In Farris v. Staubach Ontario Inc., 2004 CanLII 11325 (ONSC), Lederman J. stated at paras. 15 and 16: 15. A stay of proceedings should only be ordered in the clearest of cases, where the party seeking the stay can clearly demonstrate that (1) continuing the action would cause substantial prejudice or injustice to the moving party (not merely inconvenience and expense), and (2) the stay would not cause an injustice to the responding party . . . : A stay of proceedings is never granted as a matter of course. The matter is one calling for the exercise of judicial discretion in determining whether a stay should be ordered in the particular circumstances of the case. The power to stay should be exercised sparingly, and a stay will only be ordered in the clearest of cases. In order to justify a stay of proceedings, two conditions must be met, one positive, one negative: (a) the defendant must satisfy the court that the continuance of the action would be oppressive or vexatious to him or would be an abuse of the process of the court in some other way; and (b) the stay must not cause an injustice to the plaintiff. On both the burden of proof is on the defendant. Expense and inconvenience to a party or the prospect of the proceedings being abortive in the event of a successful appeal are not sufficient special circumstances in themselves for the granting of a stay. 16. Factors to be considered in determining the prejudice include: the likelihood and effect of two matters proceeding in tandem in two different forums; the possibility and effect of different results; the potential for double recovery; and the effect of possible delay.