What is the test for a review of a finding of not guilty of assault with intent to pervert the course of justice?

Finally, the appellant argues unreasonable verdict relative to the gun charges. A verdict is only unreasonable if either the verdict would be unavailable to a reasonably instructed jury acting judicially, or if the reasons for the judgment show the verdict was reached illogically or irrationally. A review necessarily involves a limited reweighing of the evidence, but does not amount to a retrying of the case: R v Warring, 2017 ABCA 128 at para 6, 347 CCC (3d) 391. A trial judge is not, however, required to address every piece of evidence that runs contrary to his or her ultimate conclusion. A judge need not address each aspect of the case in granular detail, so long as the reasons for judgment are responsive to the case’s live issues: R v Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24 at para 25, [2008] 1 SCR 788; R v. Burns, 1994 CanLII 127 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 656 at para 17.