Last Updated: August 23 2026
Can a paralegal help me ask a judge to reconsider a decision in Ontario when it looks like a clear error was made?
Caruso Legal Services can help you assess whether a judge reconsideration request is appropriate in Ontario, since decisions are generally final unless you appeal, and reconsideration is rare and usually only considered where the error is obvious and the interests of justice compel it, such as when all parties agree that an obvious legal or procedural error occurred, as discussed in cases like Gupta v. Lindal Cedar Homes Ltd., 2020 ONSC 7524 and 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59. If the alleged error is contested, the request is far less likely to succeed, so it is important to document what was wrong, confirm consent status, and consider whether an appeal is the better path. For guidance with next steps, call (289) 271-0488.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
If a Judge Commits a Mistake Within a Court Decision Is It Proper to Ask the Judge to Reconsider?
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.
Note: Please contact Caruso Legal Services by phone at: (289) 271-0488 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. 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
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 amount of inquiries regarding “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicates a desire for prompt and proficient legal assistance rather than a specific job title. In Ontario, licensed paralegals operate under the same Law Society that governs lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in specific litigation scenarios. Advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise are fundamental to this position. Caruso Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
