Postponements vs Adjournments: What's the Actual Difference?

The core difference between the two

The words "postponement" and "adjournment" are often used loosely and interchangeably in everyday conversation, but at the LTB they generally describe two different moments in the life of a hearing. A postponement generally refers to delaying a hearing that hasn't started yet — pushing a scheduled date to a later one before the parties and adjudicator ever convene. An adjournment, by contrast, generally refers to pausing or stopping a hearing that has already begun, with the remainder to be continued at a later date.

The distinction matters because the process, timing, and practical considerations involved in each are somewhat different. Confusing the two — for instance, assuming that asking for a "postponement" on the day of the hearing covers the same situation as asking for an "adjournment" mid-hearing — can create unnecessary confusion when dealing with the LTB or explaining your situation to an adjudicator.

Requesting a postponement before the hearing starts

A request to postpone generally comes before the scheduled hearing date, often because a party has a genuine scheduling conflict, a medical issue, or another circumstance that makes attending on the assigned date impossible or seriously difficult. This kind of request is typically made in writing to the LTB, explaining the reason and asking that the hearing be moved to a different date. It's generally not something granted automatically just because it's requested — there needs to be a legitimate reason, and the earlier the request is made relative to the scheduled date, the more realistic it generally is that the Board can accommodate it.

A postponement request made at the very last minute, especially without a compelling reason, is less likely to be viewed favourably than one made with reasonable advance notice and a clear explanation.

Requesting an adjournment once a hearing is underway

An adjournment generally comes up once a hearing has actually started — for example, if new information emerges that one side needs time to respond to, if a technical problem disrupts a remote hearing partway through, or if it becomes clear that the time originally allotted isn't enough to properly hear the matter. In these situations, a party (or the adjudicator on their own initiative) may raise the possibility of adjourning the remainder of the hearing to a later date.

Because an adjournment happens in the middle of an active proceeding, the adjudicator generally has firsthand context about why it's being requested and can weigh that against the practical reality of continuing versus pausing. This is different from a postponement request, which the Board typically assesses based on a written explanation submitted in advance of ever convening the hearing.

Who decides, and on what basis

For a postponement request made before the hearing, the decision is generally made administratively by the LTB based on the written request and any supporting information provided. For an adjournment requested during a hearing, the decision generally rests with the adjudicator presiding over that hearing, who weighs the reason given against considerations like fairness to both parties, whether the request appears to be a genuine need versus a delay tactic, and the practical impact of pausing partway through.

In both cases, the decision-maker is generally looking for a legitimate reason rather than simply accommodating a preference. A party who can clearly explain why more time or a different date is genuinely necessary is in a stronger position than one who offers only a vague or unsupported reason.

Common reasons parties ask for either one

Common reasons for a postponement include a documented medical issue, a pre-existing and unavoidable conflict such as travel or another legal proceeding, or a late change in representation that leaves insufficient time to prepare. Common reasons for an adjournment mid-hearing include a technical failure that disrupts a remote hearing, the unexpected need to introduce new evidence that the other side hasn't had a chance to review, or a hearing that's running out of allotted time given the complexity that's emerged once testimony actually begins.

In either case, the more specific and well-supported the explanation, the more seriously it's generally likely to be considered, compared to a vague request without much detail behind it.

How to actually make the request

A postponement request is generally made in writing to the LTB, as early as possible once the need becomes apparent, and should clearly explain the reason along with any supporting documentation, such as a medical note, if relevant. An adjournment request, since it typically arises during the hearing itself, is generally made orally to the adjudicator in the moment, with an explanation of why pausing is necessary. In both situations, being clear, specific, and timely in the request generally improves the odds of a favourable response, though neither outcome can be promised.

It's also worth considering, before making either request, whether the underlying issue might be resolved another way — for instance, by requesting a short recess rather than a full adjournment, if the problem is something that can genuinely be sorted out in a few minutes.

What happens after either is granted or refused

If a postponement or adjournment is granted, the matter is generally rescheduled to a new date, and the parties would typically receive updated information about that new hearing, including any revised deadlines for evidence disclosure that might apply. If a request is refused, the hearing generally proceeds as originally scheduled, which means a party facing a refusal needs to be ready to continue regardless of the circumstances that prompted the request in the first place.

This is one more reason it's worth having a backup plan in mind before making either kind of request — assuming it will be granted, and having no fallback if it isn't, can leave a party unprepared at a moment when preparation matters most.

Misconceptions worth clearing up

One common misconception is that either a postponement or an adjournment can be obtained simply by asking, regardless of the reason. In practice, both are discretionary, and the LTB and its adjudicators are generally alert to requests that look like a delay tactic rather than a genuine need. Another misconception is that the two terms are interchangeable in every context — while they both involve delaying matters, understanding which one applies to your situation (before the hearing versus during it) helps you communicate clearly with the LTB or with an adjudicator about what you're actually asking for.

A third misconception is that the other party has no say in the matter. In reality, the other party's position is often considered, and a request made unilaterally, without any attempt to communicate with the other side beforehand, can sometimes come across less favourably than one where both sides at least understand what's being proposed, even if they don't fully agree. Finally, some people assume that once a hearing is adjourned partway through, the whole matter effectively restarts from scratch at the next date. Generally, an adjournment picks up where things left off rather than starting over, which means evidence already presented and findings already made along the way typically remain part of the record going forward.

Being specific, timely, and honest about the reason behind a request generally serves a party better than treating either option as an easy, consequence-free way to buy more time.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related reading

Reviewed by Ryan J. Manilla, BA, JD

Legal Reviewer · Landlord Tenant Ontario