J.C. et al. v. Jugenburg et al., 2026 ONSC 3061
On May 26, 2026, Court granted judgment in favour of the class of approximately 7,000 patients who visited the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute between January 1, 2017 to December 13, 2018. The Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute is a private medical clinic owned and operated by Dr. Martin Jugenburg and his corporation.
The Court awarded $22.5 million in damages after finding that Dr. Jugenburg operated 24 surveillance cameras throughout his clinic without disclosure or patient consent over the almost two-year period. The Court found that by operating the surveillance cameras in areas where patients had a reasonable expectation of privacy, Dr. Jugenburg breached the patients’ privacy rights, breached his fiduciary duty owed to the patients, and he was negligent.
The cameras were placed in consultation rooms, operating rooms, and recovery areas, where patients undressed, underwent surgery, and spoke privately with loved ones and medical staff. Footage was stored and accessible on Dr. Jugenburg’s personal iPhone and iPad. Virtually no signage informed patients that any recording was taking place.
Common Issues | Outcome
- Negligence – Dr. Jugenburg owed a duty of care to his patients to act in their best interest. There should not be cameras in locations in private health clinics where patients are receiving care or consulting with medical professionals, as patients expect privacy. Dr. Jugenburg breached his duty of care.
- Breach of fiduciary duty – Dr. Jugenburg owed a fiduciary duty to the class members, and breached this duty by installing and operating surveillance cameras and obtaining footage of patients in private medical settings without their knowledge or consent for no medical reason.
- Intrusion upon seclusion – The Court found that by recording his patients, Dr. Jugenburg invaded, without lawful justification, the class’ privacy, and acted intentionally and recklessly in intruding on his patients’ privacy. It concluded that a reasonable person would find the invasion of the Class Members’ privacy as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish.
- Breach of trust – Dismissed. Although Dr. Jugenburg had a legal obligation to treat the video footage from the surveillance cameras as personal health information under PHIPA, that statutory requirement did not create a trust obligation.
Credibility
After five days of testimony, largely under cross-examination, the Court found Jugenburg’s evidence lacked credibility, and was disingenuous, and unreliable
The Court found that an “apology” letter to his patients, sent approximately two years after cameras were installed, was not an apology, and contained false and misleading statements. The letter falsely asserted that privacy legislation had changed during the time Dr. Jugenburg operated the camera system in 2017 and 2018 and apologized for this oversight, when the legislation had in fact, not changed since 2004.
Justice Schabas concluded that Dr. Jugenburg “knew exactly what he was doing, invading patient privacy” and that his conduct was reprehensible and deserving of condemnation and punishment.
Damages
The Court awarded aggregate damages for the privacy breach totaling $21.5 million, based on an assumed 4,000 surgical patients at $5,000 per surgical patient, and an assumed 3,000 non-surgical patients at $500 each.
The Court also awarded $1,000,000 in punitive damages, with allocation to be determined.
Total: $22,500,000
Prejudgment interest will be payable on the $21.5 million, and court costs will also be payable by the Defendants
In addition to the aggregate damages, there will be a process established for patients to make a claim for any additional harms that they suffered arising from the privacy breach.
Next Steps
The Defendants have an automatic right to appeal the judgment. They serve their notice of appeal within 30 days following the judgment.
Once the judgment is final, there will be a formal notice delivered to the Class that will explain how class members can claim their share of the judgment, and how to make a claim for any additional harms that they may have suffered.
For additional information about this class action judgement, please contact:
- Paul Miller – pmiller@hshlawyers.com – 416-885-0452
- Margaret Waddell- mwaddell@sotos.ca – 416-977-2413
- Kate Mazzucco – kate@beyond.law – 416-892-4485
A copy of the judgment can be found here.
