Frequently Asked Questions
What does this judgment concern?
This is a matter relating to events that took place in 2017-2018. The court found that patients were neither informed of the cameras nor asked to consent to being recorded. The judge further observed that cameras shouldn't have been placed in consultation rooms, examination rooms, treatment rooms, or the operating room. The signage in place was inadequate; a single obscured sign in the operating room and one outside the clinic entrance (para 6). As the judge wrote, "Although not hidden, he did not inform, let alone seek consent from his patients" (para 308).
When was the decision released, and what period does it concern?
The decision concerns a video surveillance system that operated at the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute between January 1, 2017 and December 13, 2018 (para 7).
What was the purpose of the camera system?
The court found "no evidence that Dr. 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" (para 162). At para 296, the court further noted that the conduct "was not motivated by a 'nefarious' motive to snoop on particular individuals' privacy."
What the court did find is that patients were neither informed of the cameras nor asked to consent to being recorded (paras 6, 308), and that Dr. Jugenburg had placed his own interests above those of his patients (paras 163, 271, 308). Those interests were practical rather than personal; matters such as staff and patient-service disputes and a suspected break-in (paras 85–87, 299). That is the finding on which the judgment rests.
Who had access to the recorded footage?
The court addressed this directly at para 87: "There is no evidence that anyone other than Dr. Jugenburg accessed the camera footage. Only one staff member said she was briefly shown some footage of the waiting room; otherwise, there is no evidence that anyone else saw footage from the surveillance cameras."
The record supports this. The DVRs were kept in closets inside the clinic, and the Level D closet was locked, with keys held only by Dr. Jugenburg and his clinic administrator (para 82). Footage could also be viewed through an application on Dr. Jugenburg's personal devices (para 83). Where reviews did take place, they were conducted by Dr. Jugenburg alone and arose in connection with specific incidents; staff or patient-service disputes and a suspected break-in (paras 84–87, 299).
Were the cameras hidden?
The court expressly found that the cameras were not hidden. As it stated at para 308: "Although not hidden, he did not inform, let alone seek consent from his patients or his colleagues, and few noticed the cameras."
Was there any secret recording?
The court found that the cameras themselves were not concealed (paras 88, 102). The court's finding of intrusion turned on the lack of notice and consent, not on whether the cameras were hidden (paras 189 to 191).
Was I recorded? Which rooms, what period?
The court's findings on the rooms, timeline, and recording are below.
Time period. January 2017 to December 13, 2018 (para 80). The CPSO disabled the system on December 13, 2018, and the devices were removed the next day (para 108).
Rooms. At para 6: "the Clinic had 24 surveillance cameras, located in reception and waiting areas, hallways, a staff room and workplace areas, consultation and injection rooms, and in the operating room and the post-operative recovery area." At para 80: "the Clinic had surveillance cameras in all treatment and consultation rooms where patients disrobed, the operating room, and in pre- and post-operative areas where patients were cared for and treated."
Recording pattern. The 8 cameras on Level B recorded only on motion. The 16 on Level D recorded continuously from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and on motion outside those hours (para 81). Level D captured video and audio; Level B, video only (paras 78, 79).
Storage and overwrite. Footage went to two digital video recorders (DVRs) inside the clinic; when memory filled, older footage was overwritten by newer (para 82). The court noted footage "was automatically deleted after several months" (para 269) and that "most of the footage was deleted" (para 299). By the time the system was disabled, recordings of most earlier visits no longer existed.
Who reviewed the footage. At para 299: "very little of this footage was ever reviewed, and if so it was reviewed only by Dr. Jugenburg." At para 87: "There is no evidence that anyone other than Dr. Jugenburg accessed the camera footage. Only one staff member said she was briefly shown some footage of the waiting room; otherwise, there is no evidence that anyone else saw footage from the surveillance cameras."
Release to third parties. At para 269: "there is no evidence that the footage was disseminated to any third party." At para 87: "There is also no evidence that any of the footage was ever accessed or disclosed to any third party, or 'hacked.'"
How much of the footage was actually viewed?
The court found at para 299: "very little of this footage was ever reviewed, and if so it was reviewed only by Dr. Jugenburg." At para 87: "There is no evidence that anyone other than Dr. Jugenburg accessed the camera footage. Only one staff member said she was briefly shown some footage of the waiting room; otherwise, there is no evidence that anyone else saw footage from the surveillance cameras."
The reviews that did occur arose in connection with specific incidents: monitoring staff coverage, resolving staff or patient-service disputes, and responding to a suspected intruder and a break-in at the clinic (paras 84–87).
What has changed since 2018?
The camera system that operated in 2017–2018 was disabled by the CPSO on December 13, 2018, and the DVRs were removed the following day (paras 108, 109).
In January 2019, with CPSO approval, the Clinic activated a far more limited video system: three cameras, located at the Level D reception desk, the Level B reception desk, and the separate injectables reception area on Level D. These cameras are programmed to operate only outside office hours (turning on at 6:00 p.m. and off at 6:00 a.m.), are directed at the cash boxes rather than the hallways or entrance areas, and are accompanied by signs stating: "For security, these premises are under closed circuit audio/video security surveillance." No cameras are located in the pre-operative, operating, or examination rooms (para 116).
Was any patient medical record or clinical photograph affected by the camera system?
No, the court found that footage was not stored within patients' medical records (para 82). The camera system operated separately from the clinic's clinical record system.
Are there still cameras at the clinic today?
The clinic has removed the security camera's in question. No camera system has been present in the clinic's consultation, examination, operating, or pre- and post-operative rooms since December 13, 2018 (para 108). The recording devices (DVRs) were physically removed by the CPSO on December 14, 2018 (paras 108, 109).
In January 2019, with CPSO approval, the Clinic activated a much more limited video system consisting of three cameras. These are located at the reception desks on Level D, Level B, and the separate injectables reception area on Level D. Each camera is programmed to run only after office hours (turning on at 6:00 p.m. and off at 6:00 a.m.), faces the cash box rather than the hallway or entrance area, and is accompanied by signage stating: "For security, these premises are under closed circuit audio/video security surveillance" (para 116).
Is Dr. Martin Jugenburg still practicing?
Yes. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario reviewed these events and issued its decision in 2021, including a six-month suspension of his license, which he served in full. Dr. Martin Jugenburg is in good standing and fully licensed by the CPSO.
Is the clinic still open?
Yes. The clinic is fully operating and continues to see patients.
Has the decision been appealed?
Yes. An appeal has been filed. Because the matter remains before the courts, Dr. Jugenburg is not able to comment personally on the case at this time.
Where can I read the full court decision?
