Privacy breaches in healthcare are often discussed in terms of hacked databases or lost records. In May 2026, however, an Ontario Superior Court decision illustrated a different risk: recording patients inside clinical spaces without meaningful consent.
The Ontario Superior Court issued a major class action judgment arising from surveillance practices at a Toronto cosmetic surgery clinic operated by Dr. Martin Jugenburg, widely known online as “Dr. 6ix.” The Court awarded approximately $22.5 million to a class of roughly 7,000 patients and concluded that the clinic’s surveillance practices violated patient privacy and professional obligations.
For dentists, this decision is particularly relevant because surveillance cameras are now common in many practices. This case is a reminder that privacy, consent, and patient dignity remain foundational obligations, particularly when surveillance technology is used in clinical settings.
Background
The evidence accepted by the Court showed that the clinic operated a network of 24 surveillance cameras over an extended period between 2017 and 2018. Cameras captured activity throughout the clinic, including consultation and treatment rooms, as well as operating and recovery areas.
These are places where patients disclosed sensitive information, removed clothing, underwent treatment, and interacted privately with healthcare staff and family members. Video feeds were reportedly accessible on Dr. 6ix’s personal devices. Many cameras recorded video, and some also recorded audio.
The clinic did not adequately inform patients that these cameras existed. There were no meaningful notices inside treatment areas, no consent process concerning surveillance, and no opportunity for patients to opt out. Most patients testified they had no idea they were being recorded.
At trial, 12 patients testified. Many described learning about the cameras as violating, humiliating, distressing, and betraying their trust. Some testified they subsequently had difficulty trusting physicians or seeking medical care.
Hospital administrators testified that hospitals generally do not place surveillance cameras in examination rooms, consultation rooms, operating rooms, change rooms or patient treatment spaces except in very limited circumstances directly related to patient care.
Expert witnesses reinforced that view. Plastic surgery expert Dr. Richard Bendor-Samuel testified that privacy is a fundamental component of medical practice and that surveillance cameras should not be used in areas where patients have a reasonable expectation of privacy. And a psychologist specializing in medical trauma testified that privacy violations in medical settings can cause lasting emotional harm and distrust of healthcare providers.
The Issues
At its core, the Court was asked to determine whether the clinic’s surveillance practices violated patients’ privacy rights and whether patients had provided meaningful consent to being recorded in clinical spaces.
Importantly, this was not framed as a dispute about security cameras at entrances or reception desks. The central issue was recording patients in areas where privacy expectations are at their highest.
The Decision
The Court found that there was little to no effective notice and no valid consent process connected to this surveillance system.
Justice Schabas found liability on several grounds. The Court concluded that operating surveillance cameras in these clinical areas constituted:
- negligence;
- breach of fiduciary duty; and
- the privacy tort known as intrusion upon seclusion.
The Court found that patients were not meaningfully told they were being recorded, had no practical opportunity to refuse, and were recorded in contexts unrelated to treatment delivery. Earlier regulatory investigations had also criticized surveillance in spaces where patients might be partially clothed, undressed, or otherwise vulnerable.
Importantly, the Court reinforced that consent in healthcare is not established merely by a patient entering a building, signing intake paperwork, or assuming cameras are present somewhere on the premises. Healthcare consent must be specific enough for the patient to understand what is occurring.
The Court also expressed concerns about aspects of the clinic’s social media consent practices. However, Justice Schabas emphasized that the case ultimately concerned the clinic’s surveillance cameras. No social media consent form informed patients that they were being recorded through the surveillance system, and the Court found that any social media consent obtained did not address the privacy issues at the heart of the lawsuit.
Why Does This Matter?
Healthcare Trust Creates Different Expectations
For dentists, the trust-based nature of the dentist-patient relationship makes this aspect of the decision particularly important. Patients disclose personal information, submit to examinations, and often become physically vulnerable because they rely on clinicians to act in their interests.
The decision confirms that patients have an extremely high expectation of privacy in medical settings. If surveillance technology is being used in a practice, hidden or inadequate notice is unlikely to be enough. Surveillance in treatment areas requires strong justification and informed consent. Fiduciary obligations extend beyond treatment decisions and include the protection of patient privacy.
Why Were the Damages So High?
The Court awarded approximately $21.5 million in aggregate damages for the invasion of privacy itself. The calculation was structured using estimated patient groups: approximately 4,000 surgical patients at $5,000 each and approximately 3,000 non-surgical patients at $500 each. The distinction appears tied to differing levels of privacy intrusion and patient vulnerability across treatment contexts.
An additional $1 million in punitive damages was awarded. Punitive damages are not intended to compensate patients directly for losses. Their purpose is deterrence and denunciation—communicating that conduct involving deliberate disregard for patient privacy warrants condemnation beyond ordinary compensation.
The size of the award reflects the Court’s view that privacy breaches in healthcare settings can cause significant harm even where there is no public disclosure of the recordings.
Small Operational Decisions Can Create Significant Risk
Many dental practices already use cameras, cloud-based systems, and remote-access technology for legitimate operational or security purposes. This decision serves as a reminder that small operational decisions made for security, efficiency, or convenience can create significant risk when privacy considerations are overlooked.
This case highlights several considerations for dental practices:
- No recording in treatment or changing areas without a compelling, lawful purpose. Operatories, consultation rooms, sedation areas, and spaces where patients change clothing carry heightened privacy expectations.
- Consent must be explicit and meaningful. Signage alone is rarely enough when recording extends beyond ordinary security monitoring.
- Collect only what is necessary. If video is not required for patient care, regulatory compliance, or documented safety reasons, reconsider whether it should exist at all.
- Separate marketing from care. Images or recordings obtained during treatment should never be used in promotional materials without explicit, informed authorization.
- Audit technology regularly. Cloud cameras, mobile access, remote viewing, and retention settings create risks even when installed with good intentions.
Bottom Line
Dentists are not simply custodians of teeth—they are custodians of patient trust. This case shows how quickly that trust can become the centre of litigation when privacy practices drift beyond clinical necessity.
As technology continues to evolve, dental practices should periodically review their policies, procedures, and systems to ensure they remain aligned with patient expectations and professional obligations.
For more examples of how courts, regulators, and tribunals assess risk in healthcare settings, explore more of DMC’s case reviews for dentists.
