Yes No Share to Facebook
Decision Reconsideration Request
Concerns For Judicial Errors Are Usually Denied
Last Updated: July 01 2026
Question: Can a judge reconsider a court decision in Ontario when everyone agrees a mistake was made?
Answer: If you are in Ontario and a court decision seems to contain an obvious error, a Paralegal at Byfield Legal Services can help you evaluate whether a motion to reconsider may be appropriate, since court decisions are usually final and should be corrected through appeal unless the parties consent to reconsideration due to a clear, unusual, and rare error that would compromise the integrity of the litigation process or the interests of justice; this approach is reflected in cases such as Gupta v. Lindal Cedar Homes, 2020 ONSC 7524 and the broader finality principles discussed in 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59. Contact (289) 927-7365 to book a quick consultation with Byfield Legal Services and get practical next steps for your specific situation across Ontario.
Is It Proper to Ask a Judge to Reconsider When It Appears That An Error Was Made?
After a Judge Issues a Decision It Is, Generally, Accepted In Law That the Decision Is Final and Should Only Be Reconsidered By the Judge If All Parties Agree Due to Concerns Regarding An Obvious Error.
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
Generally, a court has the jurisdiction to control its process which includes the power to review a decision of itself; however, whether a court should review a decision of itself still remains questionable and should occur only where it becomes obvious to the court and parties that a decision was flawed and the parties consent to a reconsideration. This issue was specifically addressed within the case of Gupta v. Lindal Cedar Homes Ltd., 2020 ONSC 7524 wherein it was said:
[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
Generally, when a court makes a decision, the decision becomes final and is subject to reversal or correction only via an appeal and only in some very limited circumstances may a judge be willing to reconsider a previously rendered decision.
NOTE: A significant volume of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicates a desire for prompt and effective legal assistance rather than a particular job title. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specified litigation cases. Core competencies such as advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise are vital to this position. Byfield Legal Services provides legal representation within its sanctioned mandate/scope, focusing on strategic placement, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy to achieve efficient and positive outcomes for clients.
