Here the court characterizes the range of 'fact errors as legal errors' as being "extremely narrow":
“No Evidence” and Unsupported Inferences
[13] At all levels of this case, the Appellant has argued that there was “no proof” (a) of an illegal act; (b) that the tenant committed an illegal act; or (c) that the tenant permitted another person to commit an illegal act. A generous reading of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal suggests an assertion that the factual findings made, and inferences drawn by Member Priest were so baseless that they fall into an extremely narrow circumstance wherein findings of fact may give rise to an error of law alone for purposes of an appeal. Specifically, that the findings were (a) based on no evidence; (b) made on the basis of irrelevant evidence or in disregard of relevant evidence; or (c) based on an irrational inference of fact: see Johannson v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2019 SKCA 52 (CanLII) at para. 25. I do not accept this argument. The Appellant’s position broadly alleges errors of fact and mixed fact and law. The adjudicator’s treatment of the evidence in this case does not rise to an error of law.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
