ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
GREG BRADFORD
Before Justice David S. Rose
Heard on September 22, 23, 2025, March 5, 19, 20, April 8, 15, 2026 Reasons for Judgment released on May 7, 2026
M. Ventola……………………………………………………………counsel for the Crown
D. Howard…………………………………………….………………………..amicus curiae
Mr. Bradford was unrepresented
[1]
Introduction
Mr. Bradford pleaded not guilty to several charges: Mischief to property x4 in Smiths Falls on April 16, 18 and 19 2024 (Counts 1 – 4) ; Criminally Harassing Jodi Empey between April 5 and April 19, 2024 (Count 5); Uttering Threats to Jodi Empey(Count 6) and also to Ian McCloy (Count 7) .
2There is no dispute that the Mischief charges all relate to graffiti found on buildings in the town of Smiths Falls. During the course of his own testimony Mr. Bradford admitted to spray painting the Smiths Falls District High School and Kinsmen club as alleged in Counts 3 and 4.
3Mr. Bradford was unrepresented at this trial. Mr. Howard was initially appointed under s. 486.3 to cross-examine Ms. Empey. At the end of the second day of trial Mr. Bradford asked for an adjournment and waived his rights under s. 11(b) so that he could retain Mr. Howard as his counsel for the balance of the trial. The case went over for that purpose. Mr. Bradford was unsuccessful in retaining Mr. Howard as his counsel. During the fall of 2025 Mr. Bradford sent dozens of unsolicited emails to the Court. Some were before the commencement of the trial but some were after. At least one of these was about the trial itself. Because of that, and after learning that Mr. Howard would not be retained as counsel, I appointed Mr. Howard amicus curiae. I then directed the Court staff to isolate all emails which Mr. Bradford had sent directly to the Court and provide them to both the Crown and Mr. Howard. I read only one email to confirm that the content covered this trial. I disabuse myself of its contents.
4While the evidence went on for some days, it can be easily summarized.
Jodi Empey
[5]
The Evidence
Jodi Empey has been the Chief of the Smiths Falls Police Service (SFPS) since 2024. Before that she was Deputy Chief from 2022. She met Mr. Bradford in January of 2022 when Cst. Ian McCloy had arrested Mr. Bradford for domestic assault charges. Mr. Bradford was in custody in the cells. He had burns to his face and arms and was bandaged. There is no dispute by the defence that upon learning that he would be arrested in that investigation Mr. Bradford set himself on fire. Ms. Empey knew that when she met him in the cells. That day Ms. Empey was simply assisting in the processing of Mr. Bradford upon his arrest. There is no dispute that she was not an investigating officer in that case, nor was she a witness. Her involvement in Mr. Bradford’s domestic violence case was peripheral at best. There is also no dispute at this trial that Mr. Bradford was acquitted of all charges in that case. Ms. Empey’s meeting with Mr. Bradford in the cells that day was 10 minutes. In that time there were no rants, and Mr. Bradford was not angry. There is no dispute that the complainant in that original criminal case against Mr. Bradford was his then partner Jemma Spanbauer.
6Ms. Empey started receiving communication from Mr. Bradford. It was over social media and was derogatory about SFPS officers and herself. Mr. Bradford was blocked from accessing the SFPS social Facebook (FB) page. At one point SFPS posted on its FB page to parents that they should “Please don’t drop your kids off at the rink at a Bears Game unattended as they seem to not have a lot of interest in actually watching the game”. Greg Bradford replied on October 18, 2022 that “…this post was made by Officer Jodi Empey who needs to check her 17 year old son’s pockets for Alcoholic beverages if the photos he posts on Facebook are any indication of his behaviour before putting parents on blast. She has since deleted the post and re-written it and would like to remind us all that some officers have died in another city so its not fair to criticize her for her unprofessionalism”.
7Ms. Empey testified that she was targeted but didn’t know why. She was concerned that her family was mentioned in FB posts which was beyond being unhappy with the police. Ms. Empey then made sure that her children blocked Mr. Bradford on their FB accounts.
8In another post from Ms. Empey to the Smiths Falls Fire Association account Mr. Bradford responded with a derogatory comment about the police service, herself, feminism and that the police take the side of women versus men. The topic was the feminist side of policing and domestic violence.
9Mr. Bradford sent emails too. His address was gregXXXXXXX@gmail.com (as edited) The emails referred to female officers in extremely derogatory terms. One such email was put into evidence. On March 29, 2024 Mr. Bradford sent the following to the general mail box of SFPS:
If Ashley has a problem with me calling her a Cunt, she's welcome to come say it to my face rather than to my Brother.
Telling me how I'm unfairly "Assuming things".
Y'all objectively fucking Framed me on behalf of my Domestic Abuser based on Assumptions alone while ignoring Exonerating evidence AND the fact I went to you Evil Pricks for help BEFORE you Framed me saying EXACTLY what was going to happen but Eric Buttson ignored me.
While stating the now proven Objectively True your Feminist Police Department values Females over Facts and refused to investigate until 495 days after criminally charging me with nonsense charges off my Domestic Abuser's objectively false accusation alone.