Class Action Launched Against Toronto Plastic Surgeon “Dr. 6ix”
Howie, Sacks & Henry, Sotos and Beyond Law have joined forces to launch a class action against Dr. Martin Jugenburg (the self-styled “Dr.6ix”). Led by an all-female legal team, the action seeks compensation for past patients of Dr. Jugenburg and alleges that during the period from January 1, 2017 to December 13, 2018, Dr. Jugenburg operated video surveillance cameras throughout his clinic including in the private consultation rooms, and in the operating theatre. The claim asserts that there were no warning signs about the surveillance cameras, and patients were not provided with the opportunity to opt out of being under surveillance while at the clinic, which was a breach of the patients’ privacy.
The Statement of Claim was issued on November 28, 2019, and amended on February 21, 2020.
Updates
2025 Update:
The common issues trial concluded on December 18, 2025. The judge has reserved his decision, which we don’t expect to be released before June 2026. Regardless of the result, we expect that the decision will be appealed by the losing party. That means that there won’t be a final decision until after the appeal is decided.Once there is a final decision, there will be an “individual issues” process where Class Members who suffered significant harms or out of pocket losses relating to the security cameras will have an opportunity to prove their losses. The process for these claims has not yet been determined, but our goal will be to make this simplified and trauma-informed.While we await a final decision, Class members are encouraged to compile and preserve any records that demonstrate that they suffered harm because of the Clinic’s surveillance in anticipation of the individual damages assessment phase.
This may include:
- Any records of the response to the surveillance when the Class member discovered the surveillance;
- Any complaints made to the Information and Privacy Commissioner or to the College of Physicians and Surgeons;
- Any records that demonstrate emotional distress (such as text or emails to family members or the Clinic, doctor’s records, therapy notes, etc); and
- Any records showing financial loss or out of pocket expenses (such as time off work for medical appointments).
Class members are also encouraged to draft a written narrative detailing how they have been affected by the Clinic’s surveillance.
2024 Update:
This matter has now been set down for a 5 week trial starting on November 17, 2025.
The parties have completed their exchange of relevant documents and the examinations for discovery (depositions). Our experts are now finalizing their expert reports, which will confirm that by operating security cameras throughout the Clinic, Dr. Jugenburg breached the privacy of the patients, and that this was a breach of the duty of care and fiduciary duty that Dr. Jugenburg owed to his patients.
Our attempts at resolving this matter out of court, including through a second mediation, have failed. So, it seems likely that the matter will only be resolved through the trial in November 2025. If any class member is prepared to share their experience relating to Dr. Jugenburg’s surveillance of his patients, we would be happy to hear from you.
2022 Update:
The notice period has ended and the case is proceeding towards examinations for discovery. There are currently no motion or trial dates to advise of, and no further updates to report on.
Class action certification hearing:
The action was certified as a class proceeding by order of the Superior Court of Justice on May 10, 2021. Notice of the certification has been approved by the Court and can be found below.
Click here to view the Court’s decision
Click here to view the Short Form Notice
Click here to view the Long Form Notice
Click here to view the Opt Out Form
The claim originally also included allegations that Dr. Jugenburg posted images of some patients onto the internet without their consent. These allegations have not been allowed to proceed as a class action, and will have to be pursued individually. If your images were posted to the internet without your consent by Dr. Jugenburg, then we would like to hear from you. Please reach out through the confidential “Contact Us” portal.
Please view Class Counsel’s webinar about this proposed class action: https://vimeo.com/383307868
CPSO disciplinary proceedings:
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (“CPSO”) has now heard two disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Jugenburg for professional misconduct. In a decision dated September 24, 2020, the CPSO found that Dr. Jugenburg: permitted a television crew to film a patient’s surgical procedure without her informed consent, which resulted in a breach of her privacy; posted another patient’s images on his social media without consent, failing to ensure her privacy; and failed to give adequate consideration to the patients of his clinic, through the design and operation of the clinic’s video surveillance system.
As a result of its findings that Dr. Jugenburg breached his patients’ privacy, the CPSO ruled that Dr. Jugenburg committed acts of professional misconduct. Read the full decision here.
