An Ontario Superior Court judge has ordered a Toronto plastic surgeon, who goes by “Dr. 6ix” on social media, to pay $22.5-million to 7,000 patients who were filmed in his clinic without their consent.
Dr. Martin Jugenburg breached his legal and ethical obligations to his patients, Justice Paul Schabas found, noting that 24 surveillance cameras were placed in various parts of the clinic, including consultation, injection and operating rooms.
“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,” Justice Schabas wrote in the decision, released on Tuesday.
The court awarded $5,000 per person for class action members who had surgical procedures at Dr. Jugenburg’s clinic in Toronto’s financial district, and $500 to patients who went in for non-surgical appointments between Jan. 1, 2017 and Dec. 13, 2018.
A representative plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit testified at trial that in August, 2018, she noticed a surveillance camera as she was leaving the consultation room. “I didn’t think that I would be recorded in a consultation room where I’m practically naked,” the woman, who is identified in the ruling by her initials, J.C., told the court.
Family alarmed that doctor can still offer MAID despite complaints
In an interview, J.C. said the decision was vindicating, and hopes Dr. Jugenburg does not appeal so that she can have closure.
In a statement to The Globe, Dr. Jugenburg said, “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 acknowledgment stands.” He said he is still reviewing the court decision, after which he will provide a more elaborate response.
Before a CBC investigation exposed concerns about Dr. Jugenburg’s alleged use of cameras in December, 2018, the clinic only had an obscured sign alerting patients that they were being filmed, the decision said.
Dr. Jugenburg was first registered to practice in Ontario in 2007, according to his public profile on the website of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which regulates the profession.
In 2021, Dr. Jugenburg was suspended by the CPSO for six months for inviting a television crew into a patient’s surgical procedure without informed consent and posting a patient’s before-and-after breast augmentation photos on social media. The college’s disciplinary tribunal also criticized his lack of consideration for his patients’ privacy by operating a video surveillance system in his clinic.
“There is a troubling pattern of Dr. Jugenburg pursuing his own interests, in terms of the perceived security needs of his clinic and of his interests in publicity and in cultivating a strong social media presence, at the expense of the privacy of his patients,” the college said in its 2021 decision.
In a 2023 case, Dr. Jugenburg came before the college’s tribunal again, after a patient accused him of touching her inappropriately while checking for signs of an infection.
The tribunal took no action with respect to this concern but reinforced the need for doctors to sufficiently explain the techniques they are using, according to the 2023 decision. However, the tribunal found that his social media exchanges risked compromising the patient’s privacy and also criticized advice he gave her to exaggerate her symptoms to emergency doctors.
He received a “caution-in-person” reprimand on the provincial physician register but was allowed to continue practising without restrictions on his licence.
Josh Nisker, who represented J.C. in the class-action lawsuit, a member of the plaintiff’s team counsel, questioned how seriously the college is “taking breaches and conduct such as this, if the doctor is permitted to resume practice, and perhaps engage in similar conduct all over again.”
CPSO spokesperson Laura Zilke said she could not comment on the tribunal decision, citing confidentiality provisions in the provincial law that governs the medical watchdog. However, she said the tribunal reviews complaints thoroughly and grounds its decisions in evidence, as well as its mandate to protect the public.
She did not address questions about the recent court decision. “CPSO’s oversight is separate from civil or criminal proceedings,” she said.