Adjourning the Trial When a Witness Fails to Attend
Overview Applications for a trial adjournment may be made by the Crown or the defence. It is undisputed that whether an adjournment or a postponement should be granted or not is a discretionary matter for the trial judge: Manhas v. The Queen, 1980 CanLII 172 (SCC , [1980] 1 S.C.R. 591 ; R. v. Barrette, 1976 CanLII 180 (SCC), , [1977] 2 S.C.R. 121 , 29 C.C.C. (2d) 189 ; R. v. Darville, (1956), 116 C.C.C. 113 (S.C.C.) ; R. v. MacDonald, 1998 CanLII 18016 (NL CA) , [1998] N.J. No. 340 (QL) (C.A.) [reported 132 C.C.C. (3d) 205]. The leading case governing trial adjournment applications is that of Darville v. the Queen , (1956) 116 C.C.C. 113 (S.C.C.) which sets out a straightforward three-part test. Though Darville remains foundational, the test has been elaborated and expanded upon and may, it appears, include such additional factors as the consideration of the public interest in having a trial on the merits (including the related consideration of ...