The CPSO held a penalty hearing in relation to Dr. Jugenburg’s professional misconduct on February 1, 2021, during which a further complaint was added to the charges.
On May 12th the CPSO released its penalty decision and has suspended Dr. Jugenburg’s licence for 6 months, starting on June 12, 2021. The decision can be found here and further details can be found on the CPSO website.
Case Overview
Use of Video Cameras
Dr. Jugenburg is a plastic surgeon who owns and operates the Clinic in downtown Toronto. His practice is focused on cosmetic surgical procedures for women, including breast augmentations, tummy tucks and liposuction.
In December 2018, CBC Marketplace reporters discovered that Dr. Jugenburg had installed cameras all around the Clinic premises. Those cameras recorded patients in waiting, consultation, examination and operating rooms without their consent. There were no generally visible notices posted on the Clinic premises indicating that cameras were in use.
Non-consensual posting on social media
Posting under the name Dr. 6ix, or “realdrsix”, Dr. Jugenburg often shares photos of his patients, as well as videos of his operations, to his followers on an array of social media, including Instagram, Snapchat, Tik Tok, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and more. Dr. Jugenburg/the Clinic have over 100,000 followers on Instagram, alone.
Several patients alleged that Dr. Jugenburg posted photos of themselves on his social media, or allowed their operations to be filmed, without their consent. These photographs were taken with patient consent for medical purposes, and were then misused by Dr. Jugenburg for personal and business advertising purposes through the social media postings.
Regulatory investigations
CBC’s reporting prompted an investigation by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, which found that Dr. Jugenburg’s blanket use of surveillance cameras for non-health care purposes, particularly in areas where patients might be undressed and therefore at their most vulnerable, was unacceptable and in contravention of the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2014. Read their decision here.
As of February 28, 2019, Dr. Jugenburg entered into an undertaking with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, confirming that he will not operate security cameras or video surveillance in any areas of the Clinic where patient encounters may occur, and requiring him to post clear warnings in entranceways or waiting areas about any security cameras or video surveillance recording devices.
The class proceeding
Howie, Sacks & Henry, Sotos and Beyond Law represent three former patients of Dr. Jugenburg who had their visits to the Clinic recorded without their knowledge or consent.
The motion for certification of this action as a class proceeding was decided on May 10, 2021. The court has certified the action on behalf of the following Class:
All patients who attended the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute from January 1, 2017, to December 13, 2018.
This is the time during which the surveillance cameras were operational throughout the Clinic. Any patient who attended the Clinic during this time period will automatically be included in the Class unless they choose to opt out of the class action. Details about how to opt out will be included in a formal notice that will be sent to class members once its form has been approved by the court.
There is no cost to you to participate in the class action. The lawyers are working on a contingency fee arrangement, and will only be paid from the proceeds of the litigation, if it is successful.
The claims alleging that Dr. Jugenburg posted images to the internet without some patients’ consent was not allowed to proceed as a class action. Anyone who has a claim against Dr. Jugenburg in respect of internet postings should contact our office through the confidential “Contact Us” portal.
Contact Us
For more information, or to ensure that you are provided with important notices about the class action as it progresses, please complete our confidential online form and a member of our team will get back to you, typically within one business day.
News Coverage
Toronto plastic surgeon’s licence suspended over social media posts, surveillance of patients without consent – CBC, May 2021
Your Body, Your Self, Your Surgeon, His Instagram – Wired Magazine, January 2021
Plastic surgeon facing disciplinary charge over allegations he filmed patients without consent – CBC, June 2020
Lawsuit alleges cosmetic surgeon filmed naked patients without their consent – Toronto Sun, November 2019
Paul Miller
Kate Mazzucco - Beyond Law - Partner
Josh Nisker - Beyond Law - Partner
Margaret Waddell - Sotos - Partner
