CITATION: Grenville v. Toronto (City), 2026 ONSC 4516
COURT FILE NO.: DC-26-00000212-00JR
DATE: 20260804
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Sharon Grenville, Applicant
and
The City of Toronto and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, Respondents
BEFORE: Schreck J.
COUNSEL: Sharon Grenville, self-represented
No submission from the responding parties
HEARD: In writing
ENDORSEMENT
[1] Sharon Grenville has applied for judicial review of the decision and reconsideration decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing her application on the basis that its subject matter fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. She seeks a variety of remedies in this court, including an order that the respondents obtain paid employment for her and provide her with financial compensation.
[2] On July 13, 2026, I directed that the Registrar of the Divisional Court issue a notice to Ms, Grenville pursuant to r. 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, that the court is of the view that it may be appropriate for the court to make an order pursuant to r. 2.1.01(1) dismissing the proceeding on the basis that it appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court.
[3] Ms. Grenville was given 15 days to provide written submissions in response to the notice. My direction provided that the submissions should address the following concerns:
The Notice of Application does not appear to identify a basis upon which the Divisional Court could set aside the decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
There appears to be no legal basis for the Divisional Court to grant the remedies sought in the applicant’s Notice of Application, including but not limited to a request that the court order the respondent to transition her to paid employment, issue protective orders, and award $3,500,000 in compensation.
The issues raised before the Human Rights Tribunal appear to be the same as those that were raised before the Tribunal in earlier decisions, reported at 2018 HRTO 1405 and 2020 HRTO 662, and for which applications for judicial review were dismissed by this court (reported at 2021 ONSC 1678).
[4] Mr. Grenville sent two e-mails to the court in response to the r. 2.1 notice and also filed a number of documents, most of which appear to be the same documents she filed with her initial Notice of Application for Judicial Review. I have reviewed all of the material provided by Ms. Grenville. None of it addresses the concerns that were set out in my direction.
[5] I have concluded that there is no legal basis upon which this court could set aside the decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario or provide Ms. Grenville with any of the remedies she is seeking.
[6] I have also concluded that the substance of her application to the Tribunal is the same as her earlier application, which the Tribunal concluded fell outside its jurisdiction. Her application for judicial review of that decision was dismissed by Corbett J. pursuant to r. 2.1.01. So must this application.
[7] The proceedings are dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1.01 on the basis that they are frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process.
Schreck J.
Date: August 4, 2026