Misapprehension of evidence

R. v. A.F., 2016 ONCA 263:

[19]       However, it is not enough for the appellant to identify a misapprehension of the evidence in order to succeed. As Binnie J. stated in R. v. Lohrer, 2004 SCC 80, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 732 at para. 2:

The misapprehension of the evidence must go to the substance rather than to the detail. It must be material rather than peripheral to the reasoning of the trial judge.  Once those hurdles are surmounted, there is the further hurdle (the test is expressed as conjunctive rather than disjunctive) that the errors thus identified must play an essential part not just in the narrative of the judgment but "in the reasoning process resulting in a conviction" (citing R. v. Morrissey (1995), 97 C.C.C. (3d) 193 at 221).