Courts aren't always consistent in labelling the various 'misapprehension of evidence' (or fact) errors that can occur, and the lines aren't bright between them in any event, so as you go through the cases recognize that. Take for example Watt JA in R v Stennett (Ont CA, 2021):
 The phrase “misapprehension of evidence” encompasses at least three errors. The failure to consider evidence relevant to an issue. A mistake about the substance of an item or items of evidence. And a failure to give proper effect to evidence: R. v. Morrissey (1995), 1995 CanLII 3498 (ON CA), 97 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), at pp. 217-18.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.