Yes No Share to Facebook
Decision Reconsideration Request
Concerns For Judicial Errors Are Usually Denied
Last Updated: August 24 2026
Question: Can a judge reconsider a court decision in Ontario when it appears a mistake was made?
Answer: PKM Legal Services can help you understand when a motion to reconsider is even on the table in Ontario, since court decisions are usually final and are typically corrected by appeal rather than re-opening the same result. In rare “unusual and rare” circumstances, reconsideration may be considered when the integrity of the litigation is at risk, where all parties agree there was an obvious clear error, and where the interests of justice compel it, as reflected in 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59. If you think a clear mistake affected the outcome, contact PKM Legal Services at (519) 410-5250 to discuss options with an Ontario paralegal-focused approach and practical next steps, including how to frame the request without undermining finality.
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 PKM Legal Services by phone at: (519) 410-5250 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
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 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 significant quantity of online searches utilising “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate a demand for prompt and competent legal assistance, rather than a precise professional designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and can represent clients in specific legal proceedings. Advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural adeptness are fundamental to this role. PKM Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed authority, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy with the goal of achieving effective and beneficial outcomes for clients.
