In recent years the Tax Court of Canada has strictly applied the
requirements for adjournments and timetable amendments as described
in the Court's Practice Note No. 14. We understand this may
have been prompted by a practice that had developed over time
whereby the parties to an appeal would consent to extensions of
time or adjournments and then informally seek the Court's
approval.
The Federal Court of Appeal appears to have been wrestling with
similar scheduling and adjournment issues. In UHA Research Society v. Canada (2014 FCA
134), the Appellant sought an adjournment of a hearing date due
to the unavailability of counsel.
In a lengthy discussion of the Court's scheduling process,
the Court's expectations of counsel and the test for an
adjournment request (i.e., there must be significant new
developments, marked changes in circumstances, or compelling
reasons of fairness), Justice Stratas provided a reminder
about the Court's procedure and practice
