Motion for non-suit

R. v. Park, 2010 ABCA 248, in the Court of Appeal for Alberta, has a good summary of when a directed verdict is appropriate: 

[15]           The test for a directed verdict is best summarized as follows:

 


⁠

"... An absence of evidence on an essential element will result in a directed acquittal. The existence of evidence on every essential element will result in dismissal of the motion. ..."

(R. v. Charemski, 1998 CanLII 819 (S.C.C.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 679 at para. 22)

...

 

"In other words, a motion for a directed verdict should not be granted 'in any case in which there is admissible evidence which could, if it were believed, result in a conviction.'"

(United States v. Shephard, 1976 CanLII 8 (S.C.C.), [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067 at 1080)

 

Whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, the test remains the same, that is, whether a consideration of the whole of the evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt: R. v. Arcuri 2001 SCC 54 (CanLII), 2001 SCC 54, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 828 at paras. 22, 32.