Judge orders Toronto plastic surgeon to pay $21M to former patients after installing 24 cameras around clinic

A doctor is ready to examine a patient in this file image.

A Toronto plastic surgeon has been ordered to pay more than $20 million to former patients after a judge ruled that he invaded their privacy by installing two dozen cameras around his clinic, including ones in “very private places.”

About 7,000 patients were included in a class action lawsuit filed against Dr. Martin Jugenburg, who performs a number of procedures, including breast augmentations, liposuction, “tummy tucks,” Botox, and “butt lifts.”

Jugenburg, also known as “Dr. 6ix,” operates his clinic, the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute, inside the Fairmont Royal York Hotel.

In a decision released this week by Justice Paul Schabas, the judge called Jugenburg’s conduct “reprehensible,” stating that that the doctor “placed his own interests above those of his patients.”

“He abused his position of trust and betrayed his vulnerable patients from whom he was profiting,” Schabas wrote.

The lawsuit was filed following a 2018 CBC Marketplace story about the video camera system. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario subsequently disabled the cameras.

The 24 cameras were located in the reception and waiting areas, hallways, a staff room and workplace areas, consultation and injection rooms, as well as the operating room and the post-operative recovery area.

The judge noted that prior to the CBC investigation, the only sign inside the clinic that notified patients about surveillance cameras was on a shelf, “obscured,” in the clinic’s operating room.

“There were no signs anywhere else in the Clinic, including in consultation and examination rooms where patients would often be required to undress,” the judge wrote.

Schabas added that patients were not informed about the cameras by the doctor or his staff and the only other sign was located in the elevator lobby outside the door of the clinic, stating, “this area is under video surveillance.”

In a written statement provided to CP24, Jugenburg said he is currently “reviewing the court’s judgment” with his legal counsel and will provide a full response “in due course.”

“In the meantime, I want to be clear: I have previously acknowledged that I should have done more to ensure the privacy of my patients was properly respected and protected. That acknowledgement stands,” the statement read.

“The well-being, comfort, and privacy of my patients are my highest priorities. I understand that trust, once tested, must be earned through action and my team remains fully committed to upholding the highest standards of care.”

Twelve of the class action members were called to testify at the five-week trial, which concluded in December 2025. The judge noted that 11 had consultations and exams where they undressed, “exposing their breasts and other intimate parts of their bodies.”

“Ten of these twelve patients were unaware of the surveillance cameras until the CBC disclosed them in December 2018, or later,” Schabas said.

Several of the plaintiffs provided testimony on the emotional toll the situation has taken on them, describing feeling “violated,” “humiliated,” “shocked,” “betrayed,” and “distressed,” Schabas said.

“Several talked about the anxiety they now feel, including a lack of trust in physicians and a reluctance to seek medical treatment,” the judge wrote.

Schabas rejected the doctor’s assertion that the cameras were “obvious” and their visibility “provided notice” to patients.

‘Pressure’ to consent to social media

While consent was not solicited for recording patients on security cameras, the judge noted that obtaining consent for social media use “appeared to get much more attention than obtaining consent to surgery.”

According to the judge, during the trial, some patients testified that they felt pressure to sign social media consent forms, allowing the doctor’s social media manager to regularly post content, including “before and after” photos, and in some cases, videos of operations performed on patients.

The judge wrote that the doctor, who was “very active on social media,” contended that the posts were for educational purposes.

“It was clear to me that the social media activity was primarily, if not exclusively, for marketing purposes. Dr. Jugenburg was very concerned with putting material on social media to increase the number of people who viewed his posts,” the judge wrote.

“His full-time social media manager had no medical background and Dr. Jugenburg testified that medical education was not necessary for the social media position.”

The judge said one plaintiff, known only as L.P., described feeling pressured to consent to social media the morning of her surgery, “having already been given medication and feeling ‘a little groggy.’”

“She signed the consent reluctantly, feeling concerned that if she did not sign, they might not do the operation or, as she put it, ‘If I don’t sign this, is he going to mess it up,’” the decision read.

‘Reasonable expectation of privacy’

During the trial, Schabas said he did not find the doctor’s testimony to be credible.

“Dr. Jugenburg’s explanations for the camera system - that they were for security and that he did not understand his obligations – are convenient and disingenuous after-the-fact attempts to excuse his conduct, the judge wrote.

“Dr. Jugenburg’s actions and inactions, both before the cameras were discovered and afterwards, demonstrate a disregard for the interests of his patients and their reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Days after the CBC investigation aired, Schabas said an email was sent out on behalf of the doctor, informing patients of “an important matter involving security and patient privacy concerns.”

The email explained that the cameras, which had been installed two years earlier, were for “security purposes and to protect our team and our patients.”

It continued that the cameras were “always visible” and signs were posted to inform patients of the video surveillance.

“As Canadian privacy legislation has continued to expand, both the scope of our security system and related signage should have been reviewed and updated,” the email continued.

“We have learned that we should have been more proactive in communicating the presence of the cameras through the office to you, allowing you to opt out if desired. We did not do this, and we apologize for this oversight.”

The judge noted that when pressed about the comment on changes to privacy legislation, the doctor conceded that there had not in fact been any changes to collecting personal data from patients since 2004.

No evidence cameras were used for other ‘nefarious’ purposes

Schabas said he believes the doctor’s testimony showed that he viewed the cameras “as a tool to protect him from potential litigation.”

He also once used the footage, which was was accessible to him on his personal iPhone and iPad, to support his decision to fire a member of his staff after the cameras showed “she was not doing her job and lied about it,” Schabas said.

The judge noted that there is no evidence that Jugenburg installed the cameras for “other nefarious purposes, such as snooping on his patients for sexual gratification.”

“Nor is there any evidence that he shared the footage with others, and there is no evidence that the footage was improperly obtained by anyone. However, this is not the test for breach of fiduciary duty,” the judge said.

“In my view, Dr. Jugenburg’s actions and inaction support the conclusion that he placed his own interests above those of his patients, and that he breached his duty of loyalty to them.”

The judge ordered the doctor to pay $21,500,000 to members of the class action lawsuit, awarding each person who attended surgical appointments $5,000, and those who attended non-surgical appointments $500.

The doctor was also ordered to pay an additional $1,000,000 in punitive damages.