Moreover, the “reasonableness” of the various possibilities must be left to the trier of fact to determine. This “reasonableness” assessment is ultimately driven by the weight attributed to the various competing inferences having regard to the evidence as a whole. The weighing of competing inferences is very much an individual process, and an appeal court is required to defer: Mezzo v. The Queen, 1986 CanLII 16 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 802. In other words, whether or not there is a rational explanation for the evidence other than the guilt of the accused, is a question for the trier of fact. Reasonable people may disagree.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.