Court File and Parties
CITATION: Stobo v. Queen’s University, 2026 ONSC 3005
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Benjamin Stobo and Dominic Naimool, Plaintiffs
AND:
Queen's University, Raj Anand, and Gareth Cunningham, Defendants
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Graeme Mew
COUNSEL: Jordan Afolabi, for the plaintiffs Andrea Risk, for the defendants Queen's University and Gareth Cunningham Tim Gleason, for the defendant Gareth Cunningham
HEARD: In Writing
ENDORSEMENT on costs
1The plaintiffs’ motion for an order temporarily restraining an ongoing harassment investigation at Queen’s University, and for other relief, was dismissed with costs: Stobo v. Queen’s University, 2026 ONSC 2253.
2In my reasons for decision, I indicated on the issue of costs (but without having received submissions from the plaintiffs), that my preliminary view was that the defendants would be entitled to their costs of the motion on a partial indemnity scale.
3I have now received the plaintiffs’ submissions. Although they were received late, the parties agree that I should consider them.
4The costs summaries provided by counsel for the defendants asserted partial indemnity scale claims of $22,578.52 (Queen’s and Cunningham) and $15,904.59 (Anand) respectively.
5The plaintiffs do not quarrel with the indication that they should pay the defendants’ costs on a partial indemnity scale. However, they do challenge the amounts sought having regard to the principles of proportionality and reasonableness. They submit that reasonable awards of costs would be $7,500 to Queen’s and Cunningham, and $5,000 to Anand.
6It is trite law that “… the costs award should reflect more what the court views as a fair and reasonable amount that should be paid by the unsuccessful parties rather than any exact measure of the actual costs to the successful litigant”: Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier, 2002 25577 (ONCA) at para. 4.
7In my decision I observed that the plaintiffs’ “misguided and chaotic pursuit” of their motion had consumed significant public time and resources. The urgency of the plaintiffs’ request was precipitated by what they described as “a genuine and imminent deadline imposed by the investigator” and, thus, “not manufactured or fabricated in bad faith”. However, they also concede that it was an error of judgment on their part to have expanded the motion (well) beyond what was originally described to the court. There is no doubt that this error of judgment greatly exacerbated the costs that the responding parties had to incur.
8That said, as I review the cost summaries provided by the defendants, I share some of the concerns expressed by the plaintiffs about reasonableness and proportionality. For example, while there may have been good reason for Queen’s to have two counsel present in court, the reasonable expectation of the plaintiffs would limit partial indemnification of a successful defendant’s costs to a portion of the fees of one advocate. Another example is that a party paying costs might reasonably expect the rate applicable to travel time to be less than the rate applicable to time spent in, or preparing for, court.
9I have concluded that the plaintiffs should be responsible for costs fixed in the amount of $15,000 payable to the defendants Queen’s and Cunningham, and $10,000 payable to the defendant Anand. These costs are to be paid within 30 days. These amounts are intended to strike a balance between, on the one hand, a recognition that the plaintiffs caused significant legal fees and time to be unnecessarily incurred because of the way that the motion was conducted, and, on the other hand, the reasonable expectations of the plaintiffs and the principle of proportionality.
Mew J.
Date: 22 May 2026