You all have abundant evidence to these Facts with both your own Investigation and the resultant Court Transcripts in your possession (At my expense) as of March 9th 2024. It's only because of Evil Feminist Cunts like Nadine, Jodi and Ashley that you deemed it "Not of Public Interest" to charge my Domestic Abuser with her Assault against me with a Weapon or with her Objective and Confessed to Perjury.
I Pray all of your Children are punished for your Crimes against the Innocent.
Sincerely, Gregory Bradford
10Ms. Empey explained that SFPS took Mr. Bradford’s communications as a rant and so didn’t action Mr. Bradford. But when Mr. Bradford targeted her children she became concerned. In April of 2024 spray painting started showing up at various places in Smiths Falls. She was specifically mentioned in the graffiti. Photographs of the graffiti were entered into evidence. As Ms. Empey put it “ I was very concerned about myself, my personal safety. He’s targeted me, obviously. I get I am the chief. I was acting chief at the time. But at the same token I was very concerned. There was one that I wasn’t shown that I saw was at the high school. It was pretty significant one because I got the correspondence about that one”. She ended up personally going to the high school to speak to the principal. Her children went to that high school, and targeting her at her children’s school was “the last straw”. Ms. Empey was concerned for her safety because Mr. Bradford was not mentally stable. Investigation was turned over to the O.P.P. because she was in an obvious conflict of interest. From the OPP she learned that Mr. Bradford had made a direct threat to kill her. As she explained in her evidence:
But I was absolutely scared. I, I’m a police officer in a small town. I’m a chief. I’m well known. It’s not hard to find me, if you need to. I had to take extra precautions in my home security-wise. I had to make sure my family was aware. I had to make sure my staff was aware of what Mr. Bradford looked like. I had to take security precautions at our workplace as well.
11In cross-examination Ms. Empey testified about a complaint that Mr. Bradford had about Ms. Spannbauer assaulting him with a rolling pin. She was not the investigating officer in that case either. No charges were ever laid against Ms. Spannbauer but Ms. Empey had no role in that decision. She knew that the Crown Attorney at the time was going to meet with Mr. Bradford at the police station to go over all the evidence, but she wasn’t involved in that discussion.
12Mr. Bradford’s mother Debbie Bradford testified for the Crown. She was a reluctant witness. The Crown brought an application under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act to cross-examine her on a statement she had given to Det. Hendershott commencing on April 18, 2024 at 11:40 pm. There is no dispute that on the evening of April 18, 2024 the police executed a search warrant at the Bradford home in Smiths Falls where the defendant lived with his family, including his parents Deborah and Kenneth.
13After the police had completed their sweep of the house, Deborah met with Det. Hendershott inside the house. She described Det. Hendershott as being quite kind. She also testified that another officer Christopher Kettle was present and he was threatening. Both Det Hendershott and Deputy Chief Kettle testified at this trial that Officer Kettle was not present when Ms. Bradford made her statement. Deputy Chief Kettle testified that he was retired from the O.P.P. on April 18, 2024 and had yet to take up his duties as Deputy Chief of S.F.P.S.
14Nonetheless Ms. Bradford said that she feared that Officer Kettle would “be after me in a legal way”, if she wasn’t straightforward in her interview that night. She testified that she was answering Det. Hendershott’s questions to best of her ability. She knew the police were investigating possible criminal offences by her son Gregory. She told Det. Hendershott that in the few days previous her son Gregory said things Given its importance in this trial I would quote from Ms. Bradford’s (DB) statement to Det. Hendershott (MH):
MH: has he ever made any comments uh in regards to like Chief Empey or even Chief McGilvery prior to him departing or um like
DB: I I know
MH: his frustrations uh would they ever be physical towards anyone else
DB: I know he's he's made some statements that that if it ever came down to it if if things didn't change
that he might proceed to do something worse like hurt somebody or whatever so MH: what would his words be though in that context rather than
DB: kill I don't know whether that's just frustration or whether that's an actual thing that he would follow through
on and he's been pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed to the point of I don't know what his mental state is
MH: and who's that directed towards
DB: directly Empey and um like uh uh Ian McCloy
15In her evidence before me she adopted that as something she told Det. Hendershott as honest answers to the best of her ability. This came up later in her testimony where she said:
Q. And, you kind of, respond and say well, a name that comes up, has come up several times is...
A. Is Ian.
Q. ...Jodi Empey. Right?
A. Jodi Empey and Ian. Yeah.
Q. Right. And that, and so you are saying
basically what you are saying here is that there were several times where he has....
A. They have been targets of his frustration.
Q. Right. And what he said, is that there’s several times where he, what you told the police was
several times where he said to you that Jodi Empey is going to drive him to kill somebody. Right?
A. That she was pushing him to the point where he
Q. Yes.
A. …was going to be passed where he couldn’t control it.
Q. Right
A. Yeah
16Ms. Bradford testified that her son Gregory’s handwriting was rudimentary – he does not write cursive. As she said “ he’s not a good hand writer, to be honest”, but his spelling is almost perfect, and the graffiti at 4 Main Street has spelling errors. She has never heard Mr. Bradford say “innocence is worthless” as depicted in some of the graffiti, but “maybe Jodi Empey freames innocent men” that was in his posts. The wording “knowingly frames” was too complicated for her son. The defendant put to her that there was the possibility that one of her son’s rants could possibility be attributed to another person but she disagreed.
