Limits to Adjournments

Courts can be generous - some would say too generous - in granting adjournments when requested. Granting the adjournment delays finality, increases costs associated with wasted preparation time and can be frustrating to the party that wants to proceed.

An Ontario Court of Appeal decision demonstrates that there are limits to granting adjournments even when the request is made based on medical reasons.

The appellant was a disappointed beneficiary who sued his co-trustees and co-beneficiaries on a number of grounds in a number of actions. He also sued the financial institution where his late father kept a number of securities alleging they breached a duty owed to him and that they made misrepresentations when they allowed his late father to transfer $400,000 in securities into a joint account with a co-beneficiary.

The sister successfully brought a summary judgment motion which determined that the $400,000 passed by right of survivorship to her and were not part of the Estate.

The financial institution moved to strike the claim against it based on the determination that the funds in question had been judicially determined to belong to the sister.

A timetable was set in the matter and a motion date set. At the return date, the appellant asked for a first adjournment claiming he was having health issues. A second return date was set peremptory on the appellant. At that return date, the appellant brought a note claiming he needed six months medical leave. No specific information was provided. The judge granted the second adjournment but stated that if a further adjournment was requested specific information about the medical leave would be required.

Not surprisingly, in advance of the third return date, the appellant wrote the opposing party and requested a further adjournment but failing to provide specific medical information. The financial institution appeared at the return date advised the court of the requested adjournment and said it was prepared to proceed.

The motion judge refused the adjournment request and went on to grant the financial institution's motion to strike. The appellant appealed claiming the adjournment should have been granted.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. First, the determination of whether to adjourn a hearing is discretionary and discretionary decisions get deference on appeal. Additionally, the Court was not inclined to set aside the decision not to adjourn in circumstances where multiple adjournment requests had been made and given. The appellant also had failed to provide further specifics of the reason for adjournment. The Court also noted that more than a year had passed since the original hearing date.

The Lesson: While courts can and will be generous with adjournments, there are limits to the generousity. In making requests ensure that you have fully complied with all court orders. If the court wants specific information, provide it. Do not simply assume that a vague request is sufficient.

Laski v BMO Nesbitt Burns, 2020 ONCA 300 (ONCA) 2020onca300.pdf (canlii.org)

The content and the opinions expressed here is informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional advice.?Nor does reading or commenting on it create a lawyer/client relationship with the author.? I encourage you to contact me directly at [email protected] if you have specific legal questions or concerns.

If you are an individual looking for assistance with a legal problem, contact me for professional and cost-effective advice.? [email protected]

The author encourages you to share this article on social media.?