Adjournment requests

Recent Court of Appeal decisions have been inclined to defer to judicial officers who refuse an adjournment. 

 

This may be a sign of a new judicial approach – in the past adjournment requests were almost never refused and when they were the resulting decisions were subject to being overturned on appeal.  If an adjournment is requested, the party seeking an adjournment must set out specific reasons, and evidence if possible, as to why the adjournment is needed and how there will be relevant material to follow.

 

Today’s decision in Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Transfer Realty Inc., 2010 ONCA 166 is an example of the new approach:

 

 [2]              The appellants appeal on the grounds that the motion judge’s denial of their request for an adjournment is contrary to the overall objective of civil procedure which is to obtain a just determination of the real matters in dispute.

 

[3]              The decision whether to grant an adjournment is discretionary.  Accordingly, the scope for appellate intervention is limited: see Khimji v. Dhanani, [2004] O.J. No. 320 (C.A.).  The appellants have not demonstrated that the refusal to grant an adjournment is contrary to the interests of justice.  In this regard, while the appellants say they have evidence with which to oppose the Bank’s motion, they filed nothing to support that contention either before the motion judge or this court.  Where it is alleged that there is a defence or that a party will suffer prejudice if not permitted to present his or her case, the party must do more than simply make an assertion to that effect.  There must be something to indicate that there is value in remitting the matter for a consideration on the merits.