“The Supreme Court of Canada set out the standard of appellate review in family matters in Van de Perre v. Edwards, 2001 SCC 60, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1014, followed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Sferruzzi v. Allan, 2013 ONCA 496, at para. 43.
The standard for review on issues of law is correctness.
On issues of fact, there is deference given to the trial judge. To succeed in an appeal from a finding of fact, an appellant must show that the trial judge made a “palpable and overriding error” on an issue of fact.
Absent an error or misapprehension of relevant evidence, the assignment of weight to any piece of evidence or to any of the factors to consider, is for the trial judge to decide. The deference principle prevents an appellate Court from conducting a de novo hearing or de novo weighing of evidence or of the factors to consider: Pike v. Cook, 2005 CanLII 39322 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 4.
Custody and access decisions require a trial judge to conduct a careful balancing of competing interests based on the evidence. For that reason, a trial judge’s decision on custody and access must be approached by the appellate court with considerable respect and deference: C.S. v. M.S., 2010 ONCA 196, 76 R.F.L. (6th) 14; Marcus v. Lebedoff, 2003 CanLII 32921 (Ont. S.C.).”