For which of the following confirmations does the Divisional Court not have authority when handling an appeal?

In the context of an appeal, the Divisional Court typically functions as an appellate body that assesses whether the lower court made errors in its decision-making process. When considering the various confirmations the court can make, it's essential to understand the limitations placed on the court regarding factual interpretations.

The court does not have the authority to review the judge's interpretations of facts. This limitation is grounded in the principle that the trial judge is best positioned to assess evidence and make factual determinations based on witness credibility and other nuances presented during the trial. The appellate court's role is not to re-evaluate the factual findings unless there is a clear legal error or misinterpretation of the law, rather, it focuses on issues of law and procedural fairness. Therefore, when it comes to confirming the factual basis of decisions made by the lower court, that authority remains with the original judge who heard the case.

In contrast, the court does have the authority to confirm the judge's decision, substitute its opinions for the judge’s decision in some instances, and direct actions of building officials, provided they pertain to the interpretation and application of the law rather than the facts of the case itself.