17In her testimony Ms. Bradford admitted to knowing about her son’s face book posts about the police. She knew that his language was aggressive, and that he had sent long, wordy emails to the Smiths Falls Police. She identified the two spray painted boards which were placed outside her home. They were Greg’s and he would bring them inside every night.
18Mr. Bradford’s father Kenneth testified that his son Gregory was agitated about Jodi Empey. The Defendant was upset about things that happened at his trial. Gregory Bradford was upset because no one other than him was charged. He believed Jodi Empey wasn’t doing her job. As Mr. Bradford put it, his son either said or he perceived that Gregory had spray painted two buildings. He had admitted to spray painting the MTO building on Cornelia Street. When he was doing that he looked up and saw a camera. He then went to the high school and did some spray painting there. As Kenneth Bradford said, Gregory did not go into details. His son did say that if he was caught on camera he was going for broke. Kenneth Bradford identified the two signs which his son had put in front of their hose saying that “Greg Bradford was framed” It was put out daily. In cross- examination he admitted that his son was frustrated because he felt ignored by the police. He verbalized his disapproval of the Chief of Police and the Smiths Falls police regularly to him, Deborah Bradford, and “anyone that would listen”.
19Another video seized by the police shows the culprit spray painting a building late in the evening of April 18. That person has facial features which I have difficulty identifying as Gregory Bradford. Cst, Droesky could not say where that video came from.
20The contents of Mr. Bradford’s phone were analysed. It contained the March 29, 2024 email referred to above. It also has an email Mr. Bradford sent from his gregXXXXXX@gmail.com account to inquiries@SFPS.ca on March 4 2024. That email says:
It has been an excess of 30 days you Corrupt Fucks. Who do I speak to about your ongoing delays? My Children are being abused
and you Evil Bastards are covering it up because the Misconduct of your Officers is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE
21On January 11, 2024 Mr. Bradford sent an email to SFPS general inquiry saying:
Hello my name is Gregory Bradford, I am writing to request the following information, this information is required by January 17th as it is involved in a matter going before the Courts: The full Police Report and all documents associated with file "SF23002440".
The full Police report associated with the now Proven False Criminal Charges laid by Jemma Spannbauer (Including video testimony) against Gregory Bradford facilitated by Gregory's Highschool Bully, Officer Ian Earl McCloy born 1996 and his delayed investigation until 495 days after placing charges
The full video surveillance and all records from Gregory's time in custody January 2022. With a specific focus on Gregory's attempts to
Item was truncated due to length open full item file
22From my review of the extraction report, Mr. Bradford met with (then) Crown Attorney Kerry McVey and officer Dave Murphy in late October of 2023. He was told that there was no public interest to proceed with charges of domestic assault wherein he claimed to be the victim. The extraction report has numerous emails from Mr. Bradford with the similar cluster of complaints. The police would not lay charges against Ms. Spannbauer, his children were at risk, and the police failure to disclose information to him was problematic.
23The extraction report also contains images which were kept in the cache section of Mr. Bradford’s phone. Two images are of the signs all agree he put out front of his parents house. There are 6 images of the graffiti put into evidence by the Crown at trial. There are two images of Jodi Empey’s son playing guitar, while someone near him is drinking from a beer bottle. Both of those images were created on Mr. Bradford’s phone on April 18, 2024, although it is unclear if they were downloaded to the phone or merely images that he viewed on facebook.
24The images of graffiti were created from April 6, 2024 to April 18, 2024.
25The pictures taken of the graffiti were observed in Smiths Falls and photographed by various police officers over various days in April of 2024. They included the following:
i) Innocence is worthless Jodi Empey knowingly frames men
ii) Jodi Empey frames us Law is worthless cops are scum. (This was on the building at 52 Abbott Street)
iii) Feminist Cops frame innocent men on behalf of abusive women!
iv) #Jail for Jodi
v) SFPD frames people
vi) Jodi Empey Frames Innocent Men
vii) Jodi Empey Framed Greg Bradford
viii) Jodi Empey Frames Men!!! Fuck Corruption ACAB
ix) Innocence is worthless When they Frame Us Jodi Empey frames men
x) Empey (indecipherable) Frame Innocent Men
xi) At Smiths Falls Collegiate Institute was written:
Jodi Empey Framed Greg Bradford To Cover up female on male domestic violence
Jodi Empey said it was not of Public Interest to charge or (indecipherable) women with perjury contempt (indecipherable)
Feminism is a Supremacist Movement Equality was a lie
Jodi Empey Frames Men and covers up female on male violence (indecipherable) is right about women ACAB
Cops ignore evidence and witnesses to push ideology Feminists oppose justice !
