The appellant appealed the dismissal of its motion for an adjournment and the dismissal of its action against the respondent municipality.
The appellant argued the motion judge erred by not granting the adjournment to allow the appellant's principal to sell his home to fund legal counsel.
The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error, noting the appellant had already received two adjournments totalling a year and had failed to secure counsel.
The Court also declined to admit fresh evidence regarding the subsequent sale of the home, finding it did not meet the criteria for admission.
The appeal was dismissed.
