What is the standard of review for findings of fact in the conjunctive or disjunctive?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Varty & Company v. Camp, 2017 BCCA 369 (CanLII):
I note that properly stated, the phrase is conjunctive not disjunctive; that is, the standard of review for findings of fact is “palpable and overriding error”: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235.
"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.
Other Questions
What is the test for judicial review of the findings of the Disability Review Officer's findings of fact, law or mixed fact and law? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are the standards of review applicable to a judicial review of a decision made under the Rules of Review Act? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of review for an application for judicial review of a statutory tribunal? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the effect of a finding of no misconduct in a professional conduct review panel finding no misconduct? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of review analysis on a judicial review application? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the appropriate standard of review for an application for judicial review of patent unreasonableness? (British Columbia, Canada)
In what circumstances will the BCSC review the applicable standard of review apply to a point of law arising in interlocutory proceedings? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of review of questions of law and findings of fact? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the standard of review change for findings of fact or factual inference under s. 59(2)? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the standard of review apply to a review of a Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal decision to which the decision was patently unreasonable? (British Columbia, Canada)
