Judge orders SIRT to hand over file on Cape Breton police officer who stole sign

A judge has ordered the province’s independent police watchdog to hand over its investigative file on a Cape Breton police officer who stole a sign from a home during a search.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Shane Russell recently ruled that John Reynolds and Ryan Reynolds have met “likely relevance” requirement in their third-party disclosure application to have the Serious Incident Response Team (SIRT) disclose records related to Const. Shane Oldford.

However, he determined they had satisfied the first stage of their subsequent O’Connor application, a two-stage legal process used to balance the right to a fair defence against third-party privacy concerns.

The Reynolds, who are father and son, were arrested on Aug. 4, 2022, after Cape Breton Regional Police pulled over their vehicle and conducted a warrantless search. Officers allegedly seized several packages of cocaine totalling 24.5 grams, 69 hydromorphone pills, $2,500 in cash, and drug paraphernalia.

Their trial, which was originally slated for January 2026, was delayed after the Crown learned that Oldford, who was the exhibit officer and was expected to testify, was being investigated by SIRT for stealing property from the scene of an unrelated investigation.

About three years after John Reynolds and Ryan Reynolds were charged, Oldford took a small sign from a home while Cape Breton Regional Police were executing a search warrant as part of a separate and unrelated investigation.

Video footage showed an officer taking the sign, which was later found in the officer’s office.

SIRT director Erin Nauss, who noted in her report that police officer’s conduct warranted a charge for theft under the Criminal Code, referred the case to the Nova Scotia Restorative Justice Program.

The four-page SIRT report dated March 10, 2026, which does not name Oldford, was provided to the federal Crown and then disclosed to both accused in April 2026.

It was the same report that was made publicly available.

When the defence counsel requested a copy of SIRT’s complete investigative file, the Crown responded that SIRT had twice denied their own requests for the full records.

In their O’Connor application, the Reynolds argued that the SIRT file is necessary to ensure a fair trial because Oldford’s criminal misconduct is directly relevant to his credibility as a key police witness who as the exhibit officer took custody of the substances seized during the investigation, maintained control over them, and submitted them to Health Canada for analysis.

The defence also raised concerns that potential overlap between the Cape Breton Regional Police street crime officers involved in the Reynolds case and stolen sign investigation would materially inform their cross-examination strategy at trial.

The Crown countered that nothing in the SIRT file directly connects to the Reynolds drug investigation and that the defense already has “all the relevant information needed to test the credibility of the officer” and that the application amounts to a fishing expedition rooted in “speculation” and “wishful thinking.”

Meanwhile, SIRT maintained its investigation of Oldford has “nothing to do with” the Reynolds case, and that not every finding of police misconduct involving an officer under investigation will be relevant to an accused’s case.

Russell ultimately ruled in favour of the applicants, ordering SIRT to provide the court with the complete Oldford investigation file for judicial review.

He noted in his written decision the Crown isn’t willing to drop any of the evidence Oldford handled in the Reynolds investigation, and intends to call him as a witness at trial.

Russell said the defence has questioned the “continuity and integrity of the seized substances” and that Oldford’s role affects the reliability of the evidence establishing that the substances submitted to Health Canada were the same substances seized during the Reynolds investigation.

“On its face, the suggestion that substances handled by Const. Oldford before being sent to Health Canada may have been tampered with or otherwise mishandled could be viewed as fanciful. After all, he was a trained and sworn police officer expected to carry out his duties lawfully and in accordance with established procedures. However, there is no special category of presumptive credibility or reliability afforded to police officers. Their evidence, like that of any other witness, must be assessed on the basis of the record before the Court,” Russell wrote.

“It is well established that Const. Oldford interfered with property seized during an active drug investigation, the full details of which remain in the exclusive possession and control of SIRT. His misconduct extended beyond interference with seized property. He knowingly misrepresented his police activities to a provincial court judge. It was serious misconduct committed in the course of carrying out his policing duties and, on the record before the Court, directly engaged his honesty, integrity, and reliability as a police officer. That conduct is specifically related in kind to what is at issue in this trial, the integrity of the substances which Const. Oldford purported to send to Health Canada.”

Russell added that although the Crown and SIRT stress that Oldford’s misconduct occurred three years after the Reynolds investigation, it is “strikingly similar” to the issue of whether the items seized during the Reynolds investigation were properly handled, preserved, and reported.

“While the Crown and SIRT may argue that there is no basis to infer wrongdoing by Const. Oldford during the Reynolds investigation, that is not the burden borne by the applicants, certainly not at this stage of the proceeding. The applicants have identified a specific element of the offence that the Crown must prove and have established a nexus between that issue and the requested materials. Those materials may contain information capable of shedding light on, and materially assisting the exploration of, a live issue at trial. The applicants are not required to prove misconduct in the Reynolds investigation; rather, they must demonstrate that the records are ‘likely relevant’ to a material issue. In my view, they have done so.”

Their evidence, like that of any other witness, must be assessed on the basis of the record before the Court. – Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Shane Russell

Russell also rejected the “floodgates argument” advanced by the Crown and SIRT.

He said concerns that ordering the production of the files could lead to similar requests and create a burden on SIRT are premature at stage one of an O’Connor application.

“The issue at this stage is whether ‘likely relevance’ has been established. Once ‘likely relevance’ is established, as it is here, the Stage One inquiry is complete. The ‘floodgates argument’ is more properly addressed at Stage Two. Even then, each case must be assessed on its own merits, not on speculation about potential requests in future unrelated proceedings or the burden they may impose on the record holder or reviewing judge. Placing too much emphasis or weight on ‘what ifs’ risks not properly assessing an individual case on its own merits,” wrote Russell, who will now review the SIRT investigative file in private before issuing a ruling on what, if any, of the documents are relevant to the defence.