Not as such.
But, if there’s a teaching that isn’t perennial and universal, then it would not seem to meet the conditions for the ordinary magisterium. The question – in this case – is moot, since we do have expressions of the extraordinary magisterium, regarding the canon of Scripture. (One might expect that this fact would demonstrate that there wasn’t consensus on the question, and therefore, required a declaration by the pope and college of bishops.)
Now… I think you’re asking whether there have been bishops who were in need of correction, regarding something that otherwise would have been considered a part of the ordinary magisterium. I’m sure there have been, and I’m sure that the appropriate corrective actions were applied, so that the teachings could remain in the teaching of the ordinary magisterium.
However, your assertion that the canon of Scripture is part of the teaching of the ordinary magisterium seems manifestly erroneous, given the diversity of thought on the canon and the subsequent expression of the extraordinary magisterium on the subject.