Last Updated: August 26 2026
Can a paralegal help me ask a judge to reconsider a court decision in Ontario if the judge made an obvious error?
In Ontario, court decisions are usually final and meant to be corrected through appeal, but a judge may reconsider only in unusual and rare circumstances, typically where it is obvious an error was made and all parties consent to the reconsideration. That means you generally cannot rely on a judge to “fix” a mistake just because you think it is wrong; instead, you should quickly assess whether an appeal is needed or whether a narrow reconsideration request is available based on clear error and shared agreement. For guidance on next steps, timing, and whether your situation fits the limited circumstances discussed in cases like Gupta v. Lindal Cedar Homes Ltd., 2020 ONSC 7524, call (289) 443-0675 with Cross Legal Services to speak with a paralegal serving clients across Ontario.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Is It Proper to Ask a Judge to Reconsider When It Appears That An Error Was Made?
Generally, When a Judicial Decision Is Rendered the Matter Is Considered Final and May Be Corrected Only Upon An Appeal to a Higher Court. Only In Rare Circumstances, Such As When the Error Is Obvious and All Parties Involved Agree to a Reconsideration,...
Note: Please contact Cross Legal Services by phone at: (289) 443-0675 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, once a case is decided the law expects that all involved will respect the decision, including any mistakes within the decision, unless taken by Appeal to a higher court. It is rare that a Judge will perform a reconsideration.
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 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 significant quantity of online queries pertaining to “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate a necessity for prompt and competent legal assistance rather than a particular job title. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation issues. Skills in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural expertise are fundamental to that function. Cross Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed scope, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at achieving efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
