CIVIL TRIAL ADJOURNMENT REQUESTS REQUIRE FAIRLY SUBSTANTIVE JUSTIFICATION
This decision highlights that although “the court is generous rather than overly strict when faced with a request for the indulgence of an adjournment, …. the generosity of the court should not, however, be taken for granted.” The party requesting the trial adjournment must be prepared, where possible, to provide cogent evidence that:
- The adjournment request was made on a timely basis;
- Without the adjournment, their ability to fully and adequately defend the proceeding would be significantly compromised;
- The length of the adjournment is not unduly;
- There is a legitimate reason, with practical implication, for why the party cannot proceed on the scheduled trial date;
- Injustice will be caused if the trial proceeds as scheduled, and there is no other reasonable means upon which to address this injustice other than through an adjournment;
- The amount involved and the complexity of the proceeding will create a risk factor that warrants giving more time for the party to get ready;
- The competing interests of the parties weighs in favour of the adjournment;
- The age of the action is not too old so as to cause significant prejudice; and
- The party has not made repetitive indulgence requests historically.
Some of these factors are potentially interrelated, but more importantly not any one alone is determinative. The court will simply weigh all these factors. In the present case, the adjournment sought one month before the scheduled trial was denied because the defendant didn’t adequately marshal the evidence to sufficiently address the factors outlined above.
Paleshnuik v. Churchill et al., 2022 ONSC 902
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc902/2022onsc902.html