January 6, 2026
We have written before about the difficulties created if you need, or simply want, an adjournment of a hearing. Adjournments are not automatic, and when a matter is set for an actual hearing, courts and tribunals understandably want to make good use of the time. Opposing parties also have a right to have the matter heard promptly.
Granting an adjournment is a discretionary matter. As long as the adjudicator follows the basic principles of natural justice and fair process, that decision will not be overturned on appeal.
As pointed out in by the Divisional Court in AIG Insurance Company v. Riddell, dealing with an appeal from a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision,
“the orderly processing of administrative decision making would be prejudiced if this court was to start micro-managing scheduling issues”.
THE ISSUE
What ARE the situations under which a decision about an adjournment will be overturned?
There is no single universally applied list, either in statutes, rules, or caselaw precedents.
THE CASE
Riddell is a good example of what factors courts will consider, and how they will be applied. It is, however, not a comprehensive list that can be assumed to apply to all situations. Being recently decided, how much weight it receives is unclear. However, as a decision of Ontario’s intermediate appeal court, unless it is overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal, it is binding upon the Superior Court of Justice (Ontario’s first line court), and administrative tribunals generally.
In this case, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) had denied a consent request for an adjournment.
The LAT Rules include a 17-point list of factors to be considered in deciding whether to grant an adjournment. The 17th point is “Any other factors considered relevant in deciding the request.”
As noted by the divisional court, this adjournment request focused on the undesirability of further delays, a principle that overlaps with a number of points on the LAT list. As the Court noted: “The reasons give little or no weight to the nature and complexity of this case, the competing obligations of counsel, or the prejudice to the parties if the adjournment was not granted.” Which are points listed in the Rules.
The Court was particularly critical of the failure to consider the complexity of the case. They make four points as to why the decision was unreasonable:
- “It was not reasonable to suggest that the parties retain new counsel for this matter.”
- “It is not reasonable to suggest that a multi-day hearing with eight experts could, or should, proceed as an in-writing hearing.”
- “suggesting that the parties settle the matter in order to resolve a scheduling conflict is not reasonable.”
- “the proposal that Ms. Riddell withdraw and re-file her complaint, subject to a tolling agreement, is unreasonable: this would result, in effect, in the requested adjournment, or a longer one, but would yield no other benefit other than burnishing the LAT’s “time out” statistics artificially. This suggests that LAT’s priority was not the timely adjudication of this application despite the LAT’s finding that granting an adjournment of 6 to 8 months would be unreasonable.”
The Court emphasized that a “one size fits all” approach is not appropriate. Fairness requires flexibility.
The proposal that Ms. Riddell withdraw and re-file her complaint, subject to a tolling agreement, is unreasonable: this would result, in effect, in the requested adjournment, or a longer one, but would yield no other benefit other than burnishing the LAT’s “time out” statistics artificially. This suggests that LAT’s priority was not the timely adjudication of this application despite the LAT’s finding that granting an adjournment of 6 to 8 months would be unreasonable.
TAKEAWAYS
- Adjournments once a hearing date is set will be the exception, rather than the rule.
- If you need an adjournment for good reason, you may be granted one- one size does not fit all.
- Your best bet to avoid getting caught in a procedural trap like a hearing set at an inconvenient time, is to hire the right lawyer early in the process.
WHAT WEILERS LLP CAN DO TO HELP YOU
The dispute resolution team at Weilers will use their knowledge, skills, and experience to advocate strongly for your case. We have credibility with judges and tribunal members. We understand their expectations. We are skilled story tellers.
If an adjournment is appropriate, we will do our best to obtain one for a good reason, in a timely manner. We will be honest with you about the prospects of an adjournment, just as we will be honest with you about the prospects of your case as it progresses.
If you want hard work and straightforward advice from your lawyers, give us a call. We might be the right lawyers for you.