Last Updated: August 22 2026
In Ontario, can a judge be asked to reconsider a decision if there was an obvious error?
SFG Paralegal Services LLP can help you understand whether a reconsideration is possible after judgment, since court decisions are usually final and correction is typically sought through an appeal rather than asking the same judge to reopen the matter. Reconsideration is rare and generally only considered in unusual and rare circumstances where the interests of justice require it, and courts commonly expect that all parties agree there was a clear or obvious error (for example, Gupta v. Lindal Cedar Homes Ltd., 2020 ONSC 7524, at paras. 6-9, and the principle of finality discussed in 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59, at para. 61). If you think the decision contains a clear error that could have changed the outcome, call (888) 398-0121 for Ontario-focused guidance from a paralegal at SFG Paralegal Services LLP to discuss next steps and whether any timely motion or appeal route makes sense.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
If a Judge Makes An Error Within a Decision Can the Judge Be Asked to Reconsider the Decision?
Generally, When a Judicial Decision Is Rendered the Matter Is Considered Final and May Be Corrected Only Upon An Appeal to a Higher Court. Only In Rare Circumstances, Such As When the Error Is Obvious and All Parties Involved Agree to a Reconsideration,...
Note: Please contact SFG Paralegal Services LLP by phone at: (888) 398-0121 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 process of law, including the making of a court decision, seeks to bring finality to issues in dispute. Accordingly, when a legal case is decided upon, generally, it is expected that the decision becomes final despite any judicial errors unless an Appeal is brought to a higher court. It is rare that a Judge will perform a reconsideration.
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
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 number of inquiries regarding “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a request for prompt and proficient legal support rather than a particular professional designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specified litigation issues. Advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise are fundamental to this role. SFG Paralegal Services LLP provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic advantage, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and positive outcomes for clients.
