Volume. 8 Issue. 7 – February 21, 2024

This week, a procedural matter wherein the Applicant was seeking an adjournment for the second time. The Tribunal has taken a fairly strict approach to granting adjournments citing the reasoning of ensuring hearings occur in a timely fashion.

Winter Virtual Training Courses

Secure your seat for inHEALTH’s 2024 Winter Virtual Training Sessions. 

• SABS Expedited: February 26th – March 1st, 2024

*Eligible Participants receive 9 Substantive – CPD hours upon course completion

Course details & register here +

Consent by Parties for Adjournment Not Determinative

No Adjournment for 900+ Day Old Application – Injured in a April 9 2016 MVA, the Applicant DiPietro, in 21-006395 v Aviva, sought an adjournment for the second time, a motion that was heard at the start of the hearing December 11, 2023. Previously, DiPietro was granted an adjournment from the original hearing date September 5, 2023 on account of her counsel’s medical condition.

In the within matter, the hearing scheduled for December 11, 2023 required DiPietro to submit a document brief and a finalized witness list no later than 10 days prior to the hearing, neither of which were submitted. Instead, DiPietro filed a second adjournment request on December 1, 2023, citing two reasons,the first being counsel’s medical condition, being that he had bypass surgery a few years ago and he has not had a return to health thus far, supported by a medical note from a Dr. Allega dated November 2023. Second, he also submitted that he had consulted with another law firm to take on the file approximately six to eight weeks ago, however, no commitment or decision had been made as of yet to take on the file. Aviva had consented to the adjournment request.

In its analysis the Tribunal remarked “Although both parties consented to the adjournment, consent alone is not determinative. Rule 16.3 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”) provides a list of factors the Tribunal will consider when a request for an adjournment is made, which includes but is not limited to, the age of the file, whether any previous adjournments have been granted, the length of notice of the event the Tribunal provided to the parties and whether the reason for the adjournment request was foreseeable and avoidable”.

DiPietro’s request for adjournment was denied as the Tribunal found the file was currently 931 days old and this was a second request for essentially the same reason a previous adjournment was granted. By adjourning the hearing for a second time, the parties are denied the legitimate expectation to have a fair and full hearing before a neutral adjudicator in a timely fashion.

After the Tribunal delivered its ruling, DiPietro’s counsel’s request for a 30-day adjournment to allow DiPietro time to seek new counsel was also denied as Rule 16.2 states that an adjournment would be allowed only in compelling circumstances where the party did not and could not have known of the circumstances giving rise to the adjournment request prior to the event.

Although the Tribunal offered to stand the matter down for one day and have it proceed on December 12, 2023, DiPietro’s counsel advised the Tribunal that he was unprepared for this hearing, and he cannot move forward in this manner as such he withdrew the application. The Tribunal’s file was therefore closed.

Access inHEALTH’s research resources through Live Chat and receive your OAR. Get It now!