What is the standard of review for an appellate court reviewing a trial decision?

In R v Husain, 2010 ABQB 708, Ross J., succinctly stated the standard of review for an appellate court reviewing a trial decision at para. 14: 14 The standard of review for an appellate court reviewing a trial decision depends on whether the errors are of fact, law, or mixed fact and law: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235. Where the alleged error is one of law, the standard of review is correctness. The standard of review regarding findings of fact is palpable and overriding error. Findings of mixed fact and law involve applying a legal standard to a set of facts. They are reviewable on the palpable and overriding error standard, unless the trial court made an extricable error of law reviewable on the correctness standard. An extricable error of law would include, for example "the application of an incorrect standard, a failure to consider a required element of a legal test, or similar error in principle" (at para. 36).