Actions > Words
Innocence is meaningless The cops are corrupt
xii) Corrupt Cops Frame People
xiii) SFPD is corrupt
xiv) SFPD are corrupt
xv) SFPD are corrupt
xvi) Can’t coverup corruption :)
xvii) At 45 Elmsley Street SFPD frame people
xviii) What’s the point if you’re charged (indecipherable) Feminist Police Frame Fathers to Assist Abusive Wives
26Evidence led at trial also included a video from the early morning hours of April 16 showing the culprit approaching the 45 Elmsley Street Apartments and graffitiing it. The clip is just over one minute long. That person has no face mask, is wearing a grey jacket, blue jeans and shoes with a light sole. That person has the same build, skin colour hair and general shape of face as Gregory Bradford.
27A CFS handwriting analyst Ms. Osmond testified that the graffiti on four buildings was probably the work of the same person. She noted similarities between exhibit 3A (par 25i); 3T (par 25 xvi); 3H (paragraph 25 ix); and 3P (paragraph 25 xiii).
28Ms. Osmond identified the shape of the lettering, proportion and how many strokes were needed to complete letters. Ms. Osmond took as her known images graffiti found at the Lanark Social Services (Exhibit 3AA) and on Smiths Falls District Collegiate institute 3M (Paragraph 25 xi); 45 Elmsley Street exhibit 3V and the image found at the Kinsmen Club. In her evidence, the graffiti on four buildings compared favourably to a second set of images, namely Exhibit 3A 3T, 3H, 3B, 3N. She testified that the author of the first set of images probably wrote the second set of images, but she was not given the identity of any individual. She made a comparison between two sets of writings. The similarities included the skill, spacing proportions and letter forms.
29Ms. Osmond did not testify as an expert. The Crown was clear that no expert is required to compare handwriting under s. 8 of the Canada Evidence Act R.S. C. 1985 c. C-5. While I found Ms. Osmond’s evidence somewhat helpful, I did find it to be pivotal in the handwriting comparison. The volume of graffiti from Smiths Falls in April of 2024 was sufficiently large, the locations so many, and the writing so similar that I had no difficulty making a comparison myself. I do not believe that anyone looking at the graffiti would have difficulty comparing them.
30Mr. Bradford testified. He said that he has two children with his now separated spouse Jemma Spannbauer. She lives with their two children with her adoptive parents. He believes her adoptive parents to be abusing their children.
31Mr. Bradford agreed that he met Jodi Empey when he was in custody facing domestic assault charges. He said that he told her when he was custody about his wife hitting him and his concerns for the safety of his children. In his evidence he told Ms. Empey about an incident before he separated from Ms. Spannbauer in December of 2021 when they were getting ready for Christmas. Ms. Spannbauer told him about a weird gift she received from her adoptive uncle. It was lingerie and she was 16 at the time. That lead to Mr. Bradford telling his mother in law that they weren’t allowed around his children any more.
32Mr. Bradford described his initial meeting with Jodi Empey as about five minutes. He has never had another face to face meeting with Jodi Empey. Mr. Bradford described being exonerated at his trial.
33Mr. Bradford described sending emails to Smiths Falls Police through their general inquires email. This started after his acquittal. He reached out to Officers Droeske Murphy, and Nadine Wilson. In his evidence he tried to get them to understand that there had been false allegations levelled against him and that his children were still in danger. Officer Droeske reached out to him to say that there was no public interest in laying the charges Mr. Bradford sought. He then reached out to the Crown’s office and was told the same thing. There was a meeting with Crown Kerry McVey, but no charges were ever laid. He then came to believe that he was being stonewalled and the tone of his emails to the police started to get insulting. He cited specific officers and alleged that they were covering up child abuse. He went about trying to get more information through the Freedom of Information (FOI) process. He admitted in his testimony to being the author of the various emails put into evidence at this trial.
34Mr. Bradford admitted to sending only one Facebook message to Chief Empey. It was about a SFPS baseball game. Chief Empey made a comment about taking domestic violence seriously. Mr. Bradford posed a response which highlighted that his allegation of domestic violence wasn’t being taken seriously. He then found that he was blocked on Face Book from Chief Empey’s personal page. After that he had no ability to interact with her. After that he admitted to responding to a SFPS Facebook post. He admitted to posting the comment at Exhibit 1, namely the comment about Jodi Empey’s supervision of her own 17 year old son’s possession of alcoholic beverages. His objective was to respond to what he saw as a heavy handed police action to kids vaping in a parking lot.
35Mr. Bradford admitted that he might have shared the picture of Jodi Empey’s son outside with a guitar. He identified the photo of the signs placed in front of his parents house as his. He said he had seen other graffiti images in town criticizing the police and he wanted to show his support legally.
36Mr. Bradford said he did tell his mother that “I was concerned that somebody was going to get killed”. That was after he noticed that he was being followed around by Office Droeske. His explanation continued into a fear that he was being accused of being a snitch. He said his words to his mother were “ What’s it going to take for somebody to get killed? If that’s what it takes, that’s what it takes. The children are in danger. I don’t care. They can kill me if they want. I expect that if that does happen, that you guys step and and save the kids”. Mr. Bradford was emphatic that he never mentioned anything about killing Ian McCloy or Jodi Empey.
37That utterance to his mom was after he had filed an OIPRD complaint on March 9, 2024 against Ian McCloy, Aaron Tompkins, Jodi Empey Jason Droeske and Nadine Wilson. Mr. Bradford testified that Officer McCloy and Empey were in charge of the case against him.
