ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
GREGORY BRADFORD
Before Justice David Rose
Heard on July 28, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on July 28, 2026
Mr. Ventola, Mr. Labelle counsel for the Crown
The defendant Gregory Bradford.......................................................... on his own behalf
D. Howard............................................................................................................. amicus curiae
1On May 7, 2026 Mr. Bradford was found guilty after a 7 day trial of the following:
-Criminal Harassment of Jodi Empey; and
-Mischief to Property x4
The findings at trial
2Reasons for Judgement are found at R. v. Bradford 2026 ONCJ 260. To summarize them, Jodi Empey has been the Chief of Smiths Falls Police Service (SFPS) since 2024, but she had limited dealings with Mr. Bradford other than these charges. In January of 2022 Mr. Bradford was arrested on domestic assault charges and she had incidental contact with him to assist with processing him post-arrest. She played no part in the investigation of him, nor in his trial on those charges. Ultimately Mr. Bradford was acquitted of those charges after a trial in Ottawa.
3Ms. Empey started to received messages from Mr. Bradford on social media. He made comments about her family in October of 2022, specifically her son. That was in response to a standard police social media posting about community safety. Mr. Bradford took the generality of that post and responded in a highly personal way to Ms. Empey. There was another post on social media in that time frame, in which Mr. Bradford described then Deputy Chief Empey as “morally repugnant”.
4After Mr. Bradford’s first trial he became obsessed with having his ex-partner, who was the complainant in his trial, charged with domestic violence. He also developed a complaint about abuse of his children while they were in her custody. The trial before me heard evidence that the police chose not to lay any charges from Mr. Bradford’s complaint. The Crown Attorney met with him to explain why. He was unsatisfied with that. On January 11, 2024 Mr. Bradford sent an email seeking information about his now completed criminal case:
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
5By March of 2024 Mr. Bradford started sending emails to SFPS. He made no effort to hide his identity. One, which was put into evidence at trial was:
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
6On its own that email was taken as a rant, which did not incur any police re-action. However, in the weeks that followed that email Mr. Bradford started spray painting his complaints about Ms. Empey and SFPS all over the town of Smiths Falls.
7The graffiti painted in Smiths Falls in April of 2024 was highly personalized against Ms. Empey, misogynist in nature, and voiced a conspiracy theory that Mr. Bradford had been framed:
-Innocence is worthless Jodi Empey knowingly frames men
-Jodi Empey frames us Law is worthless cops are scum.
-Feminist Cops frame innocent men on behalf of abusive women!
-#Jail for Jodi
-SFPD frames people
-Jodi Empey Frames Innocent Men
-Jodi Empey Framed Greg Bradford
-Jodi Empey Frames Men!!! Fuck Corruption ACAB
-Innocence is worthless When they Frame Us Jodi Empey frames men
-Empey (indecipherable) Frame Innocent Men
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
Feminists oppose justice !
-Innocence is meaningless
-The cops are corrupt
-Corrupt Cops Frame People
-SFPD is corrupt
-What’s the point if you’re charged (indecipherable) Feminist Police Frame Fathers to Assist Abusive Wives
8The facts found on the Criminal Harassment therefore commence with Mr. Bradford posting personal messages on Facebook about Ms. Empey’s family, progressing to emails and then ending with his graffiti. There is a clear escalation commencing with social media and ending with public defacement of property by graffiti directed at Ms. Empey. He bears a high degree of responsibility for each of the offences.
The Pre-Sentence Report (PSR)
9A PSR was prepared for Mr. Bradford. It is one of the worst I have seen as a judge .Mr. Bradford is now 28 years old and has no criminal record. He has a Grade 12 education and a spotty employment history. He has worked in retail, food service, waste collection, deck and fence construction and factory work. He “…no longer wished to pay taxes to what he described as “a system that hates him”. He was last employed four years ago. It was troubling to read that Mr. Bradford “…has no intention on doing anything beneficial for society at this point in time, does not want to work or do anything positive, no desire as he has grown to really hate this country.”
10He is now separated from his wife and has two children. Although seen by many as having a bright mind, he chose not to pursue any further education because the “…education system is discriminatory toward himself and his peers as white males”. His relationship with his wife came up in the trial and was a source of grievance with SFPS. Mr. Bradford has experienced suicidal ideations, and set himself on fire when he was arrested for his first set of charges in early 2022.
11Mr. Bradford joined the Proud Boys in 2017 and remained a member until that organization was designated a terrorist entity by the Government of Canada in 2021. Proud Boys embrace a white supremacist and antisemitic ideology. They planned and conducted violent activities against those they perceive as being opposed to their ideology and political beliefs. Mr. Bradford however sees the Proud Boys as a positive influence on the world. Mr. Bradford still maintains friendship with others from the group. He still has a Proud Boys tattoo on his forearm, and has no intention of removing it. Mr. Bradford told the PSR writer that he is not a white supremacist, nor is he anti-gay. But he does embrace an antisemitic conspiracy theory, saying that:
there is a “clear connection between the individuals f*cking him over and Zionism” and reported that he now has a “severe hatred of Jews.”
12It is unclear whether Mr. Bradford is merely ambivalent toward the Proud Boys or whether he continues to embrace its beliefs and values. He is uncertain whether he will re-start the group and establish a new one with similar interests. It turns out that incarceration provides a fertile recruiting ground. This is also quite troubling. Again quoting from the PSR:
…he does not care about breaches or going back to jail. He stated that, while in jail, he could “do recruitment, similar to the IRA, as there is an endless stream of young men.” The subject indicated that “all I think about is vengeance” and further stated that he “does not know what this looks like but know I want it.”
13Mr. Bradford’s hatred toward the government and its institutions is extreme. Again, quoting from the PSR:
The subject expressed grievances regarding the tax system, stating that there is “no war but the class war,” and alleged that the government “want[s] us all fighting each other, so we do not pay attention that we are all tax slaves.” He reported that he attempts to remind people of the historical reasons for the American Revolution and expressed the view that taxes are oppressive. The subject expressed hatred towards multiple institutions, such as education, the government, and police. Stating he, “hates Cops due to the corruption in the system” and stated that, “in a country where we have a functional justice system, he would be a Cop.”
14Mr. Bradford filed documentation with the Court which purported to show his complaint about his children being abused. The documentation is from January of 2025, some 9 months after the charges before the Court. To state the obvious, this is not a child abuse case. Mr. Bradford’s concern for the welfare of his children in no way excuses what happened here. With all of that said, the documents provide no support for the allegations of child abuse. The physician’s letter filed with the Court discloses no child abuse. Dr. Wu wrote on January 20, 2025 of Mr. Bradford’s son Wyatt “No signs of abuse or neglect”. Of his daughter Daisy he wrote on January 22, 2025 “ I am the physician following the kids and has never seen any signs of abuse or neglect”. Mr. Bradford therefore filed evidence which completely contradicts his claim that his children are abused or neglected. Despite this he spent some time in submissions outlining the child abuse which is behind his motivations.
15Mr. Bradford therefore comes before the Court with hardened anti-social beliefs and an apparent intention to make good on them in his own name and in the name of extremism. He is one of the most anti-social offenders to appear in my Court. For this reason he poses an extremely high risk to re-offend. This is striking considering that he has no prior criminal record. In Court he made submissions that Proud Boys was a benevolent organization and that he left them before they were designated a terrorist organization. In submissions he attempted to distance himself of the incendiary comments he made to the PSR writer. I am unconvinced.
16I would find that his prospects for rehabilitation are minimal to non-existent in his current state. He describes psychologists generally as “they are all liberals” and that he “f*cking hates them”. I recognize that there is a paradox to this because Mr. Bradford has attempted suicide in the past, yet rejects mental health professionals as profoundly unhelpful and distasteful.
17His engrained, toxic, and anti-social beliefs are an aggravating factor on this sentence. There is a clear and palpable connection between his ideological extremism and the offences before the Court. Moreover, when Mr. Bradford appeared in Court he regularly displayed disrespect for the process swearing at the Crown and the Court.
18It is therefore aggravating that Mr. Bradford chose to mark his grievances with SFPS with some permanence. He was acquitted of the first set of charges in 2021 where Jodi Empey helped process his arrest and yet that entire process – including his acquittal after trial – amounts to a “framing”. To say that an acquittal is a “framing” is so bizarre that I can only conclude that Mr. Bradford has convinced himself of the validity of something that makes little to no sense. Moreover, to espouse the meaningless of innocence after having taken the benefit of the presumption of innocence in every sense of the word is just bizarre. Part of his grievance with SFPS was that his ex-wife was never charged with assault herself, but he quickly contradicted himself in testimony at trial by saying that he didn’t want her charged.
19From this I conclude that Mr. Bradford has taken it upon himself to lash out at any authority figure who dares to scrutinize the lawfulness of his activity or disagree with him. I saw this myself during the course of the trial when he made no attempt to hide his disrespect for the Court and some of its participants. There is a tinge of conspiracy theory in his rants.
20The entire Smiths Falls Police Service is apparently out to get him. Worse still feminists are opposed to justice. Mr. Bradford chose to foist all of these bizarre ramblings on the people of Smiths Falls. The property owners who had to clean up his mess had no say in the matter. The people of Smiths Falls who merely wanted to go about their daily lives as they chose were forced to see his ramblings as part of their new visual environment. In short, Mr. Bradford felt sufficiently entitled that he felt he could push his ramblings on everyone whether they liked it or not.
21It is an aggravating factor that Mr. Bradford chose to single out Ms. Empey and tie her to men being subjected to injustice. The gender specific aspect of Mr. Bradford’s offending is clear. His graffiti lashes out against feminism, as does the March 2024 email. They assert that women police officers express an unjust bias against men for eg “your Feminist Police Department values Females over Facts”. I therefore find that the offences were motivated by gender per s. 718.2 (a) (i). This is a statutory aggravating factor. It is a statutory aggravating factor that Jodi Empey is a peace officer and the Criminal Harassment and Mischief charges targeted her in that capacity, see 718.02.
22This is also aggravating because it is an attempt to erode confidence in public institutions like police services, and officers working day to day in the community – all for no apparent reason. There is therefore a very public harm to Mr. Bradford’s criminal activity. I recognize that police officers, like other public servants must have a thick skin. Facing public criticism is part of the job, but this went well beyond public criticism. Mr. Bradford criminally harassed Chief Empey by calling her authority into question. He painted his grievances all over Smiths Falls. Furthermore, I find that Mr. Bradford’s grievances flow from his inability to accept that police officers, in conjunction with the Crown Attorney, decide who to charge and what the charges are. Mr. Bradford would not accept that, and sought through his emails, and graffiti to influence that decision making process through intimidation. This calls out for a denunciatory and deterrent sentence, see R v. Agalou [2001] B.C.J. No. 1613 at par 15.
23It would be all too easy to dismiss all of this as immature acting out, but I would not. Mr. Bradford is now 28 years old. He is no longer youthful.
22Mr. Bradford has been in custody since February 1, 2026 when his surety revoked the bail. He has 179 plus 35 days of Pre-Sentence Custody, from when he was first arrested before he was released to bail. He has been in custody for 215 days which credited as 321 days, at the statutory rate of 1.5:1 and given 321 days of Pre-Sentence Credit. Given his interest in using his custody to recruit members to his cause I would not assign any enhanced weight to his pre-trial confinement conditions, per R. v. Downes (2006), 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), 79 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.).
23The Crown is not filing victim input, but at trial Ms. Empey gave evidence about her concern for her safety and her family. Her son was a student at the school which was graffitied by Mr. Bradford.
24The Crown seeks a sentence of 9 – 12 months less Pre-Sentence Custody. Amicus asks for a sentence of time served. Mr. Bradford asks for a 6 month sentence of pre-sentence custody.
25I have considered whether the Crown sentence is too low. In my finding at mid-reformatory term of imprisonment is appropriate, even with his lack of criminal antecedents. I would have thought that a 15 month sentence was appropriate but the Crown asks me to cap the sentence at 12 months. I have considered whether it is appropriate to increase the sentence to 15 months.
26Mr. Howard provided two sentencing decisions. In Rex. v. Ymker 2026 ONCA 197 the appellant received a 2 year sentence for criminal harassment of an Ottawa Police Officer. Amicus offers Ymker as at the upper end of the range. There was no discussion about the appropriateness of the sentence. In Reg v. Hoang 2002 BCPC 593, 2002 BCPC 0593 the offender received a sentenced of 3 months jail for criminally harassing a police officer. Justice Doherty observed that the range of sentence was 3 – 6 months and the defendant’s mental health challenges brought the appropriate sentence to the low end of the range.
27The Crown offered R. v. Hasan 2023 ONSC 5869 where apparently a 15 month sentence was imposed. In Ymker 2026 ONCA 197 a 2 year sentence was imposed for criminal harassment of a justice system participant, namely a police offender.
28Having reflected I find that a 1 year sentence is appropriate. Had the Crown asked for a lengthier sentence I would have very seriously considered it. From that sentence his 321 days of Pre-Sentence Custody will be deducted, leaving a remaining sentence of 44 days. That will be concurrent on all charges.
Ancillary Orders
29DNA this is a secondary designated offence. It is clearly in the best interest of the administration of justice that a DNA Databanking Order should issue. There will be a 3 year weapons prohibition under s. 110. There will be a 743.21 Order prohibiting Mr. Bradford from communication with Jodi Empey or her family while in custody.
30When Mr. Bradford is released from custody he will be on Probation for 3 years. The terms will be:
-Report in person to a probation officer within 48 hours of your release, and after that, at all times and places as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by a probation officer to assist in your supervision. For the first 6 months of your probation you will report in person to a Probation office at least once per week;
-Live at a place approved of by the Probation Officer and not change that address without obtaining the consent of the Probation Officer in advance;
-Do not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means with: Jody Empey, or any member of her immediate family:
-Do not participate in social media, including Face Book for the first year;
-Do not be within 100 meters of any place where you know any of the person(s) named above to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place you know the person(s) to be:
-Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer.
-Sign any consent forms required by the Probation Officer in order that they may monitor your attendance and/or progress at any such assessment or treatment program.
-Do not possess any weapon(s) as defined by the criminal code (for example, a bb gun, pellet gun, firearm, imitation firearm, cross-bow, prohibited or restricted weapon or device, ammunition or explosive substance or anything designed to be used or intended for use to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person)
-Do not possess any spray paint cans
-Do not contact or communicate in any way, by any physical, electronic or other means, or be in the company of any police officer in the Province of Ontario.
EXCEPT
- for the purpose of reporting an emergency, or responding to a request for information;
-Do not be within 50 metres of any police detachment in the Province of Ontario EXCEPT
You are attending there for the purpose of reporting an emergency and only if that cannot be done by calling 911
A police officer has asked you to attend a police detachment or station
for required court attendances
-for the first year of your probation obey a curfew of 9pm – 6 am.
-No weapons
31Given Mr. Bradford’s interest in recruiting others to his cause while in custody I would take the extraordinary step of affixing a copy of these Reasons for Sentence to his warrant of committal, and also send them to the Deputy Solicitor General for Ontario. I find that the custodial authorities must be aware of Mr. Bradford’s stated intentions.
32Given the result of this, and Mr. Bradford’s impecuniosity, and lack of interest in gainful employment I waive the victim find surcharge.
33Lastly, Mr. Ventola and Mr. Howard must be commended for their help in completing this difficult case.
Released: July 28, 2026
Signed: Justice Rose