Adjournments

Today's important Court of Appeal decision in LSUC v Igbinoson 2009 ONCA 484 sets out the factors an adjudicator ought to consider in granting, or refusing, an adjournment request:

Reference may be made to Khimji v. Dhanani (2004), 69 O.R. (3d) 790 ( C.A. ); Moudry v. Moudry (2006), 216 O.A.C. 84 ( C.A. ); R. v. Wood [2007] 196 C.C.C. (3d) 155 (Ont. C.A. ) ("Wood"); R. v. Hazout (2005), 201 O.A.C. 235 ( C.A. ) ("Hazout"); R. v. Marzocchi (2006), 211 O.A.C. 2 ( C.A. ); Kalin v. Ontario College of Teachers (2005), 75 O.R. (3d) 523 ( Div. Ct.); and Ariston Realty Corp. v. Elcarim Inc. (2007), 51 C.P.C. (6th) 326 ( Ont. S.C.). A non-exhaustive list of procedural and substantive considerations in deciding whether to grant or refuse an adjournment can be derived from these cases. Factors which may support the denial of an adjournment may include a lack of compliance with prior court orders, previous adjournments that have been granted to the applicant, previous peremptory hearing dates, the desirability of having the matter decided and a finding that the applicant is seeking to manipulate the system by orchestrating delay. Factors which may favour the granting of an adjournment include the fact that the consequences of the hearing are serious, that the applicant would be prejudiced if the request were not granted, and a finding that the applicant was honestly seeking to exercise his right to counsel, and had been represented in the proceedings up until the time of the adjournment request. In weighing these factors, the timeliness of the request, the applicant's reasons for being unable to proceed on the scheduled date and the length of the requested adjournment should also be considered.