Discretion. Krizans v. Skurdelis
In Krizans v. Skurdelis (Div Ct, 2020) the Divisional Court considered the test for granting an adjournment or not:
 The decision to grant an adjournment is discretionary: Bhimji Khimiji v. Dhanani (2004), 2004 CanLII 12037 (ON CA), 69 O.R. (3d) 790 (C.A.) at para. 14. As noted by the Court of Appeal in Igbinosun v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2009 ONCA 484, a number of procedural and substantive considerations are involved in deciding whether to grant an adjournment or not, including previous adjournments granted to the party seeking the adjournment, previous peremptory hearing dates and the desirability of having the matter decided. . Gayle v. Gayle
In Gayle v. Gayle (Div Ct, 2020) the Divisional Court re-opened an old interlocutory order when a party tried to treat it as final. In doing so the court commented on it's jurisdiction to re-open to correct a Registrar's error:
 There is no question that the final orders were issued by mistake by the Registrar. As noted in Strugarova v. Air France (2009), 82 CPC (6th) 298, 2009 CanLII 40552, the court has a discretion to re-open a matter where the integrity of the process is at risk or a principle of justice is at stake that requires reconsideration. At para. 7, Roberts, J., as she then was, held: “While a court should re-open a motion or other matter sparingly and with the greatest of care, it may re-open it when it is just to do so in exceptional circumstances.” In the exceptional circumstances of this case, the panel of its own motion, pursuant to Family Law Rule 25 (19) and Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, sets aside the final orders of the Honourable Justice Miller dated July 17, 2019 and September 9, 2019 on the grounds that the final orders were mistakenly issued by the Registrar. The Registrar is directed to reissue those orders as temporary orders, nunc pro tunc.