Last Updated: August 22 2026
In Ontario, can you ask a judge to reconsider a court decision if you think the decision contains an obvious error?
Access Ontario Legal Services can help you understand when a motion for reconsideration may be appropriate in Ontario, because court decisions are usually final and the typical remedy is appeal, not a judge revisiting their own ruling. A judge will generally only reconsider in unusual and rare circumstances, most often if all parties agree and it is clear that an obvious error occurred that affects the outcome, such as where all counsel and the court made a clear mistake, or where allowing finality would cause a miscarriage of justice, rather than re-arguing contested issues. If you believe the decision has a clear error, your paralegal at Access Ontario Legal Services can review the reasons for decision and explain next steps, including whether a reconsideration motion or appeal is the better path, call (905) 302-1851 today.
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?
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.
Note: Please contact Access Ontario Legal Services by phone at: (905) 302-1851 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 legal process that involves the court making a judicial decision is intended to finalize matters 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
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 considerable quantity of online inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently illustrates a requirement for prompt and proficient legal assistance rather than pinpointing a particular professional designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and possess the authority to advocate for clients in specific litigation cases. Skills in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural knowledge are fundamental to this role. Access Ontario Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.
