Yes No Share to Facebook
Decision Reconsideration Request
Concerns For Judicial Errors Are Usually Denied
Last Updated: August 23 2026
Question: If a Judge makes a mistake in a court decision, can the judge be asked to review the decision?
Answer: Anderson Aylwin Begg & Co. can help Ontario parties understand whether a court may reconsider a decision after judgment, but in most cases the decision is final and the proper route is appeal rather than asking the same judge to review it again. A reconsideration is rare and usually requires unusual and rare circumstances, typically where the error is obvious and all parties agree to reopening the matter. If you think there was a clear error, you should act quickly and get paralegal-led guidance on the safest next step for your case in Ontario—call (905) 686-8080 for assistance.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Is It Proper to Ask a Judge to Reconsider When It Appears That An Error Was Made?
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 Anderson Aylwin Begg & Co. by phone at: (905) 686-8080 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. 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 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
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 volume of online searches for “lawyers nearby” or “top lawyer in” tends to indicate a desire for prompt and adept legal assistance rather than a particular job title. In Ontario, paralegals who hold a license are governed by the same Law Society as lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation situations. Advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural proficiency are key components of this profession. Anderson Aylwin Begg & Co. provides legal representation within its licensed authority, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to achieve effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.
