The Applicant, who was the representative Plaintiff in a proposed class action proceeding, applied for a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of two other similar and more advanced class actions. The proposed class action sought damages for alleged negligence in the operation of the McKenzie Towne Continuining Care Centre during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Respondents (the “Defendants”) opposed the stay, arguing they would be prejudiced by delay.

Justice Hollins noted that the authority to grant a stay is found in Rules 1.4(2)(h), 3.72(1)(c) and 3.72(2). Hollins J. cited Alberta v AUPE, 1984 ABCA 130 for the test for a stay of a class action proceeding, which requires the Court to consider (1) whether the issues in the other actions are substantially similar; (2) whether denying the stay would be oppressive, vexatious, or abusive; and (3) whether granting the stay would cause injustice to the non-moving party. The purpose behind granting a stay is generally to maximize the efficient use of the Court and party resources.

Hollins J. found that the issues in the two other class action proceedings were substantially similar to those in this case, particularly regarding negligence and gross negligence. Although the Applicant’s claim included additional causes of action, the statutory immunity under the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, SA 2021, c             C-31.3 might limit the claims to gross negligence, aligning them with the other actions. Justice Hollins was also in agreement with the Applicant that the proceeding of this Action in parallel with the two other actions would be inefficient and unjust, as the outcomes of the trials in the other actions could significantly streamline or resolve the issues in this Action.

The Court further determined that it would not be unjust to the Defendants to grant the stay, as a stay would avoid duplicative proceedings. The Defendants did not demonstrate significant prejudice as they would not be required to await the completion of the individual trials of damages, just the findings on the common questions. Justice Hollins also noted that the Defendants had not actively pursued a timely resolution of the case since 2021 when it was commenced. The Court granted the Application, imposing a stay on proceedings until a decision on the common issues in either of the other two class actions.