Does the Court of Appeal have the power to reverse the verdict of a jury?

In Burke v. The Queen (1996), 1996 CanLII 229 (SCC), 105 C.C.C. (3d) 205 (S.C.C.), it was pointed out that special concerns arise in cases where the alleged “unreasonableness” of the trial court’s decision rests upon the trial judge’s assessment of credibility and that an appellate court should show great deference to the findings of credibility at trial, given the advantageous position of a trial judge in assessing the credibility of witnesses and the accused. Sopinka J., at pp. 211-212, stated: Despite the ‘special position’ of the trial court in assessing credibility, however, the court of appeal retains the power, pursuant to s. 686(1)(a)(i) to reverse the trial court’s verdict where the assessment of credibility made at trial is not supported by the evidence. … Thus, although the appellate court must be conscious of the advantage enjoyed by the trier of fact, reversal for unreasonableness remains available under s. 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code where the “unreasonableness” of the verdict rests on a question of credibility. I acknowledge that this is a power which an appellate court will exercise sparingly. That is not to say that an appellate court should shrink from exercising the power when after carrying out its statutory duty, it concludes that the conviction rests on shaky ground and that it would be unsafe to maintain it. In conferring this power on appellate courts to be applied only in appeals by the accused, it was intended as an additional and salutary safeguard against the conviction of the innocent.