What is the standard of review for a trial judge's findings of fact and any inferences drawn?

As also noted in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, and more recently in H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 25, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401, the standard of review for a trial judge’s findings of fact and any inferences drawn is the standard of palpable and overriding error, while the standard of review for pure questions of law is correctness. For questions of mixed fact and law, the standard is palpable and overriding error, except that where an error of law is extricable or severable from a factual conclusion, the error can be treated as a question of law subject to a standard of correctness. ANALYSIS AND DECISION Reasonable Grounds