“All parties agree that a judge’s decision to adjourn or not adjourn a trial is highly discretionary. In Ariston Realty Corp. v Elcarim Inc. 2007 CanLII 13360 (ONSC), Justice Perell set out a helpful list of factors and principles for the Court to consider when exercising its discretion to grant or refuse an adjournment:
“Depending on the circumstances of each case, to judicially exercise the discretion to grant or refuse an adjournment, a judge or master may need to weigh many relevant factors including:
-
-
-
-
- the overall objective of a determination of the matter on its substantive merits;
- the principles of natural justice;
- that justice not only be done but appear to be done;
- the particular circumstances of the request for an adjournment and the reasons and justification for the request;
- the practical effect or consequences of an adjournment on both substantive and procedural justice;
- the competing interests of the parties in advancing or delaying the progress of the litigation;
- the prejudice not compensable in costs, if any, suffered by a party by the granting or the refusing of the adjournment;
- whether the ability of the party requesting the adjournment to fully and adequately prosecute or defend the proceeding would be significantly compromised if the adjournment were refused;
- the need of the administration of justice to orderly process civil proceedings; and
- the need of the administration of justice to effectively enforce court orders.”
-
-
-
Konstan et al. v. Berkovits et al., 2021 ONSC 6749 (CanLII) at 14