The trial comes to a close, a decision has been made. The crown and defence file out of the courtroom. It’d be normal to assume that once a trial has concluded, that any decision made by the trial judge is final and binding.

While this is true in the vast majority of cases, judges do have the power to reverse their own decisions in “exceptional circumstances” and before sentencing has occurred.

Can a judge change their own ruling in Canada? The answer is yes, but only in specific situations. The practice is somewhat controversial, as many feel a judgment should be final, and to act otherwise works to undermine the finality of court decisions.

In 2013, the case of R v. Griffith ended with firearms-related charges being levied against the defendant after an altercation with police. This is not the unusual part. Three months later in what was meant to be a sentencing hearing, the judge instead reversed his decision completely, offering an acquittal instead.

How is this possible? In what situations can a judge use this power?

When is a judge’s decision final?

Jurisdiction is an important concept in creating and enforcing the laws of the land. Jurisdiction dictates not only the geographic area where laws apply but also the limits to which law enforcement and the courts can enforce those laws.

The courts follow a concept known as the doctrine of functus officio. The Latin phrase translates to “having performed the function of his or her office”, referring to the fact that courts no longer have jurisdiction to change decisions once a case has ended. In a criminal case, this occurs in the event of a stay of proceedings, dismissal, acquittal or sentencing.

When could a judge change his or her mind?

A judge is limited to the period of time between the trial proceedings and sentencing. Once sentencing has occurred, the case is longer within that judge’s jurisdiction – any further review of the case would be the responsibility of a separate appeals court.

There are essentially three situations where a judge could potentially review and change their decision.

First, if fresh evidence is submitted between the end of the trial and sentencing, a judge may reconsider their decision. A formal judgment may also be reviewed if there was a technical error in the proceedings or if there was a mistake in expressing the “manifest intention of the court”.

Either way, it’s a pretty rare occurrence for this kind of change in judgment to occur after trial proceedings and prior to sentencing. The courts agree that such powers should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances.

Judge changing an order conclusion

In short, a judge does have some power in limited situations to change their own decision once a trial has concluded but don’t hold your breath for a change of heart. It’s extremely rare and quite controversial.

There are only a handful of instances of this occurring, and most of the time the judge encounters heavy opposition from the opposing counsel.

If a judge changes an order, speak to a law firm.