38Mr. Bradford admitted that he told his father that he had done the graffiti at the MTO. It was his intention to take the blame for the rest of the graffiti because nobody was listening to him and he would use his time as a defendant “to be able to finally get evidence in the record of what was going on with the police misconduct and what was going on with the, with the abuse of kids”. Mr. Bradford said he lied to his father about his involvement with the graffiti so that his father would tell the police just that. He did admit to graffitiing the Smiths Falls High School at 299 Percy Street, and the Kinsmen Club. Mr. Bradford said he wanted to take the blame for all the other graffiti that he had seen in town. The testimonial exchange included this:
Q. So, in terms of the graffiti on the, the school and Kinsmen Club, what was your purpose or why did you do that?
A. I wanted to take the blame for all the other graffiti that I’d seen. I know that there were people that were following me on Facebook that were aggrieved, that had seen the signs that I put on my front lawn. And I’m I’m not going to state who, under no circumstances. I said I’d take the blame for everybody, and that I happily will, because people were being stupid. And I, I wanted to be the only one that the cops came after for it because I knew that everybody was upset what had been done to me. …
39Mr. Bradford made inculpatory admissions in his evidence. He admitted to numerous emails and two instances of illegal graffiti. But it also has an exculpatory aspect. I therefore charge myself in according with R. v. W.D., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. If I believe Mr. Bradford’s exculpatory evidence I must acquit. If it leaves me in a state of reasonable doubt I must acquit. I can only convict Mr. Bradford if, based on the evidence I do accept, the Crown has proven the charges to the criminal standard. The reach of R. v. W.D. extends to all exculpatory evidence.
40Mr. Bradford’s evidence has a number of frailties;
- In response to the quoted exchange above Mr. Ventola put to him that he knew the others who did the graffiti. His answer was “You will not get that answer out of me”.
I have considered whether Mr. Bradford testified to knowing who admitted to doing the graffiti. His answer in chief was unclear. He said And I’m I’m not going to state who, under no circumstances. I said I’d take the blame for everybody, and that I happily will, because people were being stupid.
Mr. Ventola’s question was a fair one, fairly put. If there was any doubt in Mr. Bradford’s mind that his answer was misunderstood and that he did not in fact know who did the graffiti his answer belies that. He said that “you will not get that answer out of me”. He gave that answer twice. He then changed his answer to “I don’t recall”. None of those three answers is consistent with not knowing who the authors of the graffiti were. His answer then changed to saying that no one ever admitted to telling him that they committed graffiti. He therefore gave three different answers: he will not divulge the identity of the graffiti-ists, he doesn’t remember, and lastly he doesn’t know because no one ever told him that they committed acts of graffiti.
It is unclear why Mr. Bradford claims to have ever undertaken the blame for anyone else other than himself. There is no evidence at this trial that he told the police that he was responsible for all of the graffiti. He certainly never claimed that in his evidence.
I am left with extremely evasive testimony about a pivotal fact on the mischief charges, namely identity. His testimonial inconsistency is significant. This seriously undermines his credibility.
Mr. Bradford testified that he held Jodi Empey, Ian McCloy, Nadine Wilson, and – as he admitted an extensive list – as officers being responsible for what was happening to him. When pressed about Jodi Empey he said that she was the Sargant at the time. In his evidence it is unclear why so many officers were responsible for any claimed injustice or that there was any real injustice. Mr. Bradford was charged with an offence and acquitted. There is no evidence of an injustice in that. His claim that failing to charge his spouse with a crime was an injustice makes no sense.
When asked about an email in which he referenced three officers who he hoped would burn in hell he told Mr. Ventola that he hoped he too would also burn in hell. This leads me to find that Mr. Bradford was uninterested in telling the truth by answering appropriate questions, but rather using the witness stand as a platform to lash out at all who challenge him. This is but one salient example of Mr. Bradford’s indifference to the truth seeking function of this Court.
He admitted that he saw Chief Empey as an accomplice to what he believed was the criminal actions of his wife. He admitted to saying that Chief Empey was a psychopath usurping the power of the police force and corrupt it to be a criminal organization. This is such a wild claim without anything like a reasonable foundation that I again find that Mr. Bradford’s credibility is substantially weakened by his wild outlandish claims.
Mr. Bradford’s evidence was clear that the police failure to charge his wife with domestic assault was one of the main complaints he had against them. In his evidence in chief he said that he told Chief Empey just that in his 5 minute conversation with her when he was arrested. He admitted to writing in graffiti at the Smiths Falls High School that Jody Empey framed Greg Bradford to cover up female on male domestic violence. It was put to him that his graffiti at the high school was expressing frustration that his wife was not charged. His answer was notable. “Again, my, if I’m one hundred percent honest , I don’t want my wife charged”.
His evidence therefore went in two very opposite directions. In one he was frustrated that the SFPS did not charge his wife with domestic violence. On another he didn’t want his wife charged. Much of this trial was devoted to evidence about Mr. Bradford’s claim of being subjected to an injustice. Having been charged with assault, and not having his wife charged with assault are but two. I am left with a finding that the latter wasn’t even an injustice at all because he didn’t want his wife charged. This is damning to his credibility. If Mr. Bradford didn’t want his wife charged he had no complaint about any police officer not charging Ms. Spanbauer – including Chief Empey. On a pivotal issue at this trial his evidence was nonsensical.
