The issue of whether the respondent knew of the misallocation is one of fact, and the trial judge’s finding cannot be reversed absent a palpable and overriding error: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at para. 10. The question of whether the respondent ought to have known of the error is one of mixed fact and law. Such questions lie along a law-fact spectrum. Where a matter is closer to the “fact end” of the spectrum – as it is here – appellate courts should be wary of interfering with a trial judge’s findings absent some extricable error in principle: Housen, at para. 36.
"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.