withheld warnings. If the court orders narrower redactions or summaries, more of the Havana record could enter the public domain. Either outcome will shape how NSICOP members assess whether a separate parliamentary review is workable, or whether it would duplicate proceedings already constrained by national security law.