Related to this was his answer about a follow up question about why he went so far as he did to get his wife charged when that was never his intention at all he said, “ Now, just hold on, let me let me be very clear on this. You can pursue things that you don’t want because they’re ultimately necessary”. I therefore find that when confronted with his entirely conflicting intentions about having Ms. Spanbauer charged he said he just wanted to manipulate the process. I so find.
When confronted with his utterance to his mother about whether someone was going to get killed his answer went on so long as to be unresponsive. It was but one of many long rambling answers which permitted to him to say what was on his mind rather than answering the question.
One of the injustices Mr. Bradford testified to was the abuse of his children. He said this was because of an incident when his then wife received a weird gift from an adoptive uncle when she was 16 years old. This shocked him. From this sprang an allegation of child abuse which was so serious that the police failure to intervene was an injustice. I do not understand this. If it was true, his wife receiving a weird gift from an adoptive uncle did not rise to any level where Mr. Bradford could expect that anyone would take it as evidence of child abuse of his children. His evidence about child abuse made no sense. This was the foundation for much of the defence, namely Mr. Bradford’s perceived injustices.
41For these reasons I disbelieve Mr. Bradford other than his admissions against interest and where his evidence is confirmed elsewhere by evidence I do accept. His evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt.
42Other defence witnesses included now Deputy Chief of SFPS Chris Kettle. He testified that he was not involved in the investigation. He was with the O.P.P. until May of 2023 when he retired. He took up his role as Deputy Chief of SFPS in September 2024. He testified that he had no investigative contact with Mr. Bradford. Det Hendershott of the O.P.P. was also called as a defence witness. She testified that no evidence went missing in this case. She did say that Mr. Bradford’s behaviours were escalation. She testified that when Mr. Bradford was arrested she disengaged with him because he was calling her names. She agreed that she was involved in the raid on Mr. Bradford’s house and took a statement from Deborah Bradford but disagreed that Chris Kettle was present.
43Mr. Bradford wanted to call one additional witness, Officer Morrison from the O.P.P. The relevance was said to be that he could place Chris Kettle at his house during the execution of the search warrant. I disallowed that evidence because it was remote and not connected with the charges before the Court. No probative value was explained to me. On an earlier date I had asked Mr. Bradford who he wanted to call as defence witnesses and there was no mention of officer Morrison.
44It was unclear to me what the exculpatory value of the defence witnesses were. None of the defence witnesses leave me in a state of doubt about any of charges.
Handwriting Analysis and findings
[45]
Handwriting Analysis and Findings
In law there is no need for an expert opinion about handwriting comparison. A lay opinion is sufficient. This is codified in the Evidence Act s. 8 (supra). Section 8 of the Evidence Act reflects the common law ruled that permits the reception of a lay opinion about comparison of handwriting. A disputed example of handwriting can be compared to a known example. Furthermore, the trier of fact is not precluded from making comparisons provided that a proven or admitted standard is used for comparison, see R. v. Abdi (1997), 11 C.R. (5th) 197 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Megill 2021 ONCA 253, Watts Manual of Criminal Evidence 2025 ed Ch. 5:11 is, as usual, helpful and authoritative on the point.
46In this case Mr. Bradford admitted to being the author of the graffiti seen at Smiths Falls District Collegiate Institute and the Kinsmen Club. Those are therefore known comparators which can be used to analyse the balance of the graffiti evidence which is not admitted by Mr. Bradford. The high school graffiti is particularly helpful to the Court because there is so much of it. By my count the high school graffiti comprises some 350 characters and some 65 words. Mr. Bradford admitted to spray painting a great deal of messaging in that one incident. From this I had no difficulty identifying his handiwork expressed in spray paint in the evidence.
47Most writings are in black spray paint, although there is yellow graffiti as well. The cursive style I find to be similar across all exhibits. Mr. Bradford bears a striking facial resemblance to the perpetrator captured on camera at 43 Elmsley as he approaches the building. He has the same body, height as Mr. Bradford. This assists in finding that Mr. Bradford is the perpetrator. The evidence in Count 2 is only 4 letters ACAB. There was no evidence that about what that means and whether ACAB is consistent with the ongoing complaint Mr. Bradford had with SFPS, but the letters ACAB show up in other graffiti which is clearly the handiwork of Mr. Bradford. The letters ACAB are I find in the style and script of the rest of the graffiti. Mr. Bradford has admitted to culpability on Counts 3 and 4, and I have no difficulty in finding that he was the culprit who spray painted the Lepine Apartments. He will be convicted of Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4. It is all the work of the same person who vandalized the high school with spray paint, which is Gregory Bradford.
48I have considered the suggestion which arose in the trial, namely that another culprit was responsible for the graffiti Mr. Bradford did not admit to. I find it to be speculative. There is no evidence of anyone who had the same writing, same complaint, and same targets. Most of the graffiti posts are of sufficient length to easily permit a comparison to the known writings. I reject as without foundation the suggestion that someone else is responsible for the balance of he graffiti. There is no evidence on which I could infer that anyone else is responsible for the graffiti.
