Clerical Error or an Appeal on the Merits? Rathee v. Rathee, 2025 ONCA 326

Clerical error or an appeal on the merits?

How far can we stretch the idea of an “accidental slip” or a clerical error? That was the central issue in Rathee v. Rathee, 2025 ONCA 326, where the Court of Appeal for Ontario firmly reminded parties that Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (RCP) is not a backdoor appeal.

This case brings together arbitration, appellate oversight, and one party’s creative attempt to revisit an unfavourable support award under the guise of a procedural fix.

A Spousal Support Saga

Noelle Heen-Lune Rathee and Rajinder Singh Rathee were married for 7 years.

After their separation, Dr. Rathee—a high-income physician—provided substantial financial support to Ms. Rathee and their child.

In 2019, they agreed to have their financial disputes arbitrated. The arbitrator awarded the wife $250,000 in lump sum spousal support.

Not satisfied, Ms. Rathee appealed. The Superior Court judge increased the award to $1.89 million.

Dr. Rathee then took the matter to the Court of Appeal, which reduced the award to $678,888 (after tax) in Rathee v. Rathee, 2024 ONCA 912.

The New Motion: From Judgment to "Slip"?

Unwilling to let the matter rest, though, Dr. Rathee returned to the Court of Appeal with a motion under Rule 59.06(1) of the RCP. He claimed the Court’s December 2024 decision contained an 'accidental omission'—specifically, that it failed to account for certain Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) inputs, like:

• The wife’s income;

• Shared expenses for their child; and

• Table child support already paid.

  
  

He argued that had these been considered, the amount should have been $305,650.80.

The Court of Appeal's Response: This Isn’t a “Clerical Error”

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion outright:

• Rule 59.06(1) is limited to clerical, mathematical, or drafting errors, not errors in judicial reasoning.

  
  

• Citing Liu v. Jin Qiu, 2022 ONCA 544, and Millwright v. Celestica, 2013 ONSC 1502 (Perell J.), the Court made it clear:

“This is not a slip. This is a disagreement with the Court’s judgment. The proper path is leave to appeal — not revision under Rule 59.”

Costs and Consequences

The motion was dismissed. The wife received $7,500 in costs for the unnecessary proceeding.

Takeaways

• Rule 59.06(1) is not a substitute for an appeal on the merits. If it's a clerical error, it won't be judged as an appeal all over again.

• Framing matters. The Court won’t accept attempts to re-litigate substantive outcomes through the lens of a “clerical error.”

• SSAG-based decisions are discretionary, not formulaic. Courts have room to weigh fairness, circumstances, and context. Much deference is given to the lower court.