What is the standard of review applied by a judge to a spousal support order?

The trial judge’s factual findings are entitled to considerable deference. I am satisfied that there was no reviewable misapprehension of the evidence and no improper inferences were drawn. The trial judge then correctly applied spousal support law to the factual findings she made. As stated in at paragraph 18 of Hickey v. Hickey, 1999 CanLII 691 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518, There are strong reasons for the significant deference that must be given to trial judges in relation to support orders. This standard of appellate review recognizes that the discretion involved in making a support order is best exercised by the judge who has heard the parties directly. It avoids giving parties 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 in law, it is not entitled to overturn a support order simply because it would have made a different decision or balanced the factors differently.