Criminal Harassment – the Law
[49]
Criminal Harassment – The Law
Count number five against Mr. Bradford is Criminal Harassment under s. 264. That provision reads:
264(1) Criminal harassment
No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
264(2) Prohibited conduct
The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
50There is no evidence of watching or besetting as described in 264(2) (a) and (c). This case is about emails and graffiti, which engages ss 264(2) (a) and possibly (d). The test for Criminal Harassment is long settled. Goudge JA spelled it out in R. v. Kosikar (1999), 124 O.A.C. 289 (CA):
It must be established that the accused has engaged in the conduct set out in s.264(2)(a), (b), (c), or (d) of the Criminal Code.
It must be established that the complainant was harassed;
It must be established that the accused who engaged in such conduct knew that the complainant was harassed or was reckless or wilfully blind as to whether the complainant was harassed;
It must be established that the conduct caused the complainant to fear for her safety or the safety of anyone known to her; and
It must be established that the complainant's fear was, in all of the circumstances, reasonable.
Kosikar as been followed since. See R v. Kordrostami (2000), 47 O.R. (3d) 788 (C.A.), R. v. Orton 2019 ONCA 334 at par. 126, R. v Ymker 2026 ONCA 197 at par 18.
51As regards the communication requirement in s. 264(2) (b), I am guided by the Court of Appeal’s ruling in R. v. Legere (1995), 95 C.C.C. (3d) 556. That case was about communication as a prohibited term of bail. The Court considered that word in that case drawing on other examples of the word communication in the Criminal Code, such as the wiretap provisions. As Laskin JA found, communicating can occur by acts or gestures or words:
28 Even if the mutuality implicit in an exchange of information is not always required (see R. v. Davie(1980), 1980 323 (BC CA), 54 C.C.C. (2d) 216 (B.C.C.A.)) communicating at least connotes an imparting of information from one to another. In R. v. Goldman(1980), 1979 60 (SCC), 51 C.C.C. (2d) 1 (S.C.C.), another case on the interception of private communications, McIntyre J. wrote at p. 16: "[a] communication involves the passing of thoughts, ideas, words or information from one person to another."
52I find that in law that broad definition of communication applies to this case. The Facebook posts of April 11, 2024 (Exh. 8 A/B/C) are all forms of communication in the period March 9 2024 to April 11, 2024. Given that the image in 8B is of the spray pointed boards in front of Greg Bradford’s house and that the FaceBook poster is “Greg Bradford” I have no difficult finding that it was the defendant who made those FaceBook posts. The content of the April 11, 2024 FaceBook post mirrors many of the themes found in the graffiti, and in particular the Smiths Falls High School graffiti, including the ideas that Mr. Bradford was an innocent man framed by the police, and that there is a feminist narrative behind this. Mr. Bradford put FaceBook posts into evidence himself from January and July of 2022. The July 31 post directly responds to Jodi Empey in accusatory and misogynist language. As he admits to telling Jodi Empey “…thank you and your department for driving innocent men to suicide attempts when they come to you for help as victims of domestic abuse and textbook coercive control. Jodi Empey, First Female Depute Chief of Police: A win for feminism, a loss for innocent men everywhere.” The email of March 29, 2024 (Exh 2) is communication. The graffiti in evidence in this trial is communication for purposes of s. 264. The graffiti is a message from the writer to the public of a particularized theme. It advocates a position, even if it may not be susceptible to a response. There is no dialogue in the graffiti in this case but it clearly imparts information from one, namely Greg Bradford, to others, namely the people of Smiths Falls as they travel about town.
53Cast against that I am prepared to make the following findings on Count 5:
i) Mr. Bradford sent an email to SFPS on March 29, 2024 at around 11:13 am. It is a generalized complaint about being the victim of an injustice. The email it is extremely angry in tone. At the end of the email he includes Jodi Empey in his list of “Evil Feminist Cunts” connect with the injustice. The phraseology at that point in my finding is menacing. That email is some two years after his face book posts referred to above. The graffiti as I have found was posted by Mr. Bradford in the town of Smiths Falls in April of 2024. At that time there is no dispute that Mr. Bradford knew Jodi Empey’s role in the community. She was chief of police. The graffiti was therefore communication directed at Jodi Empey. I find that the emails, and graffiti were, collectively, a tool of intimidation, see R v. Burns 2008 ONCA 6 at par. 2. S. 264 (2) (b) is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.
ii) Mr. Bradford knew that his communication harassed Jodi Empey. His escalation of communication furnishes an inference that he kept ratcheting up the tone and volume of communication, from face book posts to emails to graffiti in the very community Jodi Empey lived and worked. There was nothing innocuous about this. The conduct was a concerted campaign to harass or instill fear in Jodi Empey. The fault element is easily established.
iii) Jodi Empey testified to being harassed. Her evidence was not seriously challenged, and I accept it as credible. There were no internal or external inconsistencies. She testified that:
But I was absolutely scared. I, I’m a police officer in a small town. I’m a chief. I’m well known. It’s not hard to find me, if you need to. I had to take extra precautions in my home security-wise. I had to make sure my family was aware. I had to make sure my staff was aware of what Mr. Bradford looked like. I had to take security precautions at our workplace as well.
