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

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