J.C. et al. v. Jugenburg et al., 2026 ONSC 3061

• Negligence – Dr. Jugenburg owed a duty of care to his patients to act in their best interest. There should not be cameras in locations in private health clinics where patients are receiving care or consulting with medical professionals, as patients expect privacy. Dr. Jugenburg breached his duty of care.
• Breach of fiduciary duty – Dr. Jugenburg owed a fiduciary duty to the class members, and breached this duty by installing and operating surveillance cameras and obtaining footage of patients in private medical settings without their knowledge or consent for no medical reason.
• Intrusion upon seclusion – The Court found that by recording his patients, Dr. Jugenburg invaded, without lawful justification, the class’ privacy, and acted intentionally and recklessly in intruding on his patients’ privacy. It concluded that a reasonable person would find the invasion of the Class Members’ privacy as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish.
• Breach of trust – Dismissed. Although Dr. Jugenburg had a legal obligation to treat the video footage from the surveillance cameras as personal health information under PHIPA, that statutory requirement did not create a trust obligation.

After five days of testimony, largely under cross-examination, the Court found Jugenburg’s evidence lacked credibility, and was disingenuous, and unreliable.

The Court found that an “apology” letter to his patients, sent approximately two years after cameras were installed, was not an apology, and contained false and misleading statements. The letter falsely asserted that privacy legislation had changed during the time Dr. Jugenburg operated the camera system in 2017 and 2018 and apologized for this oversight, when the legislation had in fact, not changed since 2004.

Justice Schabas concluded that Dr. Jugenburg “knew exactly what he was doing, invading patient privacy” and that his conduct was reprehensible and deserving of condemnation and punishment.

The Court awarded aggregate damages for the privacy breach totaling $21.5 million, based on an assumed 4,000 surgical patients at $5,000 per surgical patient, and an assumed 3,000 non-surgical patients at $500 each.

The Court also awarded $1,000,000 in punitive damages, with allocation to be determined.

Total: $22,500,000

Prejudgment interest will be payable on the $21.5 million, and court costs will also be payable by the Defendants

In addition to the aggregate damages, there will be a process established for patients to make a claim for any additional harms that they suffered arising from the privacy breach.

The Defendants have an automatic right to appeal the judgment. They serve their notice of appeal within 30 days following the judgment.

Once the judgment is final, there will be a formal notice delivered to the Class that will explain how class members can claim their share of the judgment, and how to make a claim for any additional harms that they may have suffered.

For more information, please contact: info@beyond.law.