Independence in Investigations: A Review of Stobo v Queen’s University
Litigation is a nightmare for employers, but preparation is your best defense. Taking proactive, smart steps now can fast-track a resolution if (or when) a legal dispute lands on your desk.
Stobo v Queen’s University, 2026 ONSC 2253
A recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice cuts right to the heart of workplace investigation independence. The case involved an urgent motion to block a university’s appointed investigator in a workplace harassment complaint.
The dispute started after a complaint was filed by university employees against a student and a community member, both users of the university’s Athletics & Recreation Centre (“ARC”). Amidst the process, the community member also raised allegations of discrimination.
Since the original complaint was workplace-related, the university was legally obligated to conduct an “appropriate” investigation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Given the claims involved non-employees (a student and a community member), the university made the decision to hire an outside investigator.
This is standard practice in high-stakes claims, where litigation is expected, or where a conflict of interest could create a reasonable apprehension of bias. The university even offered to investigate the plaintiffs' discrimination claims as part of the process, but they never responded. In this case, hiring an independent investigator was unequivocally the right call.
Escalation and the Court’s Verdict
Despite the university’s move for independence, the plaintiffs challenged the investigator's appointment, claiming the independence of the investigation would be 'tainted'. They filed an urgent motion seeking an injunction to prevent the university from using that specific investigator.
The court dismissed the motion, finding zero basis for the assertion of bias. The plaintiffs' argument hinged on one minor, quickly corrected procedural error; the university had mistakenly filed a Notice of Intent to Defend on behalf of all defendants. This administrative slip was fixed within 24 hours when the investigator filed his own notice and the university filed an amendment on behalf of the remaining defendants. A minor, corrected mistake was not nearly enough to create a perception of bias.
Crucially, the court emphasized that it will not intervene when an organization has proper investigation policies and procedures in place, unless "rare circumstances" exist.
So although this case ended up in a courtroom, by doing all the right things, the employer ensured a quick resolution and favourable outcome.
Takeaways
External Investigators Work: Hiring an outside investigator for high-stakes claims, anticipated litigation, or where bias might be perceived (like a complaint against a non-employee), can help protect the integrity of the process
Procedure is Protection: Having established policies and procedures for conducting investigations is essential.
Minor Slips Won’t Taint: A minor, quickly corrected administrative mistake will generally not be enough to persuade a court that an appointed investigator is biased.
