Yes No Share to Facebook
Decision Reconsideration Request
Concerns For Judicial Errors Are Usually Denied
Last Updated: July 03 2026
Question: Can someone who is unhappy with a family law decision in Ontario ask the judge to review the decision instead of filing an appeal?
Answer: In Ontario, court decisions are usually final and can only be changed through an appeal, but a judge may reconsider a decision only in unusual and rare circumstances, generally where there is an obvious error and all parties consent to the reconsideration. Courts emphasize finality, so a reconsideration request is often denied unless the integrity of the litigation is at risk or a clear miscarriage of justice would occur, as reflected in cases such as Gupta v. Lindal Cedar Homes Ltd., 2020 ONSC 7524 and related Ontario authority. If you are seeking family law assistance as a paralegal through Denali Paralegal, you can get help understanding whether your situation is the kind of “clear error” scenario that may justify asking the court for reconsideration, and what steps are realistic in the timelines for your matter; call (877) 414-4377 for guidance.
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.
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.”
Per the Gupta case as above, a reconsideration should occur only where all parties agree that a judicial decision contains a mistake; and unless so, it should be expected that a judge will deny a reconsideration request.
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 multitude of inquiries featuring “lawyers nearby” or “top lawyer in” typically indicate an urgent requirement for capable and effective legal assistance, rather than pinpointing a particular professional designation. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and possess the authority to advocate for clients in specific litigation contexts. Central to this role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Denali Paralegal provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.