If there are no common facts or legal issues of relatively sufficient importance to both proceedings, should the motion be dismissed?

If there are no common facts or legal issues of relatively sufficient importance to both proceedings, that would be the end of the inquiry and the motion should be dismissed. If there are such facts and legal issues, the proper exercise of discretion involves an assessment of the prejudice which may accrue to all parties on the granting or denial of the motion. To conduct such assessment the court should make some inquiries which might involve going beyond the pleadings. While this is not intended to be an exhaustive and comprehensive list, it would seem to me the following inquiries are integral to the proper exercise of discretion by the motions judge. See: Shah v. Bakken supra at paras. 14 and 15 where some of these factors are set forth. (1) Will the order being sought have the effect of saving time in pre-trial procedures? (2) Will there be a reduction in the number of days required to complete the trials if they are heard at the same time? (3) What is the potential for a party to be seriously inconvenienced by having to attend a trial in which it may have only a marginal interest? (4) Will there be a saving in experts’ time and the costs of having experts attend at trial? (5) At what point in the proceedings is the motion under Rule 6 being presented and how far advanced, relatively, are each of the proceedings? (6) If an order is granted will this have the effect of delaying one of the proceedings and, if so, does any prejudice which a party may suffer as a result of the delay, outweigh the potential benefits of the proceedings being tried together? (7) Given the existence of the commonality of facts and legal issues, how likely is it that one party might be prejudiced by the rendering of inconsistent and perverse verdicts should the proceedings not proceed to trial at the same time? (8) What is the manner of trial selected in each of the proceedings?