# 2024-070 Careers, Discrimination, Judge Arbour Rec. 10 – sexual-related files, Medical Record, Medical Treatment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-04-22

The grievor, a female Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) health care provider (HCP), grieved that she did not have reasonable assurances of privacy and confidentiality with respect to her medical records and health care as compared to male HCPs. The grievor further submitted she lacked information to compare the career progression of females versus males in Canadian Forces Health Services (CF H Svcs) to establish whether she was adversely affected by biased human resource practices. As redress, the grievor sought additional resources to care for CAF HCPs and gender-specific raw data.

The Initial Authority failed to render a decision on both grievances within the prescribed time limit under paragraph 7.15(2) of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O). Accordingly, the grievor requested her files be forwarded to the Final Authority (FA) for consideration in accordance with QR&O paragraph 7.15(4).

The Committee noted that the Canadian Forces Health Services Group Instructions (CF H Svcs Gp Instr) 4030-73, Access to External Treatment and Peer Support for Canadian Forces HCP, acknowledged the CAF HCPs' right to access external care. The Committee found that there was no evidence that the grievor was denied external care. 

The Committee found that the CF H Svcs Gp Instr 5020-30, Personal Health Information - Access, Use and Disclosure, provided CF H Svcs members with reasonable assurances of privacy and confidentiality of their personal health information. The Committee also found that there was no evidence to substantiate that privacy breaches had occurred in the case of the grievor.

The Committee acknowledged the grievor's difficulty in proving gender inequalities in her profession without raw data. According to a response to the Committee's query, the Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis explained that access to research data sets was through formal research or data transfer agreements. Absent any formal agreement, the Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to such data.

The Committee recommended that the FA not afford the grievor redress.