* Voir aussi Morin c. R., 2019 QCCA 489
If there is an absence of evidence, no trier of fact could reasonably find something proved. If the evidence is present but so weak that no trier of fact could find an essential element proved beyond reasonable doubt, the protective function of the preliminary inquiry requires that the accused be discharged from criminal jeopardy.
[39] The test of sufficiency at a preliminary inquiry is concerned with both the absence of evidence and the presence of weak evidence. If there is an absence of evidence, no trier of fact could reasonably find something proved. If the evidence is present but so weak that no trier of fact could find an essential element proved beyond reasonable doubt, the protective function of the preliminary inquiry requires that the accused be discharged from criminal jeopardy. This is a question of law that necessarily requires a “limited weighing” of the evidence. It requires the presiding judge to determine whether a trier of fact could find an element of the offence proved and in this limited sense it is inextricably linked to the standard of proof applicable at trial. The presence of circumstantial evidence that is so weak that it cannot reasonably meet this standard is functionally the same as the absence of evidence and the accused must be discharged because there is no case to answer.[48] Evidence that could not support a finding of proof beyond reasonable doubt is a chimera based on nothing but conjecture or speculation.