What is the test for a stay of proceedings?

In Coughlan v. Westminer Canada Ltd., [1991] N.S.J. No. 183 (S.C.), Nunn, J. referred to s. 41 (e) above and the inherent jurisdiction of court. He said at p. 8: Section 41(e) of the Judicature Act enables the court to grant a stay of proceedings "if it thinks fit", and requires the court to make "such" order as shall be just. Again, a discretion exists, but it is one to be exercised where it is just to do so. Exercising this discretion in a situation of clear injustice, is a simple task. However, where there is no clear injustice and the determination is to be based upon determining what is "fit" and doing what is just, the task is considerably more difficult. In 37 Halsbury (4th) 330 in commenting on the inherent jurisdiction of the court, there is the following passage: ‘... The stay of proceedings is a serious, grave and fundamental interruption in the right that a party has to conduct his litigation towards the trial on the basis of the substantive merits of his case, and therefore the court's general practice is that a stay of proceedings should not be imposed unless the proceedings beyond all reasonable doubt ought not to be allowed to continue.’ I think that can be the only test to apply to determine if it is "fit" to grant a stay and make an order which is just.