What is the test for a motion to stay a motion against the constitutionality of laws and regulation affecting the use of medical marijuana?

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.