Canada Case Law

R. v. Koval

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Cumulative procedural errors — summary denial of the March 6 request without reasons, proceeding ex parte on March 7 without adequate inquiry or justification, and continuing the trial after March 8 rather than declaring a mistrial — deprived the accused of a fair trial; the unfairness is prejudicial and not susceptible to cure under s.686(1)(b); convictions are set aside and a new trial ordered.

Source excerpt

• Trial fairness
• Ex parte proceedings
• Absence of accused
• Adjournment
• Waiver of right to full answer and defence
• Curative proviso

Read case analysis

Kolias v. Barnes-Morrison

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court granted the adjournment and extension because proceeding without the respondent's factum was not in the interests of justice given a bona fide explanation for delay and the unilateral setting of the hearing; it reinstated the jurisdictional appeal because it raised arguable issues and overlapped materially with the other appeal, and ordered the appeals heard together with scheduled filing deadlines and a one-day hearing on June 26, 2026.

Source excerpt

• Adjournment
• Extension of time
• Reinstatement of appeal
• Jurisdiction
• Costs
• Case management

Read case analysis

A.T. v A.S.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court exercised discretion to award lump sum costs below the respondent's requested 75% of his billed amounts after deducting specific improper or inapplicable charges (total deductions $5,897.90 leaving an adjusted baseline of $6,668.32) and concluded a $2,500 lump sum (plus a prior $750 award) represents a fair and proportionate contribution reflecting Tariff C guidance, the conduct of both parties, and deficiencies in the respondent's affidavit and billing entries.

Source excerpt

• Costs awards
• Tariff c
• Publication ban
• Evidence admissibility
• Self-represented litigant
• Adjournment

Read case analysis

Condoman Developments Inc. v. Cannect International Mortgage Corporation

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from an order striking pleadings for non-payment of a costs award, and awarded the respondents $25,000 costs.

• Striking pleadings
• Costs award
• Fresh evidence
• Adjournment
• Finality of judgment
• Striking-pleadings

Read case analysis

Hydich v. Demosten

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The application to adjourn was dismissed because the defendants’ request was untimely, the prejudice to the plaintiff from delay (financial hardship, loss of income, reliance on prepared experts and readiness to proceed) outweighed the defendants’ preference for a jury, and the court concluded a fair trial can be held by a judge alone despite the FIFA scheduling notice.

Source excerpt

• Adjournment
• Right to jury trial
• Prejudice
• Timeliness
• Costs

Read case analysis

Pickton (Re)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The adjournment application was dismissed because the RCMP's documentation regarding the seized Dominion Avenue items is sufficiently thorough to protect any civil interests, section 490 does not support ordering preservation of property for the plaintiffs' asserted civil purposes, and the proposed adjournment would likely produce an indeterminate, lengthy delay and waste finite judicial resources, with additional concerns such as privacy and unrelated family interests weighing against delay.

Source excerpt

• Seized property disposition
• Adjournment
• Production of documents
• Standing
• Section 490 criminal code

Read case analysis

Harbut v. Berti

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court exercised its discretion to adjourn the April 7, 2026 trial because the prejudice to defendants from proceeding without further discovery and expert preparation outweighed the plaintiffs' prejudice from delay; the court granted leave to Burley Boys and Metro to add BITS and Maddison as third parties because there is arguable material supporting contribution/indemnity claims and uncertainty about limitation expiry, and directed that any limitation defence by the proposed third parties be determined in the third‑party proceedings on a fuller evidentiary record.

Source excerpt

• Adjournment
• Third‑party notice
• Contribution and indemnity
• Limitation period discoverability
• Expert evidence
• Discovery timing

Read case analysis

The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3495 v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3495 (Residential Section)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed: the directions to adjourn did not determine procedural or substantive rights and were therefore largely non‑appealable; even if appealable, leave would be refused because the chambers judge acted within his broad discretion, the applicant's grounds lacked merit and were frivolous (including unsupported bias claims), an appeal would unduly delay the underlying petition, and this Court lacked jurisdiction to decide an application that was not substantively determined by the court below.

Source excerpt

• Adjournment
• Leave to appeal
• Mootness
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Case management
• Stay pending appeal

Read case analysis

Opsal Estate (Re)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court refused to convert the petition to a trial or adjourn for expanded discovery because the respondents failed to show a good reason, unjustified delay and a fishing expedition; the proponent established formal execution and presented overwhelming independent evidence (medical and witnessing attestation) that the deceased had testamentary capacity and knew and approved the 2021 will; suspicious circumstances and undue influence were not proven; counsel's file remained privileged because counsel was retained after execution for litigation, not for estate planning; therefore the 2021 wil…

Source excerpt

• Testamentary capacity
• Knowledge and approval of will
• Undue influence
• Conversion of petition to trial/hybrid trial
• Adjournment
• Production of legal files

Read case analysis

Zhang v. Song

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court concluded the prejudice to Mr. Song and Ms. Kim from insufficient trial time and inability to participate in person, together with the realistic risk that five days would be inadequate, outweighed the prejudice to Ms. Zhang; therefore the liability trial was adjourned to an available longer sitting in August/September 2026. An advance was refused at this time because the evidence was insufficient to be satisfied there was no possibility the advance would exceed eventual recovery, particularly given potential insurance limits and pro rata apportionment, but the plaintiff may renew th…

Source excerpt

• Adjournment
• Trial management
• Advance of damages
• Expert evidence
• Prejudice balancing
• Right to a fair trial

Read case analysis