a decision<\/a> released this week by Justice Paul Schabas, the judge called Jugenburg\u2019s conduct \u201creprehensible,\u201d stating that that the doctor \u201cplaced his own interests above those of his patients.\u201d<\/p>\n\u201cHe abused his position of trust and betrayed his vulnerable patients from whom he was profiting,\u201d Schabas wrote.<\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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, \u201cobscured,\u201d in the clinic\u2019s operating room.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere were no signs anywhere else in the Clinic, including in consultation and examination rooms where patients would often be required to undress,\u201d the judge wrote.<\/p>\n
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, \u201cthis area is under video surveillance.\u201d<\/p>\n
In a written statement provided to CP24, Jugenburg said he is currently \u201creviewing the court\u2019s judgment\u201d with his legal counsel and will provide a full response \u201cin due course.\u201d <\/p>\n
\u201cIn 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,\u201d the statement read. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
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, \u201cexposing their breasts and other intimate parts of their bodies.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cTen of these twelve patients were unaware of the surveillance cameras until the CBC disclosed them in December 2018, or later,\u201d Schabas said.<\/p>\n
Several of the plaintiffs provided testimony on the emotional toll the situation has taken on them, describing feeling \u201cviolated,\u201d \u201chumiliated,\u201d \u201cshocked,\u201d \u201cbetrayed,\u201d and \u201cdistressed,\u201d Schabas said.<\/p>\n
\u201cSeveral talked about the anxiety they now feel, including a lack of trust in physicians and a reluctance to seek medical treatment,\u201d the judge wrote.<\/p>\n
Schabas rejected the doctor\u2019s assertion that the cameras were \u201cobvious\u201d and their visibility \u201cprovided notice\u201d to patients.<\/p>\n
\u2018Pressure\u2019 to consent to social media<\/p>\n
While consent was not solicited for recording patients on security cameras, the judge noted that obtaining consent for social media use \u201cappeared to get much more attention than obtaining consent to surgery.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to the judge, during the trial, some patients testified that they felt pressure to sign social media consent forms, allowing the doctor\u2019s social media manager to regularly post content, including \u201cbefore and after\u201d photos, and in some cases, videos of operations performed on patients.<\/p>\n
The judge wrote that the doctor, who was \u201cvery active on social media,\u201d contended that the posts were for educational purposes.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt 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,\u201d the judge wrote.<\/p>\n
\u201cHis full-time social media manager had no medical background and Dr. Jugenburg testified that medical education was not necessary for the social media position.\u201d<\/p>\n
The judge said one plaintiff, known only as L.P., described feeling pressured to consent to social media the morning of her surgery, \u201chaving already been given medication and feeling \u2018a little groggy.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cShe signed the consent reluctantly, feeling concerned that if she did not sign, they might not do the operation or, as she put it, \u2018If I don\u2019t sign this, is he going to mess it up,\u2019\u201d the decision read.<\/p>\n
\u2018Reasonable expectation of privacy\u2019<\/p>\n
During the trial, Schabas said he did not find the doctor\u2019s testimony to be credible.<\/p>\n
\u201cDr. Jugenburg\u2019s explanations for the camera system – that they were for security and that he did not understand his obligations \u2013 are convenient and disingenuous after-the-fact attempts to excuse his conduct, the judge wrote.<\/p>\n
\u201cDr. Jugenburg\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Days after the CBC investigation aired, Schabas said an email was sent out on behalf of the doctor, informing patients of \u201can important matter involving security and patient privacy concerns.\u201d<\/p>\n
The email explained that the cameras, which had been installed two years earlier, were for \u201csecurity purposes and to protect our team and our patients.\u201d<\/p>\n
It continued that the cameras were \u201calways visible\u201d and signs were posted to inform patients of the video surveillance. <\/p>\n
\u201cAs Canadian privacy legislation has continued to expand, both the scope of our security system and related signage should have been reviewed and updated,\u201d the email continued.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
No evidence cameras were used for other \u2018nefarious\u2019 purposes<\/p>\n
Schabas said he believes the doctor\u2019s testimony showed that he viewed the cameras \u201cas a tool to protect him from potential litigation.\u201d<\/p>\n
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 \u201cshe was not doing her job and lied about it,\u201d Schabas said.<\/p>\n
The judge noted that there is no evidence that Jugenburg installed the cameras for \u201cother nefarious purposes, such as snooping on his patients for sexual gratification.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNor 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,\u201d the judge said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn my view, Dr. Jugenburg\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The doctor was also ordered to pay an additional $1,000,000 in punitive damages.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A Toronto plastic surgeon has been ordered to pay more than $20 million to former patients after a…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":700274,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[712,43,44,41,39,42,40],"class_list":["post-700273","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headlines","tag-apple-news","tag-headlines","tag-news","tag-top-news","tag-top-stories","tag-topnews","tag-topstories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/700273","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=700273"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/700273\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/700274"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=700273"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=700273"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=700273"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}