Today brings yet another Court of Appeal decision upholding a refusal of a lower court to adjourn a matter. If an adjournment is sought evidence as to why the adjournment is needed is crucial.
The Court, in Cusinato v. Cusinato, 2010 ONCA 259, writes:
[3] ... . Before deciding the application, the application judge dismissed a motion by the applicant for an adjournment to file further material and to cross-examine Mr. Paniccia, who had sworn an affidavit in the proceedings. ...
... .
[5] We see no basis on which to interfere with the application judge's exercise of discretion in refusing an adjournment. As noted by the application judge, the applicant had sufficient time to serve responding material before the return of the application and did not do so.
[6] There was nothing in the material before the application judge or this court that explains why an adjournment was required so the applicant could file further material or cross-examine the affiant. Nor is there anything in the record to challenge the correctness of the application judge's decision on capacity [the substantive issue].
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment