Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-24-50 Date: 2025-09-10 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King – and – Bradley Britton

Counsel: Ms. K. Frew, for the Crown Mr. L. Adler, for Mr. Britton

Heard: June 19, 2025

Reasons for Sentence

Conlan J.

I. The Circumstances of the Offences

[1] Bradley Britton ("Britton") has pleaded guilty to and been found guilty and convicted of two historical offences.

[2] First, on or about May 23, 1987, at Toronto, Ontario, he committed a sexual assault on N.G., while using a weapon – a knife, contrary to section 246.2(a) of the Criminal Code.

[3] Second, some six years later, on or about February 7, 1993, at Oakville, Ontario, he committed a sexual assault on A.N., contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The Toronto Matter (1987)

[4] With regard to the Toronto matter, the victim, N.G., was a 28-year-old married mother of three children. The family was asleep in their apartment on Jane Street. The couple's 1-year-old daughter was sleeping in the bed beside the victim. The husband and the couple's two older daughters, 5 and 9 years old, were asleep in the adjacent room.

[5] Between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m., N.G. awoke to find Britton, a complete stranger, in the bedroom. Britton put his hand over her mouth and told her to be quiet so that he would not hurt her. He removed a long kitchen knife from his jacket. He placed the tip of the knife to her neck.

[6] Britton then put the knife on the pillow beside the victim's head. He removed her underwear and her tank top. He covered her eyes with the tank top. He lifted her bra, kissed her breast, and placed his hands on her genitals. He then got on top of her and penetrated her vagina with his penis. He told her to say that the sex was better than with her husband, and she complied in saying that because of her stark fear. He kissed her mouth and her chest. He told her that he wanted her to have an orgasm. Afraid that he would hurt her, she pretended to have an orgasm.

[7] Before he left, Britton told N.G. not to tell anyone. He warned her that he knew who she was and where she lived.

[8] N.G. told police that she was afraid of dying during the attack. Police located pry marks on the front door to the apartment.

[9] Britton was 24 years old when he sexually assaulted N.G. The police conducted a lengthy investigation, however, no suspect could be identified. In 2003, DNA from N.G.'s sexual assault kit linked the suspect to an unsolved sexual assault case that occurred in Oakville in 1993.

The Oakville Matter (1993)

[10] With regard to the Oakville matter, the victim, A.N., was a 20-year-old young lady of very petite stature, standing less than 5 feet tall. At about 4:30 p.m., she was walking back home from a movie rental store. She heard someone running up quickly behind her. Britton grabbed the victim around her neck and told her to do what he said so that she would not get hurt. He pushed her into an alcove under the highway and up against a wall. He had his hand over her mouth and nose.

[11] Britton told the victim that he would kill her if she did not comply with his demands. From behind the victim, Britton pulled down her jeans. He then pulled down her tights underneath her jeans, and he also pulled down her underwear. He touched her breast, placing his hand underneath her bra. He touched her vaginal area. The victim was crying and told Britton many times that she did not want to have sex with him. She also told Britton that she was wearing a tampon. Britton forced her to bend forward, and he reached between her legs to pull out the tampon. The police later located the tampon that Britton had discarded on the ground.

[12] Britton undid his pants and masturbated himself. He then penetrated the victim's vagina with his penis. He placed both of his hands around her neck.

[13] When he was finished with her, Britton told the victim to count to 20 before she moved. He told her not to tell anyone and that he would be watching her. He then left the area.

[14] A.N. was able to flag down a passing car to get help.

[15] Police determined that Britton had been hiding behind a gravestone and watching the walking path that had been used by the victim. He had run out from behind the gravestone to attack A.N.

Investigation and Arrest

[16] Through an exhaustive, a dogged, a determined police investigation by both Toronto and Halton authorities, and with the assistance of an expert genealogy laboratory in Texas, finally, in 2023, some 30 years after the second attack, Britton was identified as the suspect in both of these vicious sexual assaults against N.G. and A.N. He was arrested in July 2023.

[17] Unfortunately, N.G. is now deceased. Frankly, the victim impact statement written by her daughters is heart-wrenching. After that night in May 1987, N.G. was never the same person again. Not physically. Not mentally. Not in any way.

II. The Circumstances of the Offender

[18] Britton has an extensive criminal record but nothing since August 1989. Between 1981 and 1989, he was convicted of 16 offences, though none of them was a sexual assault, an assault, or a weapons offence.

[19] In his written apology letter and in his allocution before this Court, Britton has taken full responsibility for having committed these crimes against N.G. and A.N. He has expressed remorse for what he did.

[20] This Court has the benefit of a thorough presentence report and extensive materials filed by the defence.

[21] Britton is now 62 years of age. He is divorced. His relationship with his family has been dysfunctional from an early age. His parents are now deceased. He has no relationship with his siblings. His only strong familial bond is with his son.

[22] Britton was exposed to family violence, substance abuse, and physical, psychological and sexual abuse during his childhood.

[23] The offender has a lengthy history of drug and alcohol addiction. The admitted facts of these two offences, and Britton's comments to the author of the presentence report that he does not recall the offences or much of his life around the time that they were committed, provide some support for the notion that alcohol and/or drugs were a factor in the commission of these sexual assaults.

[24] Britton's employment history has been quite solid since 1996 and has been in the tow truck industry. He completed his grade 12 education.

[25] Britton has several chronic medical problems including major depressive disorder, carpel tunnel syndrome, a meniscal tear in his right knee, bilateral inguinal hernias, and multilevel cervical spine degenerative changes and disc bulges with narrowing of the spinal canal and impingement of the right lateral recess. He suffers from chronic pain.

[26] Numerous reference letters filed by the defence serve to demonstrate that Britton is seen by many as a good friend, a helpful volunteer, and a very good worker. This Court also accepts, unreservedly, that Britton has been a dedicated, supportive, and loving father to the child that was the subject of the family court proceedings between Britton and his former spouse, which court proceedings involved the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

[27] Britton and his son have a special bond, and it is the legacy of his son that Britton should be most proud of, in my view.

[28] Britton has not told his son about the offences before this Court. He remains in regular contact with his son, who lived with Britton before going out on his own. Britton currently lives by himself and is not working because of his chronic pain.

[29] Britton was assessed in 2024 by Dr. Julian Gojer, psychiatrist. Dr. Gojer's report confirms that Britton has a history of complex trauma and drug and alcohol problems, although the substance abuse has not been an issue over the last 10 years or so. Britton has not consumed any alcohol or used any illicit drugs for many years now.

[30] Dr. Gojer is of the view that Britton no longer has a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and cannot be diagnosed presently as a sexual deviant. He presents as a low risk to reoffend but still should receive sex offender treatment, in the opinion of Dr. Gojer, which treatment Britton is agreeable to receiving.

III. The Sentencing Positions of the Crown and the Defence, the Court's Imposition of Ancillary Orders, and the Paramount Principles of Sentencing for this Offender, on these Facts

[31] In my view, the paramount principles of sentencing that are applicable here are denunciation and deterrence, mainly general deterrence.

[32] Rehabilitation of the offender is also an important sentencing principle. Britton has not run afoul of the law for more than 30 years now. He has taken some small steps to address his past trauma, and I agree with Dr. Gojer that he requires further professional treatment.

[33] This Court waives the imposition of the victim fine surcharges in light of the overall disposition of the case.

Crown's Position

[34] The Crown requests the following:

(i) primary DNA order - on consent of the defence and hereby issued by this Court;

(ii) section 109 Criminal Code firearms and weapons prohibition order – on consent of the defence and hereby issued by this Court, for 10 years and life as per the two subsections;

(iii) section 743.21(1) Criminal Code order with regard to A.N. and named members of N.G.'s family – on consent of the defence and hereby issued by this Court (the Crown shall provide the names to the Registrar);

(iv) a Sex Offender Information Registration Act ("SOIRA") order for life – this is opposed by the defence; and

(v) 10 years' imprisonment (the Crown suggested 7 years for the sexual assault committed against N.G. and 5 years, consecutive, for the sexual assault committed against A.N., however, to respect the totality principle the Crown recommended reducing the total sentence from 12 to 10 years in custody).

Defence Position

[35] The defence recommends a conditional sentence order of 2 years less 1 day in length, to be followed by probation for up to 3 years.

SOIRA Order

[36] With regard to the SOIRA order, this Court imposes that order but for a period of 20 years (not life). Given the evidence of Dr. Gojer and what has transpired over the last 30 plus years, I am not satisfied that, today, Britton "presents an increased risk of reoffending by committing a crime of a sexual nature" and, thus, under section 490.013(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, although the two offences committed by Britton showed a "pattern of behaviour" on his part, a lifetime SOIRA order is not currently appropriate.

