Last Updated: September 01 2026
If a judge made an obvious mistake in a decision, can you ask the judge to reconsider it in Ontario?
In Ontario, a court decision is generally final once released, and the usual remedy for a judge’s error is an appeal, not a request for the same judge to reconsider; however, reconsideration may be considered only in unusual and rare circumstances, typically where the error is clear and the parties consent, such as where an obvious legal error affected the outcome (for example, Gupta v. Lindal Cedar Homes Ltd., 2020 ONSC 7524). If you think your situation fits that narrow “clear error plus consent” threshold, Defend-it Legal Services can help you assess options and prepare a practical filing strategy, including paralegal services for related motions, and support for private investigation, background searches and fingerprinting agency needs across Ontario. Call (289) 275-3513 to discuss your next steps.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
If a Judge Commits a Mistake Within a Court Decision Is It Proper to Ask the Judge to Reconsider?
Court Decisions Are Usually Final, Subject Only to Appeal, Unless All Parties Agree That the Judge Should Reconsider a Decision Due to What Appears As An Obvious Error.
Note: Please contact Defend-it Legal Services by phone at: (289) 275-3513 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
Understanding When It May Be Appropriate to Ask a Judge to Reconsider a Court Decision
The legal process that involves the court making a judicial decision is intended to finalize matters in dispute. Accordingly, once a case is decided the law expects that all involved will respect the decision, including any mistakes within the decision, unless taken by Appeal to a higher court. As such, it is very rare that a Judge will reconsider a decision.
The Law
Although a court, generally, is empowered inherently to control its process, and is therefore empowered to review a rendered decision, whether a court should actually review a decision is highly questionable and is likely to occur only when all parties agree that a decision contained obvious errors and is in need of reconsideration. This view was well explained in Gupta v. Lindal Cedar Homes Ltd., 2020 ONSC 7524 where it was specifically stated:
[6] The court has an inherent jurisdiction to adjust a litigation result after judgment in some circumstances, other than through proper appellate review or as contemplated by r. 59.06. However, this should occur only in “unusual and rare circumstances where the interests of justice compel such a result”: Susin v. Chapman, [2004] O.J. No. 2935 (C.A.), at para. 10. Finality in litigation is to be encouraged and fostered. The discretion to re-open a matter should be resorted to “sparingly and with the greatest care”: 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59 (CanLII), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 983, at para. 61.
[7] In Schmuck v. Reynolds-Schmuck (2000), 2000 CanLII 22323 (ON SC), 46 O.R. (3d) 702 (S.C.J.) at para. 25, Himel, J. emphasized the limited circumstances in which a reconsideration should occur, stating: “It is my view that a party who wishes a reconsideration would have to establish that the integrity of the litigation process is at risk unless it occurs, or that there is some principle of justice at stake that overrides the value of finality in litigation, or that some miscarriage of justice would occur if such a reconsideration did not take place.”
[8] In Gore Mutual Insurance Co. v. 1443249 Ontario Ltd., (2004) 2004 CanLII 27736 (ON SC), 70 O.R. (3d) 404 (“Gore”), at paras. 7-8, Karakatsanis, J. (as she then was) was prepared to re-open her decision in a situation where it was “obvious an error was made by all counsel and by the court.” It was a “case of a clear error.” It was “obvious” that the statutory provision now raised would have changed her determination and all counsel conceded that the provision previously relied upon had no application to the case. Karakatsanis, J. concluded at para. 8 that the “interests of justice are not served by requiring an appeal on a clear error of law that followed inaccurate and incomplete legal submissions of counsel.”
[9] In Scott, Pichelli & Easter Ltd. et al. v. Dupont Developments Ltd. et al., 2019 ONSC 6789, Sossin, J. (as he then was) noted at para. 13 that a “motion for reconsideration is more likely to be successful where the parties agree that an error has occurred, and less likely to be successful where the subject matter of the alleged error remains contested by the parties.”
Per the Gupta case as above, a reconsideration should occur only where all parties agree that a judicial decision contains a mistake; and unless so, it should be expected that a judge will deny a reconsideration request.
Summary Comment
When a court renders a judicial decision the issues in dispute are, generally, deemed final unless reversed or corrected via the appeal process; however, where the parties involved agree that the decision contains an obvious error and that a request to reconsider is a just way to remedy the error, although very rare, it is possible that a court will reconsider.
NOTE: A significant volume of inquiries related to “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically demonstrate a pressing need for capable and immediate legal assistance rather than a particular professional designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals operate under the same Law Society that regulates lawyers, enabling them to represent clients in specific litigation matters. Key elements of this role include advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Defend-it Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic planning, evidentiary preparation, and persuasive advocacy to secure efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.
