GRIMSBY, ON: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that lawyers have filed responses on behalf of two Grimsby residents, David Sharpe and Duncan Storey, in a second human rights complaint brought against them by sitting Grimsby, Ontario town councillor Jennifer Korstanje.
Ms. Korstanje first filed a human rights complaint on July 27, 2025, against Mr. Sharpe and Mr. Storey, alleging sex-based discrimination arising from posts and comments on the Grimsby Independent News (GIN) Facebook page, which publishes local news, commentary, satire, and community discussion.
In a second complaint now before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal), Ms. Korstanje alleges that a separate Facebook post criticizing that first human rights complaint amounts to unlawful reprisal under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre filed responses on March 12, 2026, arguing that the application does not disclose any conduct that could legally constitute reprisal and that the complaint improperly targets protected political expression.
According to the filed responses, Mr. Sharpe denies any connection to the GIN page and argues that the complaint fails to allege any conduct linking him to the disputed post. His response also states that the application attempts to instead gain political advantage against him as a former electoral opponent.
Mr. Storey, who operates the GIN Facebook page, argues that the post in question simply disputes the merits of the earlier complaint and criticizes a sitting elected official. His response states that such commentary constitutes protected expression under section 2(b) of the Charter, which protects freedom of expression.
Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir said, “The Human Rights Code prohibits reprisal to protect people who assert their human rights from facing punishment for attempting to do so. It is not intended to limit the freedom of respondents to express their disagreement with allegations brought against them.”
Mr. Storey said the case raises serious concerns about the misuse of human rights processes to silence criticism of public officials. “Weaponizing the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario while appropriating the status of genuine victims to suppress criticism and civic debate is not only abhorrent, but a direct threat to the freedoms protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“If the applicant were awarded $125,000 in damages, it would set a dangerous precedent—allowing any elected official to launch financially risk-free lawfare against critics or perceived political opponents,” he added.
The responses filed with the Tribunal argue that the complaint should be dismissed because criticizing a legal proceeding does not amount to reprisal under the Human Rights Code and because the application attempts to penalize political expression about a matter of public interest.
The respondents now await a possible reply from Ms. Korstanje through the Tribunal.
