What is the test for using a temporary stay?

I agree with the submission that the use of the temporary stay is exceptional, that the burden is on the applicant to show that the circumstances justify a temporary stay, and that the exercise of the jurisdiction should be done cautiously after a consideration of all relevant factors: see for example my comments to this effect in Peh v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 3837, 2008 BCSC 291, paras. 60-63.

Counsel referred me to the judgment in Garber v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 BCSC 835, where the court was asked to stay three proceedings where there was a similar proceeding attacking the constitutionality of laws and regulation affecting the use of medical marijuana. The court said that in considering whether to grant a stay it ought to consider: (a) whether the result in the related proceedings could effectively resolve the litigation; (b) whether the stay will promote judicial economy and efficiency by avoiding unnecessary and costly additional expenditures of judicial and legal resources; (c) whether the stay sought is temporary or permanent; (d) the length of delay caused by the temporary stay relative to the length of time of the litigation in general; and (e) the risk of inconsistent judgments.