What is the standard of appellate review in a family law case?

In the instant case, the issue is not whether the judge made an error in principle in determining the legal test to be applied; rather, the issue revolves around the treatment by the judge of the evidence to which the legal principles were applicable. In the context of an appeal of an order varying support, which was described as having a “fact-based and discretionary nature” involving the balancing of various factors with an appreciation of the particular facts of the case, L’Heureux-Dube, J. reiterated the rationale for appellate deference in such cases, in Hickey v. Hickey at para [12] as follows: It avoids giving an incentive to appeal judgments and incur added expenses in the hope that the appeal court will have a different appreciation of the relevant factors and evidence. This approach promotes finality in family law litigation and recognizes the importance of the appreciation of the facts by the trial judge. Though an appeal court must intervene when there is a material error, a serious misapprehension of the evidence, or an error of law, it is not entitled to overturn a support order simply because it would have made a different decision or balanced the factors differently. That approach and its rationale apply equally to the circumstances of the instant case, where to arrive at an appropriate decision the judge had to weigh and balance a number of factors in the light of his appreciation of the evidence presented. All of these formulations of the standard of appellate review have as their underlying theme the notion that interference with a trial judge’s treatment of the evidence will only be justified where it can be shown that he or she made a “palpable or overriding error” , or manifest error, in the assessment and appreciation of the evidence. Application of the standard of appellate review to this case