Palpable and Overriding Error of Fact
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-11-23 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 1986 |
| Page Categories: | [Appeals] |
| Citation: | Palpable and Overriding Error of Fact, CLNP 1986, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-23 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2022/08/29 |
Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076
Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today
Wu v. Adler, 2022 ONSC 188 (CanLII)
[12] The appellate standard of review is set out in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33. On questions of law, the standard is correctness. On questions of fact, the standard is palpable and overriding error. On questions of mixed fact and law, the standard is palpable and overriding error, unless there is an extricable question of law, in which case, the standard of review on that extricable question is correctness.
[13] A palpable and overriding error is an error that can be plainly seen and that affected the result. “The same proposition is sometimes stated as prohibiting an appellate court from reviewing a trial judge’s decision, if there was some evidence upon which he or she could have relied to reach that conclusion”: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, at para. 1.[1]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 235, <https://canlii.ca/t/51tl>, retrieved on 2022-08-29
- ↑ Wu v. Adler, 2022 ONSC 188 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jlmxq>, retrieved on 2022-08-29
