Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation discusses a case involving a denied adjournment request in the context of mental and physical health. During a real estate dispute, a buyer asked the court to delay a summary trial due to health-related limitations. The adjournment was denied, and the trial proceeded. The buyer lost and was ordered to pay over $150,000. On appeal and in a leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada, they argued that Canada needs a clearer, more consistent framework for health-related adjournment requests. The Court declined to hear the case—missing a critical opportunity to address fairness and access to justice for individuals with disabilities.
Key Points Discussed
– The case arose from litigation over the purchase and sale of a home.
– The seller chose a summary trial based largely on written evidence.
– The buyer applied for an adjournment citing medical reasons, including mental health concerns.
– The court denied the adjournment, and the buyer was unsuccessful at trial.
– The buyer sought to appeal the ruling, arguing for a national standard on when health issues justify a delay.
– The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case.
Why This Case Matters
Adjournment decisions are made daily in Canadian courts, yet there is no clear or consistent framework for how health-related requests should be assessed. Litigants with chronic illnesses, mental health challenges, or permanent disabilities risk being excluded from full participation in the legal process when requests for accommodations are denied without sufficient guidance.
Courts must balance the need to avoid unnecessary delay with the obligation to ensure access to justice for all participants—including those with health issues.
Missed Opportunity for a National Standard
The Supreme Court could have set much-needed national guidance for judges to follow when handling health-related adjournments. Such a framework could have included:
– Criteria for assessing when medical or mental health concerns justify a delay
– Consideration of a litigant’s disability rights under human rights law
– The role of medical evidence in adjournment applications
– Guidance for trial courts to balance fairness, efficiency, and inclusion
Need for Clarity and Accountability
Denying an adjournment in the face of legitimate health issues can have life-altering consequences, including severe financial penalties and procedural unfairness. Without clear standards, these decisions risk being arbitrary or discriminatory. And since adjournment decisions rarely make it to appellate courts, this is an area of law that remains underdeveloped despite its widespread daily impact.
Topics Covered
– Health-based adjournments in civil litigation
– Mental health and disability rights in court proceedings
– Summary trials and access to justice
– Procedural fairness and accommodation
– The role of the Supreme Court in setting national standards
