August 18, 2026
“Justice delayed is justice denied.” The saying is usually attributed to William gladstone, a 19th century British Prime Minister, but it’s roots go all the way at least to the 13th century, in the Magna Carta, the bedrock of much of our modern thinking about justice, liberty and civil rights.
THE ISSUE
Judges really dislike adjournments, especially at the last minute. Court time is a limited resource, and with backlogs in most places, wasting that time increases the difficulty of delivering justice in a timely fashion.
We have written before about your “rights” to an adjournment when necessary. An adjournment is not a right. From the viewpoint of a judge, it is an indulgence, a favour.
Even though delays are not as big a problem in Thunder Bay and Northwestern Ontario as they are on southern Ontario, they STILL can be an issue.
THE CASE
An earlier article reviewed a case were the Divisional Court, Ontario’s intermediate appeal court, overturned a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal denied a reasonable request for an adjournment. That court emphasized that there is no “one size fits all” approach to adjournments. Fairness requires flexibility.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, Ontario’s highest court, displays a different side of the story in Riordon v. Broley.
We find that sometimes the shortest decisions of the Court of Appeal seem to be intended to send the strongest messages, and Riordon is no exception.
Riordon was an appeal from a denial of a request for an adjournment of a motion for summary judgment.
Motions for summary judgment are a growing feature of Ontario’s civil litigation system (that is, lawsuits between parties which do not involve criminal or family law). As the court in Riordon explains:
[They] are intended as an efficient way of dealing with cases that do not require a trial. They are meant to facilitate access to justice by providing a more economical and expeditious resolution
The court goes on the further emphasize that:
Repeated adjournment requests undermine the goals of summary judgment, particularly when they are made at the last minute. As this court has previously cautioned, “Last-minute adjournments waste judicial resources and public funds” [citations omitted]
When summary judgment motions are brought, they usually require special dates. Special dates are especially precious court time. In order to make sure that everybody is ready on time, and that the judge has a chance to read the materials in advance, timetables for preparation are usually ordered.
The appellant in Riordon did herself no favours. The court is critical of their behaviour throughout the lawsuit:
Viewed in their entirety, the actions of the appellant demonstrate an intention to delay the action moving forward and to disregard numerous orders of the court. The initial return date of the motion was set almost a year after the summary judgment motion had been served on the appellant. She ignored the timetable orders thereby preventing the motion being heard in June 2025. She was granted further indulgence by the court, and given a new return date for the motion which was marked peremptory. She again failed to deliver her materials and failed to pay the costs ordered. She then asked for another adjournment.
But they go further and add general comments which apply even if you do act reasonably. Breaking their comments into bullets for easy of reading, with a few edits into less legal language:
- The granting of an adjournment request is a discretionary order
- A judge’s decision will seldom be overturned on appeal.
- This is especially true where, as in Riordon, the judge set out very detailed reasons for refusing to grant the adjournment request.
- The appeal will not succeed where there was no denial of procedural fairness.
- Court orders must be respected and complied with.
- Judges on adjournment motions are to consider not only the orderly processing of civil trials, but the need to effectively enforce court orders.
- Where the date for the motion was set months in advance and the court implemented a timetable for the delivery of materials to ensure both parties would be ready on the return date of the motion, an adjournment is highly unlikely
- Failing to comply with the timetable order is a good reason to deny an adjournment.
- Failed to deliver your materials on time is NOT a god reason to get an adjournment.
- Fairness is a two-way street.
To the Court, after balancing Ms. Riordon’s behaviour with that of the respondent, the bottom line was that the unfairness to the other side was greater.
Appeal dismissed.
Whatever merits her action might have had, Ms. Riordon did not get her day in court the way she wanted it.
TAKEAWAYS
- If you need an adjournment for good reason, you may be granted one- one size does not fit all.
- But there are no guarantees.
- Far better to be ready on time.
- This is particularly true where the hearing date follows after a timetable was established to make sure everything was ready for the hearing.
- Failure to comply with a timetable is a bad thing.
- 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. In a situation where a timetable may be set, hiring a lawyer BEFORE the timetable is set is best.
WHAT WEILERS LLP CAN DO TO HELP YOU
The dispute resolution team at Weilers will use our 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.
Where a timetable is required, we are skilled at finding the right balance between enough time to prepare without extra delay. We know how to keep on the timetable.
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.