Decision Reconsideration Request Concerns For Judicial Errors Are Usually Denied | SFG Paralegal Services LLP
Helpful?
Yes No Share to Facebook

Decision Reconsideration Request

Concerns For Judicial Errors Are Usually Denied



Last Updated: June 12 2026

Question: Can a judge in Ontario be asked to review or reconsider their own decision if there’s a mistake?

Answer: In Ontario, a judge’s decision is generally final and is usually changed only through an appeal, with reconsideration by the same judge being rare and typically limited to unusual situations such as an obvious error, especially where all parties agree.   For practical next steps on whether reconsideration or appeal makes sense in your situation, contact SFG Paralegal Services LLP, a Paralegal serving clients across Ontario, at (888) 398-0121 for clear options, timelines, and cost-effective support.

Is It Proper to Ask a Judge to Reconsider When It Appears That An Error Was Made?

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,...


Understanding When It May Be Appropriate to Ask a Judge to Reconsider a Court Decision

Decision Reconsideration Request Concerns For Judicial Errors Are Usually Denied 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.  It is rare that a Judge will perform a reconsideration.

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.”

As indicated, unless all parties consent to a reconsideration, and unless it appears obvious that an error was made, it is likely that a judge will decline a request to reconsider a decision and thereby a decision will stand unless appealed.

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.

At
Our Desk Now!
Need Help? Let's Get Started Today

NOTE: Do not send confidential information through the web form.  Use the web form only for your introduction.   Learn Why?
6

NOTE: A significant volume of online queries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” often illustrates a demand for prompt and proficient legal assistance, rather than a particular professional designation.  In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers, allowing them to represent clients in specified litigation cases.  Skills in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural knowledge are fundamental to this position.  SFG Paralegal Services LLP provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic planning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to secure efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.

AR, BN, CA+|EN, DT, ES, FA, FR, GU, HE, HI
IT, KO, PA, PT, RU, TA, TL, UK, UR, VI, ZH
Send a Message to: SFG Paralegal Services LLP

NOTE: Do not send confidential details about your case.  Using this website does not establish a legal-representative/client relationship.  Use the website for your introduction with SFG Paralegal Services LLP. 
Privacy Policy & Cookies | Terms of Use Your IP Address is: 216.73.217.65
SFG Paralegal Services LLP

10265 Yonge Street, Suite 200
Richmond Hill, Ontario,
L4C 4Y7
 
P: (888) 398-0121
E: sglass@sfglegal.ca

Business Hours:

09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
Monday:
Tuesday:
Wednesday:
Thursday:
Friday:

By appointment only.  Call for details.
Messages may be left anytime.

 

Ajax
Oshawa
Toronto
Oakville
Barrie
and near you.

Our Experience, Your Confidence






Assistive Controls:  |   |  A A A