( iv) If a palpable and overriding error is found, the reviewing adjudicator
may substitute their own decision or order a new hearing.
The review adjudicator’s reasons
 M.F. sought review. The review adjudicator upheld the
adjudicator’s decision. Although M.F. had not specifically raised
palpable and overriding error as a ground of review, the review
adjudicator considered it.
 The review adjudicator cited Housen v. Nikolaisen, 
2 S.C.R. 235,  S.C.J. No. 31, 2002 SCC 33, at para. 23, and
Waxman v. Waxman,  O.J. No. 1765, 186 O.A.C. 201
(C.A.), at paras. 296-97, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused 
S.C.C.A. No. 291, for the proposition that a palpable and overriding error is “one that is plainly seen” (emphasis in original). She
also cited Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick,  1 S.C.R. 190,
 S.C.J. No. 9, 2008 SCC 9, for the proposition that the
adjudicator’s factual findings should not be disturbed if her reasoning path was clear and her outcome fell within a range of
 The review adjudicator concluded that the adjudicator did
not commit a palpable and overriding error in holding that M.F.
had failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the
abuse he suffered occurred while the Spanish Boys IRS was in
operation. The adjudicator had taken into account M.F.’s birth
date (May 12, 1950), his claim that he was an altar boy in the
period 1960-1962, that according to M.F.’s own testimony, it
takes from a couple of weeks to a month to become an altar boy,
that M.F. was abused after he became an altar boy, and that the
Spanish Boys IRS closed on June 30, 1958. The review adjudicator concluded that the adjudicator’s decision fell within a range
of reasonable outcomes, and was supported by the facts and reasonable inferences.
Re-review adjudicator’s reasons
 M.F. sought re-review and submitted that the adjudicator
committed a palpable and overriding error. M.F. argued that she
should have found that as M.F. was invited onto the premises of
the IRS by his aunt, and as his aunt and Father B. were not on
the premises after the IRS closed, then M.F. must have been
abused before the IRS closed.
 The re-review adjudicator ruled that he had no authority
to review the adjudicator’s decision for factual error, and that he
was restricted to considering whether the review adjudicator
and the adjudicator had correctly applied the IAP framework.