The following excerpt is from BNP Paribas Bank (Canada) v. Donald S. Bartlett Investments Limited, et al., 2011 ONSC 6902 (CanLII):
It is important to recognize at the outset that the approach set out in Housen v. Nikolaisen applies to appellate review of a Master’s decision. An appeal from the decision of a Master is not a hearing de novo. An appellate court may interfere only if the Master (i) made an error of law; (ii) exercised his or her discretion on the wrong principles; or (iii) misapprehended the evidence such that there is a palpable and overriding error.[1] Palpable and overriding errors include a finding not reasonably supported by the evidence or a failure to appreciate relevant evidence.[2]
"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.