In what circumstances will a court order that an earlier proceeding be stayed until the completion of the later proceeding is completed?

The defendants also cite Hedley v. Air Canada to support their argument that where two proceedings are pending in the courts and the proceedings have a question of fact or law in common, or where the relief claimed in the proceedings arose out of the same transaction or occurrence, the court will order that the later proceeding be stayed until the completion of the earlier proceedings.

In Hedley v. Air Canada, the defendant commenced an action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, and there was a concurrent civil claim against the defendants for fraud. Both claims arose as a result of the same incidents. The motion for a stay was granted on the grounds that a court may grant a stay where there were questions of law or fact in common and the relief claimed in the proceedings arose out of the same occurrence. In addition, a finding of fraud, or a finding that there was no fraud in the one action would be of “great significance” in examining the allegations relating to abuse of process and malicious prosecutions. Refusing a stay would result in injustice to the moving party alleging fraud having regard to the nature of the documentation which may become relevant and producible and the circumstances in which that documentation came into the possession of the Crown in a related criminal trial. Also of relevance was the fact that the disposition of the fraud action might result in the second action being “academic”.

Finally, the defendants cite Falconcrest Financial Corp v. Ontario to support the argument that where, despite some differences, there is an overlap of issues between the cases and the questions of damages and malice may be resolved or greatly illuminated by the earlier proceedings, the present action should be stayed until the prior action is completed.