Can a court stay a motion for a stay of action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process?

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”.