Yes No Share to Facebook
Decision Reconsideration Request
Concerns For Judicial Errors Are Usually Denied
Last Updated: April 01 2026
Question: Can a judge in Ontario reconsider a court decision if it looks like an obvious mistake was made?
Answer: In Ontario, a judge rarely reopens a decision, but reconsideration may be possible in unusual circumstances, especially where all parties agree there’s a clear error and the interests of justice outweigh finality, as discussed in Gupta v. Lindal Cedar Homes Ltd., 2020 ONSC 7524. For guidance on whether reconsideration or an appeal is the right next step, Hall Paralegal Services provides Ontario paralegal services to help review your options and next procedural moves.
Can a Judge Reconsider a Decision Where It Appears That a Mistake Was Made?
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.
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, 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.”
As stated within the Gupta case, generally, a judicial reconsideration is unlikely unless all parties involved agree that a judicial error occurred and that a reconsideration is a just means to seek a correction of the error.
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 considerable quantity of online searches featuring “lawyers close to me” or “top lawyer in” typically indicate an urgent requirement for effective legal representation rather than pointing to a particular professional designation. In , licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation matters. Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are fundamental to that function. Hall Paralegal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.