Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 70 The Adjournment Applications [144] The hearing before Arbitrator Gilbert was set for July 31, 2002 and was originally scheduled for one day with the concurrence of counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners applied for and obtained permission to tape the proceedings. Two further days of hearing were required: July 31, 2002 and August 26, 2002. Before me, the petitioners 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) only produced transcripts for the first two days. This was unfortunate because the petitioners were only present at the first day of the hearing and cannot proffer any evidence about the final day. [145] At the conclusion of the first day of proceedings on July 31, 2002, all parties agreed to set aside a full day for the continuation of the hearing on August 15, 2002. On August 15, 2002, Mr. Duhaime appeared without his clients. He produced a doctor's note dated August 14, 2002, which read, "For medical reasons, these patients of mine are unable to attend the hearing planned for tomorrow." Mr. Duhaime indicated that he was concerned about conducting the hearing in the absence of his clients, as he would be unable to obtain instructions from them on issues that might arise during the hearing. He sought an adjournment on this basis.
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 71 [146] Arbitrator Gilbert denied the application. In his written reasons, he explained as follows at page 4: ... I denied that application for adjournment on the basis that the landlord has shown a prima facie basis for the Notice to end the tenancy. I refer to the landlord’s Notice to end the tenancy and the numerous attachments with that document. I also denied the application for adjournment because the Notice provides that the tenancy ends on August 31, 2002 and there was no indication that the dispute could be resolved by that date. Finally, I denied the application for adjournment on the basis that counsel for the tenants was unable to inform me with any certainty of when the tenants might be able to attend for a hearing. I advised counsel for the tenants that he had two choices. We could continue with this hearing on August 15, 2002 with counsel for the tenants presenting the case for the tenants as agent for the tenants or I could dismiss the tenants' application for arbitration without leave to reapply. I noted that the reason that I would dismiss the application without leave to reapply was that the Notice to end provides that the tenancy ends on August 31, 2002. As I have noted previously, it is the Legislature's intention that these proceedings be conducted expeditiously and therefore it is imperative that the issues be decided before the tenancy is scheduled to end. ... 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) [147] Following this ruling, Mr. Duhaime elected to proceed with the hearing and represented the petitioners in their absence. At the end of that day's proceedings, the parties agreed to set aside another full day for a continuation of the hearing on August 26, 2002. [148] On August 26, 2002, Mr. Duhaime attended, once again, in the absence of the petitioners. He made another
Page 1 and 2:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 3 and 4:
Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 69: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
show all

Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?