HUSCROFT J.A. (dissenting): —
 The primary issue raised by this appeal is whether the
police were justified in arresting the respondent to avoid a possible breach of the peace. My colleague Nordheimer J.A. concludes that they were. With respect, I disagree.
 The basic facts in this case are not in dispute. Randy
Fleming was on his way to a “flag rally” in Caledonia led by
a group called “Canadian Advocates for Charter Equality”. The
rally occurred in the context of the ongoing occupation of DCE,
Crown-owned land, by Indigenous protesters. The rally organizers planned to march down Argyle Street and hang Canadian
flags across from the front entrance of DCE. Mr. Fleming was
walking along the shoulder of Argyle Street, which borders the
disputed land, carrying a large Canadian flag, when the events
that are the subject of this appeal occurred.
 My colleague defers to the police in their decision to
arrest Mr. Fleming, rather than to the trial judge, whose decision came following an 11-day trial. The trial judge found that
Mr. Fleming’s arrest was not justified in the circumstances.
In my view, there is no basis for this court to interfere with her
 I would dismiss the appeal.
A. The standard of review
 The burden is on the appellants to demonstrate an error
of fact or an error of mixed fact and law that is both palpable
and overriding. It must be palpable, in the sense that the error
is obvious or apparent without further inquiry or explanation.
More important, it must be overriding in terms of its significance. It must be so significant that it undermines the very core
of the case — the trial judge’s decision that Mr. Fleming’s arrest
was unlawful: see, generally, Housen v. Nikolaisen, 
2 S.C.R. 235,  S.C.J. No. 31, 2002 SCC 33, at p. 246 S.C.R.;
Waxman v. Waxman,  O.J. No. 1765, 186 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.),
at paras. 292-309; and, most recently, Benhaim v. St-Germain,
 2 S.C.R. 352,  S.C.J. No. 48, 2016 SCC 48, at
para. 38, citing South Yukon Forest Corp. v. Canada, 
F.C.J. No. 669, 2012 FCA 165, 4 B.L.R. (5th) 31, at para. 46.
 In my view, none of the alleged errors identified by Nordheimer J.A. rises to this high standard. As a result, it is not open