What is the standard of review for a trial judge's findings of fact and the inferences drawn by her?
Manitoba, Canada
The following excerpt is from R. v. Guimond (P.W.), 2010 MBCA 77 (CanLII):
32 The standard of review for the trial judge’s findings of fact and the inferences drawn by her is the standard of palpable and overriding error. See Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the standard of review for a trial judge's findings of fact and any inferences drawn? (Manitoba, Canada)
What is the standard of appellate review applicable to all factual conclusions of a trial judge? (Manitoba, Canada)
What is the standard of review of a motion judge's decision not to interfere with the decision of the motion judge? (Manitoba, Canada)
What is the standard of review when assessing findings of fact based inferences? (Manitoba, Canada)
Can a defendant review some factual findings made by the trial judge? (Manitoba, Canada)
What is the proper standard of review in the context of a motion for judicial review? (Manitoba, Canada)
What is the standard of deference the court owes to a motion judge in reviewing an order of support? (Manitoba, Canada)
What standard of review applies to a question of law, fact and inference? (Manitoba, Canada)
Can a defendant who called the victim a liar, gesticulate with his hands and gesticulated with his fingers, but the trial judge did not find that he grabbed the other's coat lapel or clenched his fist? (Manitoba, Canada)
Can a judge review a finding of mixed fact and law in respect of the reasonable and probable grounds for the demand for breath samples? (Manitoba, Canada)
