Last Updated: August 22 2026
In Ontario family law matters, can I ask a judge to reconsider a court decision if the judge made an obvious mistake?
In Ontario, court decisions are usually final and must be corrected through appeal, unless all parties consent to a limited reconsideration to remedy a clear, obvious error that affects the integrity of the litigation process; this is rare and courts tend to reopen only in unusual circumstances where the interests of justice compel it and “sparingly and with the greatest care” (see 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59). If you think a decision contains an obvious mistake, a family law services provider Paralegal at Denali Paralegal can help you assess whether the parties can agree and whether a reconsideration request is more appropriate than an appeal. Call (877) 414-4377 to discuss your situation.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Can a Judge Reconsider a Decision Where It Appears That a Mistake 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 Denali Paralegal by phone at: (877) 414-4377 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 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 considerable number of inquiries containing “lawyers in my vicinity” or “top lawyer in” frequently indicate a necessity for prompt and effective legal assistance, rather than pointing to a particular title. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the identical Law Society that supervises lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specified litigation issues. Advocacy, legal interpretation, and procedural expertise are fundamental to that position. Denali Paralegal provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic alignment, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy directed at securing swift and advantageous outcomes for clients.
