Yes No Share to Facebook
Decision Reconsideration Request
Concerns For Judicial Errors Are Usually Denied
Last Updated: August 22 2026
Question: In Ontario, can I ask a judge to reconsider a court decision if you believe the judge made a mistake?
Answer: Generally, once a judge renders a decision it is treated as final and is usually corrected only through an appeal to a higher court, not by asking the same judge to reconsider. Reconsideration is rare and typically requires unusual, rare circumstances where the interests of justice compel reopening, such as a clear, obvious error of law that is effectively agreed upon by all parties. Courts have described the discretion to re-open as something to use sparingly and with the greatest care, including when it is obvious an error was made by all counsel and the court, as discussed in Gupta v. Lindal Cedar Homes Ltd., 2020 ONSC 7524 and related decisions like 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59 and Susin v. Chapman, [2004] O.J. No. 2935 (C.A.). If you are considering a reconsideration request, a paralegal at Reznik Legal Services can help you assess timing, whether all parties can consent, and what motion steps may fit your situation in Ontario, call (416) 222-9906.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
If a Judge Makes a Mistake In a Decision Can the Judge Be Asked to Review the Decision?
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, 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. As such, it is very rare that a Judge will reconsider a decision.
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.
NOTE: A significant volume of online searches for “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate an urgent requirement for competent legal counsel rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specified litigation areas. Core to their function are advocacy, legal insight, and procedural expertise. Reznik Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed mandate/scope, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing effective and favourable outcomes for clients.