Legal Profession Regulation: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:31, 11 January 2024

There are factors to consider for an adjournment:^[1]

the purpose of the adjournment (relevance to the proceedings, necessary for a fair hearing);
has the participant seeking the adjournment acted in good faith and reasonably in attempting to avoid the necessity of adjourning;
the position of other participants and the reasonableness of their actions;
the seriousness of the harm resulting if the adjournment is not granted;
the seriousness of the harm resulting if the adjournment is granted (to the other participants, etc., including the length of adjournment required);
is there any way to compensate for any harm identified;
how many adjournments has the party requesting the adjournment been granted in the past; and
was the hearing to be peremptory, and if so, were the parties consulted in selecting the date and were they advised of its peremptory nature.

see also Re Baker, 2023 CanLII 98517 (NL LS), LSO v Oti, 2023 ONSLSTH 141, LSO v Lulic, 2023 ONLSTH 159, Re Guo, 2023 LSBC 41.

↑ De Lange (Re), 2022 LSBC 35 (CanLII), at para 14 ("In both Welder and in Law Society of BC v. Hart, 2019 LSBC 39 the panel cited the following non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered for adjournment motions as set out in Macaulay & Sprague, Practice and Procedure Before Administrative Tribunals, (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2004):...")

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 * {{CanLIIRC|Law Society of Ontario v King|jlqfj|2022 ONLSTH 6 (CanLII)}}
 * {{CanLIIRC|LSO v Dakin|jms7m|2022 ONLSTH 23 (CanLII)}}
-* Law Society of Ontario v. Ljiljanic, 2021 ONLSTH 5
+* {{CanLIIRC|LSO v Ljiljanic|jclnm|2021 ONLSTH 5 (CanLII)}}
 * Law Society of Ontario v. Dinning, 2021 ONLSTH 85
 * Law Society of Ontario v. Zaitzeff, 2021 ONLSTH 108