An Ontario university is going on the offensive against a YouTube prankster in a unique lawsuit, asking a judge to force him to turn over the profits from viral videos filmed without permission on their campus.
In a statement of claim, Ontario Tech University alleges content creator Fique Ayub Fique and his co-defendants associated with the @FiqueAyub YouTube channel were “unjustly enriched” by recording and posting the videos of two pranks where Ayub affected “an exaggerated Indian accent” to interrupt lectures with mocking questions, before cooking curry on a portable stovetop that had been concealed in his backpack.
The university has already secured an injunction barring Ayub from its property but is still pursuing a claim for a least $50,000 in punitive damages, plus a further – so far unquantified – award based on the YouTuber’s income from the prank videos.
“The profits the Defendants earned arose directly from their unlawful trespass and unauthorized use of Ontario Tech’s property, and Ontario Tech seeks disgorgement of those profits,” the claim reads.
A video of the original prank has garnered more than 13 million views since it was posted in October 2024. Over the same period, the creator’s subscriber count has ballooned from around 60,000 to more than 1.3 million. Shorter clips from the incidents have also attracted tens of millions of views on Ayub’s TikTok account.
The Ajax, Ont.-based Ayub’s edgy online content has landed him in trouble before. In a number of his videos, he claims that the stunts have resulted in his arrest. According to a Durham Regional Police news release in April this year, Ayub and his cameraman were also charged with causing a disturbance and mischief after an alleged incident at a cinema where several people yelled that someone had a gun. The accused were all released on an undertaking and the charges have not been proven in court.
In documents filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Oshawa, Ontario Tech says it was willing to give Ayub the benefit of the doubt that the October 2024 curry-cooking prank was a one-off, partly out of fear that taking legal action could provoke retaliation or further targeting by Ayub.
However, the university changed tack after the YouTuber returned to campus in October 2025 for a repeat performance of his trademark act, when Ayub interrupted a lecture to announce that he would be teaching his own class.
“During his so-called cooking class, Fique escalated his conduct by throwing curry at students and on the ceiling of the lecture hall as part of a game that he called ‘catch the curry,’ causing damage to Ontario Tech’s property,” the university says in its claim, none of which has been proven in court. “Tensions escalated during the Second Prank between students who wanted to learn and Fique, and a confrontation ensued which almost turned violent.”
This time, Ontario Tech filed a police report about the incident and launched its court action. In documents filed in support of its injunction application, the university said that it had received complaints from faculty and students about the pranks, while the professor teaching during the second prank had been traumatized by the experience.
Last November, Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Healey granted the injunction, which prevents Ayub from entering the Ontario Tech campus, and ordered him to pay the university’s costs of $44,000.
“Ayub has no business being on campus; restricting his ability to trespass does not harm any of his fundamental rights. On the other hand, the ongoing reputational harm to Ontario Tech and potential interruption to its students’ and professor’s rights to attend class, free from harassment and unwanted distraction, requires that this injunction be granted,” Healey wrote.
Neither Ayub nor his lawyer responded to requests for comment, but in a statement of defence filed with the court, Ayub denies “each and every allegation” in Ontario Tech’s statement of claim.
The YouTube channel is actually operated by an acquaintance of his who lives in Pakistan, Ayub says in the document, adding that it “is not operated for profit, nor has that ever been the intended purpose.”
“Creating content is a hobby which he does with a bona fide intention of making his viewers happy and entertaining them. All content posted on @fiqueayub is greatly exaggerated, dramatized, heavily edited, is not a true representation of real-world events, and is meant to be satirical and/or comical,” his statement of defence continues.
As a publicly accessible space that was open to the public, Ayub also claims that he was welcome on campus. In addition, he denies that the university is entitled to any of the proceeds from his videos, alleging that Ontario Tech “manufactured its own losses” by waiting an entire year before taking any action to address his posts.
In its reply to Ayub’s defence, the university pushed back on his claims about the YouTube channel’s profitability, citing videos in which he expressed how grateful he was to be able to hire his cameraman full-time and give his parents $10,000.
“Had Fique felt welcomed after the First Prank, he would not have felt the need to flee in a ‘getaway’ car. Additionally, had Fique truly believed he was welcomed on Campus, he would not have stated that he ‘look(ed) like a bitch’ after he ‘was waiting to get escorted by the security; that would’ve been sick,’” the document continues.
Toronto internet lawyer Maanit Zemel has no involvement in the case, but will be watching its progress closely.
“I haven’t seen anything like it, and I practice in a very unique space,” says Zemel, a partner at the technology law boutique firm Zemel van Kampen LLP.
Despite the unique facts involved in the Ontario Tech case, she explains that the university’s unjust enrichment claim is actually a modern twist on a very well established – and notoriously flexible – common-law cause of action.
“It’s a kind of catch-all claim based in fairness for when someone makes money off you without any particular legal basis,” Zemel says. “You can use these principles and try to apply them to pretty much any situation.”
Gil Zvulony, another Toronto internet lawyer with no connection to the case, says that the university could face a tough time in front of a judge, noting that court-ordered disgorgement of profits is more often associated with counterfeiters who trade on the intellectual property rights of others.
“In a prank video like this, it’s not as clear,” Zvulony says. “On an equitable basis, it does makes some sense that they shouldn’t be profiting, but even then, the actual dollar value may not be very high.”
Sara Koonar, the founder and president of influencer talent agency Platform Media & Management Inc., was previously unaware of Ayub’s online content, but says there are there are plenty of potential income streams for creators like him. For instance, those who enter ad-sharing agreements with YouTube can often earn between $1,000 and $3,000 per million views.
TikTok operates its own creator reward program that allows certain account holders with enough followers to earn between $200 and $400 for every million views, but Koonar notes that the company’s rules mean Canada-based influencers are generally ineligible to participate.
While an influencer with a subscriber base as large as Ayub’s could charge in excess of $10,000 for videos that incorporates an advertiser’s product as part of a brand partnership, she says that the nature of his videos likely limits the channel’s income-earning capacity.
“In the industry, we use the term ‘brand-friendly’ for creators who can appeal to mass distribution brands; the kinds you see sold at Walmart or Shoppers,” Koonar says. “They are all very, very careful about who they partner with. Advertisers are extremely nervous to be associated with any kind of controversial activity.”
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
