In a motion for directed verdict, in what circumstances will the trial judge not have considered the evidence of Timothy?

Regarding Donald’s contention that the trial judge should not have considered Timothy’s evidence, the law is clear that, on a motion for directed verdict, a judge is not entitled to make findings of credibility, determine what evidence should be preferred, or weigh various pieces of evidence. Those determinations are for the trier of fact. The issue for the judge is whether there is any admissible evidence. See Mezzo v. The Queen, 1986 CanLII 16 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 802 at 809-10. In this case, there was no issue respecting the admissibility of Timothy’s evidence. In denying the motion, the trial judge stated that she was satisfied that the evidence of Timothy alone constituted admissible evidence on which a properly instructed jury could reasonably return a verdict of guilty. Therefore, the trial judge was correct in denying the motion.