Crown advanced, “the Crown is limited to proving the guilt of
Mr. Kelly as an aiding party, as the getaway driver, in accordance with section 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code” (para. 83).
 With respect, the trial judge erred in both conclusions outlined above.
A: The test on motion for a directed verdict
 When the defence moves for a directed verdict of acquittal
at the end of the Crown’s case, the trial judge must decide
whether there is a basis in the evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict. In performing that
task, the trial judge does not make findings of fact or credibility,
but considers whether a reasonable jury, properly instructed,
could, on the entirety of the evidence, favourable and unfavourable to the accused, conclude that the Crown has established
guilt. The trial judge must view the evidence in the reasonable
light that is the most favourable to the Crown: R. v. Arcuri,
 2 S.C.R. 828,  S.C.J. No. 52, 2001 SCC 54, at paras.
21, 29-32; R. v. Jackson,  O.J. No. 6777, 2016 ONCA 736,
33 C.R. (7th) 130, at paras. 6-9.
 The trial judge erred in approaching his task by asking
what inferences could be drawn on the assumption that the jury
accepted Mr. Cousins’ evidence as accurate. He should have
asked whether having regard to all of the evidence, including
Mr. Cousins’ evidence, there was a legal basis upon which a reasonable jury could find the respondent guilty of manslaughter.
This analysis required a consideration of the possibilities that
the jury, having regard to the blood in the back seat of the Civic,
would not accept Mr. Cousins’ evidence as accurate, or that
despite Mr. Cousins’ evidence, would conclude that the respondent was guilty of manslaughter.
 The trial judge’s error as to the legal test to be applied on
a motion for a directed verdict does not mean that this appeal
must succeed. The Crown must show that on an application of
the proper legal test for a directed verdict, the trial judge should
not have directed a verdict of acquittal. To determine whether
a directed verdict was warranted, this court must consider
whether, on a proper application of the law applicable to party
liability to the evidence, a reasonable jury could convict the
respondent. This court must also consider the respondent’s
argument that in the circumstances of this case, the Crown was