[37] There remains a low risk to reoffend, however, and the defence position that there ought to be no SOIRA order imposed is, in my respectful view, unreasonable.

IV. What is a Fit Sentence for Britton?

Legal Parameters

[38] In terms of the legal parameters, Britton is not facing any mandatory minimum sentence. The maximum sentence for the offence committed against N.G. is 14 years' imprisonment, and the maximum sentence for the offence committed against A.N. is 10 years' imprisonment.

[39] As these two offences were committed some six years apart, against different victims, in different cities, and in different circumstances, consecutive sentences are appropriate, keeping in mind the totality principle.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[40] The major mitigating factors here are the guilty pleas, the rehabilitative steps that Britton has taken to date, Britton's genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility for what he did, and Britton's generally productive life over the last 30 plus years.

[41] Aggravating factors include the criminal history of Britton that pre-dated these attacks and the shocking, horrific facts of the two assaults. Britton vaginally penetrated two complete strangers, one who was sleeping in the sanctity of her own home and with her infant beside her in the bed and the other who was simply walking back home from the movie store. Britton used violence against these women. He threatened them. He disrespected, demeaned, humiliated, and violated them in ways that are difficult to understand.

[42] We do not use the term "stark horror" anymore, and for good reason as the Supreme Court of Canada observed many years ago that those types of terms add nothing to the delicate sentencing process. I will simply say that these facts are some of the most heinous and frightening that I have ever encountered as a judge. In terms of overall seriousness, these sexual assaults, and particularly that committed against N.G., fall at the high end of the spectrum.

Sentencing Ranges and Principles

[43] The appellate authorities, including but not limited to the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, 415 C.C.C. (3d) 230, would suggest that each of these sexual assaults would normally attract a sentence of at least 3 years in the penitentiary.

[44] It is true that sentencing ranges are primarily guidelines and not hard and fast rules that can never be departed from, and it is also the case that a conditional sentence order is capable of achieving meaningful denunciation and both punitive and restorative objectives. R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at paragraphs 58-60; R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, at paragraph 44; R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, at paragraphs 82, 98-100, and 105.

[45] Sentencing is a highly individualized process. It is a delicate balancing of the various sentencing principles and objectives called for, always with the view to crafting a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Accordingly, there will be cases where the specific facts call for a sentence that falls outside of the normal sentencing range. R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 496, at paragraph 4.

[46] In fact, the defence has ably filed examples of those types of cases, including R. v. Ifill, 2024 ONCJ 556, where the Court imposed a sentence of 16 months in jail and 2 years of probation on a conviction for sexual assault, and His Majesty The King v. Oscar Paez-Neira, an unreported decision of Justice Epstein of the Ontario Court of Justice, May 31, 2023, where the offender was given a conditional sentence order and probation on a conviction for sexual assault.

The Court's Decision on Conditional Sentence

[47] In our case, however, notwithstanding the mitigating factors that exist, I am of the view that a conditional sentence order would not be a fit disposition.

[48] First, I cannot see that a total sentence of less than 2 years in custody would be suitable. Second, I cannot see that a conditional sentence order would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code. For both of those reasons, the test under section 742.1(a) of the Criminal Code has not been met.

[49] The gravity of these two offences is very significant. The degree of responsibility of this offender, Britton, is very high.

[50] Notwithstanding Mr. Adler's able submissions, and notwithstanding the passage of time and all of the extensive materials filed by the defence, I am of the opinion that a significant penitentiary sentence is the only reasonable disposition in this case.

The Sentence

[51] The sentence of the Court is as follows. On the conviction involving N.G., Britton is sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. On the conviction involving A.N., Britton is sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment, consecutive. The global sentence is, therefore, 8 years' imprisonment.

[52] I have deliberately tempered the sentence on each of the two convictions so as to respect the totality principle and so that the mitigating factors are properly accounted for. For example, 5 years in custody for breaking into the home of and sexually assaulting, with full vaginal penetration, a random woman in her bed, at knife point, is relatively low.

[53] Overall, though, I am satisfied that the global sentence imposed is a fit one.

[54] I would like to sincerely thank Crown counsel, Ms. Frew, and defence counsel, Mr. Adler, for their very able assistance in this rather unique and difficult sentencing case.

Conlan J.

Released: September 10, 2025