R. v. Donawa, 2025 SCC 10

Is tax content

Not tax content (predicted)

Citation

Citation name

2025 SCC 10

Decision date

Fri, 12/05/2025 - 14:08

d7 import status

Drupal 7 entity type

Node

Drupal 7 entity ID

952724

Extra import data

{
"field_court_parentheses": "",
"field_external_guid": [
"url::decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20932/index"
],
"field_full_style_of_cause": "",
"field_import_body_hash": "4b0833a80eff3bc01e5b36cdd6205b26c89e1816cb96e1885ab782399f6eb6d8",
"field_informal_procedure": false,
"field_year_parentheses": "",
"field_source_url": {
"url": "https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20932/index.do",
"title": "",
"attributes": [],
"original_title": "",
"original_url": "https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20932/index.do"
}
}

Style of cause

R. v. Donawa

Main text

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. Donawa, 2025 SCC 10		Appeal Heard: March 26, 2025 Judgment Rendered: March 26, 2025 Docket: 41287
Between: Amari Donawa Appellant and His Majesty The King Respondent - and - Director of Public Prosecutions Intervener Coram: Martin, Kasirer, Jamal, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ.
Unanimous Judgment Read By: (para. 1)	Martin J.
Counsel: Maxime Bédard and Mark C. Halfyard, for the appellant. Andrew Hotke, for the respondent. Jeanette Gevikoglu and Éric Marcoux, for the intervener.

Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.

No. 41287

March 26, 2025		Le 26 mars 2025

Coram: Martin, Kasirer, Jamal, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ.		Coram : Les juges Martin, Kasirer, Jamal, O’Bonsawin et Moreau

BETWEEN: Amari Donawa Appellant - and - His Majesty The King Respondent - and - Director of Public Prosecutions Intervener		ENTRE : Amari Donawa Appelant - et - Sa Majesté le Roi Intimé - et - Directeur des poursuites pénales Intervenant

JUDGMENT The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number COA-23-CR-0198, 2024 ONCA 279, dated April 17, 2024, was heard on March 26, 2025, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally: Martin J. — The only issue on this appeal as of right is whether the handgun found by the police in the appellant’s car was a firearm as defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. We are unanimously of the view it was a firearm. We substantially agree with the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Accordingly, we would dismiss the appeal.		JUGEMENT L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro COA-23-CR-0198, 2024 ONCA 279, daté du 17 avril 2024, a été entendu le 26 mars 2025 et la Cour a prononcé oralement le même jour le jugement suivant : [traduction] La juge Martin — La seule question en litige dans le présent appel de plein droit consiste à décider si l’arme de poing trouvée par la police dans le véhicule de l’appelant était une arme à feu au sens de l’art. 2 du Code criminel, L.R.C. 1985, c. C‑46. Nous sommes unanimement d’avis qu’il s’agissait d’une arme à feu. Nous souscrivons pour l’essentiel à l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario. Par conséquent, nous sommes d’avis de rejeter le pourvoi.

J.S.C.C.

J.C.S.C.

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

Term Tree