In Pourshian v. Walt Disney Company (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court considered the amendment of an order, here with respect to costs:
[22] In Kerr v. Danier Leather Inc., 2005 CanLII 23095 (Sup. Ct.), the court relied on Rule 59.06(1) to award costs three years after an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment motion in circumstances where the respondent had failed to raise the issue of costs. In that case, at para. 34, the Court held that “[j]udgments or orders should reflect the true intention of the court and the court retains jurisdiction to amend a judgment or order where it does not reflect the court's intention… In the situation at hand, I would have dealt with the issue of costs had it been raised by the plaintiff before the Orders were finalized.” In my view, the same applies here.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
