What is the test for granting an adjournment of a civil trial?

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in Khimji v. Dhanani, 2004 CarswellOnt 525, has said that: A trial judge enjoys wide latitude in deciding whether to grant or refuse the adjournment of a scheduled civil trial. The decision is discretionary and the scope for appellate intervention is correspondingly limited. In exercising this discretion, however, the trial judge should balance the interests of the plaintiff, the interests of the defendant and the interests of the administration of justice in the orderly processing of civil trials on their merits. In any particular case several considerations may bear on these interests. [Laskin J.A. at para. 14] I would only add that in determining whether to grant an adjournment in this case, the trial judge had to consider not only the orderly processing of civil trials, but the need to effectively enforce court orders… Individual litigants have a right to pursue and defend their respective claims. They must do so, however, within a court structure that must accommodate thousands of individual litigants. That system can function effectively only when litigants take scheduling commitments seriously and make genuine efforts to comply with court orders relating to adjournments and related matters… If in the assessment of the trial court a litigant does not take reasonable steps to be prepared for the new trial date and does not make reasonable attempts to comply with the associated cost order, the trial court must have the authority to dismiss the claim. [Doherty J.A. at para. 35]