A Toronto plastic surgeon known for his flashy social media presence and celebrity-style branding has been ordered to pay more than $21 million in damages after an Ontario judge ruled that he violated the privacy and trust of thousands of patients by secretly operating surveillance cameras throughout his clinic, including in areas where patients undressed and underwent medical procedures.
Dr. Martin Jugenburg, widely known online as “Dr. 6ix,” was harshly criticized by the court after Justice Paul Schabas concluded that the surgeon placed his own interests above the wellbeing and dignity of vulnerable patients seeking cosmetic procedures.
The class action lawsuit involved approximately 7,000 former patients who attended the doctor’s clinic, the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute, located inside Toronto’s Fairmont Royal York Hotel.
In a strongly worded ruling released this week, the judge described Jugenburg’s conduct as “reprehensible,” stating that the doctor abused his position of trust while profiting from patients who were often partially or fully undressed during consultations, examinations, surgeries, and recovery.
“He abused his position of trust and betrayed his vulnerable patients from whom he was profiting,” Justice Schabas wrote.
The lawsuit originated after a 2018 investigative report by CBC Marketplace exposed the existence of an extensive surveillance camera system operating throughout the clinic. Following the broadcast, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario intervened and disabled the cameras.
Court findings revealed that the clinic had installed 24 surveillance cameras across multiple locations, including waiting rooms, hallways, consultation rooms, injection rooms, operating rooms, staff areas, and post-operative recovery spaces.
The judge noted that many patients were required to undress during consultations and examinations without ever being properly informed they were being recorded.
According to the ruling, the only visible notice inside the clinic prior to the CBC investigation was an obscured sign located on a shelf in the operating room. Another notice was reportedly placed outside the clinic near an elevator lobby simply stating that “this area is under video surveillance.”
“There were no signs anywhere else in the clinic, including in consultation and examination rooms where patients would often be required to undress,” Schabas wrote.
Twelve patients testified during the five-week trial, which concluded in December 2025. Eleven of those patients said they had exposed intimate parts of their bodies during medical consultations or examinations. Ten testified they were completely unaware of the surveillance system until learning about it years later through media reports.
Many described the emotional impact as devastating.
According to the ruling, patients reported feeling “violated,” “humiliated,” “betrayed,” “distressed,” and “shocked.” Several testified that the experience caused lasting anxiety, loss of trust in medical professionals, and reluctance to seek future medical treatment.
The judge firmly rejected Jugenburg’s argument that the cameras were “obvious” and therefore constituted implied notice to patients.
Justice Schabas also criticized the clinic’s handling of patient consent regarding social media promotions, describing how obtaining permission for marketing content often appeared to receive greater attention than obtaining consent for surgical procedures themselves.
Court testimony revealed that patients were regularly encouraged to sign social media consent forms allowing the clinic to post “before-and-after” photos and even videos of surgeries online.
The judge found that social media activity at the clinic was driven primarily by marketing and self-promotion rather than medical education.
“It was clear to me that the social media activity was primarily, if not exclusively, for marketing purposes,” Schabas wrote.
One patient testified that she felt pressured into signing a social media consent form on the morning of her surgery after already being medicated and feeling groggy, fearing that refusing might somehow negatively impact her procedure.
Justice Schabas also strongly criticized Jugenburg’s courtroom testimony, calling many of his explanations “convenient and disingenuous after-the-fact attempts” to justify the surveillance system.
The court found that the doctor viewed the cameras primarily as a means of protecting himself from potential legal claims and acknowledged that footage had even been used in staffing disputes.
However, the judge clarified there was no evidence the cameras were used for sexual gratification or that footage had been improperly distributed or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Nonetheless, Schabas concluded that the doctor’s conduct represented a serious breach of fiduciary duty and violated the reasonable expectation of privacy owed to patients in a medical setting.
As part of the judgment, the court ordered Jugenburg to pay $21.5 million in damages to class members. Patients who attended surgical appointments will receive $5,000 each, while those who attended non-surgical consultations will receive $500 each.
The court also imposed an additional $1 million in punitive damages.
In a written statement released following the decision, Jugenburg said he is reviewing the judgment with legal counsel and may respond further in the future.
He acknowledged that more should have been done to protect patient privacy and stated that patient wellbeing, comfort, and confidentiality remain priorities for his clinic.
The case is now being viewed as one of the most significant privacy-related medical rulings in Ontario in recent years and could have far-reaching implications for surveillance practices, informed consent, and patient rights within clinics and healthcare facilities across Canada.