R. v. Dunn, 2014 SCC 69, [2014] 3 SCR 490

 

 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

Citation: R. v. Dunn, 2014 SCC 69, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 490

Date: 20141105 Docket: 35599

 

Between:

Christopher Dunn

Appellant

and

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

 

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon JJ.

 

 

Reasons for Judgment: (para. 1)

McLachlin C.J. (Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon JJ. concurring)

 

 

 

 

r. v. dunn, 2014 SCC 69, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 490

 

Christopher Dunn                                                                                          Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                              Respondent

Indexed as:  R. v. Dunn

 

2014 SCC 69

 

File No.:  35599.

 

2014:  November 5.

 

Present:  McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon JJ.

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

 

                    Criminal law — Firearms — Elements of offence — Airgun — Accused charged with numerous weapon and firearm offences — Definition of “firearm” and “weapon” in Criminal Code  — Trial judge concluding that airgun not weapon and acquitting accused of offences — Court of Appeal finding that barrelled objects that meet definition of firearm need not also meet definition of weapon to be deemed firearm — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 2 .

 

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Rosenberg, Sharpe, Gillese, Epstein and Strathy JJ.A.), 2013 ONCA 539, 117 O.R. (3d) 171, 309 O.A.C. 311, 305 C.C.C. (3d) 372, [2013] O.J. No. 3918 (QL), 2013 CarswellOnt 12211, affirming the accused’s acquittal on the charge of pointing a firearm and setting aside the acquittals and ordering a new trial on charges of careless handling of a firearm, carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace and carrying a concealed weapon. Appeal dismissed.

 

                    Solomon Friedman, for the appellant.

 

                    John S. McInnes and Roger Shallow, for the respondent.

 

                    The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

 

[1]               The Chief Justice — For the reasons of Justice Rosenberg in the Court of Appeal, we are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed.

 

                    Judgment accordingly.

 

                    Solicitors for the appellant: Edelson Clifford D’Angelo Friedman, Ottawa.

 

                    Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.