What is the test for directed verdict in a sexual assault case?

9. In Canada the governing test for a directed verdict is set out by Ritchie J. in United States of America v. Shephard, 1976 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067 at p. 1080, as follows: ... whether or not there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty. The "justice", in accordance with this principle, is, in my opinion, required to commit an accused person for trial in any case in which there is admissible evidence which could, if it were believed, result in a conviction. I agree with Lamer J. that the division of views expressed by the majority and the minority in Shephard is of little relevance here. It is clear that in the present case the issue was not the credibility of the complainant but the quality of her evidence based on her opportunities for observation. However, I disagree with my colleague's view that " "quality" of evidence is truly the realm of the trial judge". A jury is in just as good a position as a trial judge to assess the witness' opportunity for observation and the strength of his or her evidence based on that opportunity. Indeed, this is something that lay people are peculiarly well equipped to do.