The elements of Criminal Harassment from Kosikar # 2, and # 4 namely harassment and a subjective fear for her safety are found beyond a reasonable doubt.
iv) As regards the last element of the test, I find that Jodi Empey’s fear was in the circumstances reasonable. Mr. Bradford was known to her as someone who set himself on fire because of his involvement in the criminal process. Mr. Bradford does not deny this. Anyone in Jodi Empey’s position would have appreciated Mr. Bradford’s history of self-harm. His FaceBook posts, emails and graffiti were an escalating pattern of intimidation of Jodi Empey. What began as face book posts turned into emails and then open communication to the entire community on the buildings in Smiths Falls. The graffiti was highly personalized and demeaning. Mr. Bradford complained about injustices which he perceived had been visited on him. The communication identified gender as an element of the injustice. Moreover there is a brazenness insofar as Mr. Bradford’s position as the complainant was quite clear in the graffiti. He was open in his graffiti at the Smiths Falls High School that he was the author. He was not hiding. Mr. Bradford’s history of self harm, and escalating conduct provide cogent evidence on which I find that Jodi Empey’s fear of Mr. Bradford was reasonable in the circumstances.
In making this finding I am cognizant that justice system participants are expected to have a thick skin. In agree with Mew J. in that regard, see R. v. Hasan 2023 ONSC 5869 at par. 98. On the evidence before me Mr. Bradford went well beyond legitimate complaints and grievances about his case or the criminal justice system as a whole. In this case Mr. Bradford was acquitted in the trial which forms the complaint in his communication. His emails and graffiti were therefore crafted after he prevailed as an innocent man in the trial where Ms. Spannbauer was the complainant. His complaint about an injustice as an acquitted person must be taken into account as an inculpatory factor in the criminal harassment charge. It supports an inference that Mr. Bradford’s issue with Jodi Empey was personal and unconnected with any genuine injustice.
54I therefore find that the Crown has satisfied each element of the offence in Count 5. Mr. Bradford is guilty of that charge.
Uttering threats
[55]
Uttering Threats
There is no dispute about the test for Uttering Threats under s. 264.1 of the Code. The conduct element of the offence is that the accused uttered threats of death or serious bodily harm. The fault element requires the Crown to prove to the criminal standard that the words spoken were meant to intimidate or be taken seriously. The trier of fact must consider the words objectively in light of all the circumstances, the manner in which they were spoken, and the person to whom they were addressed. The intended victim need not be aware of the threat, see R. v. Clemente, [1994] 91 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) per Cory J.. R. v. Bresnark 2013 ONCA 320.
56In this case the threat is said to be words uttered by Gregory Bradford to his mother Deborah in the days leading up to the execution of the police search warrant at his house on April 18, 2024. The recipient of the threat was only Deborah Bradford. In her evidence the target of the threat was Jodi Empey and Ian McLoy. On the evidence before me that was a single utterance by Greg Bradford to Deborah Bradford. If the utterance was that he was going to kill or harm Jodi Empey and Ian McLoy then in light of the circumstances of this case the threat would be made out. His animus toward both persons is abundant in the evidence.
57I have considered the evidence of the threat at length, and admit that I cannot make my mind up about the cogency of it. What gives me pause is the lack of confidence in Deborah Bradford about what her son Gregory said. That is a pivotal issue. In my finding the following exchange between Deborah Bradford (DB) and Megan Hendershott (MH) is the conduct element of the Uttering Threats charge at its strongest:
DB: I know he's he's made some statements that that if it ever came down to it if if things didn't change that he might proceed to do something worse like hurt somebody or whatever so
MH: what would his words be though in that context rather than
DB: kill I don't know whether that's just frustration or whether that's an actual thing that he would follow through on and he's been pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed to the point of I don't know what his mental state is
58Later on, Ms. Bradford said that those utterances by Mr. Bradford were against Jodi Empey and Ian McCloy. It took the Crown some effort in Court to get Ms. Bradford to adopt that as something that she even said. Leave to cross-examine her on the statement under s. 9(2) of the Evidence Act was required. Her reluctance to adopt it was clear, although she did in the end. She was unclear if this statement by her son was just frustration or an actual thing. In her statement to Det. Hendershott Ms. Bradford said “I don’t know” twice within the same exchange about wanting to kill. This case is very close, but on reflection I have a lingering concern about the cogency of the evidence. I have a doubt about whether Mr. Bradford actually said he would kill Jodi Empey and Ian McLoy and if he did whether he intended it to be taken seriously, or whether it was mere frustration. Was it actual or not? Ms. Bradford’s evidence about her son Gregory’s mental state was equivocal. This weakens the evidence on the fault element. The Crown evidence does not pass the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt on this point. I am therefore bound to acquit on Counts 6 and 7.
[59]
Conclusion
In the result Mr. Bradford is convicted of Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and acquitted of the balance of the Counts.
Released: May 7, 2026
Signed: Justice Rose