The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and pointing a firearm after a confrontation with another individual in a fast‑food drive‑through.
Evidence showed the accused possessed a pellet pistol capable of discharging projectiles at velocities exceeding the threshold for serious bodily harm.
Applying the W.(D.) credibility framework, the court rejected the accused’s denial that he pointed the gun.
However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding whether the accused committed an assault or possessed the weapon for a dangerous purpose.
The court held that a pellet gun may constitute a firearm for Criminal Code offences even if it is not operational at the moment due to an empty compressed air cylinder.
