What is the legal test for a motion to stay a settlement in an interlocutory matter where the settlement has yet to be perfected?

In an interlocutory matter, such as here, where the settlement has yet to be perfected, the court retains a discretion to deny the application to order the settlement valid and enforceable and refuse to stay the proceeding. Four grounds for the exercise of that discretion were set out and discussed in Hawitt v. Campbell, [1983] CanLII 307 (B.C.C.A.) (“Hawitt”). There, Macfarlane J.A. said at para. 19: The judge may refuse the stay if: 1. There was a limitation on the instructions of the solicitor known to the opposite party; 2. There was a misapprehension by the solicitor making the settlement of the instructions of the client or of the facts of a type that would result in injustice or make it unreasonable or unfair to enforce the settlement; 3. There was fraud or collusion; 4. There was an issue to be tried as to whether there was such a limitation, misapprehension, fraud or collusion in relation to the settlement