The defendant was charged with possession of an imitation firearm while committing an indictable offence (threatening death or bodily harm) and possession of ammunition contrary to a weapons prohibition order.
The court found the witness's testimony regarding the alleged threat unreliable due to inconsistencies and potential motives, leading to an acquittal on the first charge.
However, regarding the ammunition charge, the court accepted expert testimony that the modified bullets met the definition of "ammunition" under the Criminal Code, despite not being test-fired, distinguishing the case from R. v. Wilson.
The defendant was found guilty of possession of ammunition while prohibited.
