Can a finding of negligence be reviewed on a standard of correctness?

Housen v. Nikolaisen at paras. 36 and 37 provides another instance in which what appears to be a question of mixed fact and law can actually be a question of pure law and thus, reviewed on the standard of correctness: Matters of mixed fact and law lie along a spectrum. Where, for instance, an error with respect to a finding of negligence can be attributed to the application of an incorrect standard, a failure to consider a required element of a legal test, or similar error in principle, such an error can be characterized as an error of law, subject to a standard of correctness. Appellate courts must be cautious, however, in finding that a trial judge erred in law in his or her determination of negligence, as it is often difficult to extricate the legal questions from the factual. It is for this reason that these matters are referred to as questions of “mixed law and fact.” Where the legal principle is not readily extricable, then the matter is one of “mixed law and fact” and is subject to a more stringent standard... ... [A] question of mixed fact and law..is subject to a standard of palpable and overriding error unless it is clear that the trial judge made some extricable error in principle with respect to the characterization of the standard or its application, in which case the error may amount to an error of law. Analysis The dangerous offender determination