In J.C. et al. v. Jugenburg et al., 2026 ONSC 3061, the court found that a plastic surgeon breached his duties to patients and intruded on their privacy by installing surveillance cameras throughout his clinic. This is the first time a court has found that recording footage alone, even if it was not viewed or shared, can result in liability for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The court awarded $21.5 million in aggregate damages for the class of roughly 7,000 patients for intrusion upon seclusion, and $1 million in punitive damages.
Key takeaways: privacy risks and legal exposure from surveillance in patient care areas
- For healthcare facilities, the standard of care is to not have cameras where patients are receiving care, disrobing or being examined, unless the cameras are required for a medical purpose, such as patient observation, or supporting treatment and quality of care. The court in the Jugenburg case provided examples of possible exceptions, without going into the details. Health care facilities should carefully consider where they place cameras in patient care areas.
- Recording footage of intimate or private interactions can constitute an intrusion upon seclusion, even if the footage was not viewed, used, or disclosed.
- Aggregate damages can be awarded for intrusion upon seclusion, even if some class members were not upset or offended by the intrusion.