The Defendants applied to have the Action struck or stayed in light of the existence of an identical action in Ontario. In its Rule 3.68 analysis, the Court first determined, after its review of the case law, that parallel proceedings will not result in an automatic stay granted in this jurisdiction. Master Hanebury then applied a two-step test: first, whether the Alberta Court has jurisdiction simpliciter, and second, whether Alberta was the forum conveniens. The Court, referring to Donaldson v Farrell, 2011 ABQB 11, noted that Rule 3.68 is to be considered through the lens of Rule 1.2. In particular, Master Hanebury remarked that the Rule 1.2 factors of “timeliness” and “cost-effectiveness” should be considered when applying Rule 3.68. The Court concluded, given the specifics of the case and the circumstances surrounding it, which included an ongoing, interrelated class action involving the same parties in Ontario, that it would be more beneficial if the Action proceeded in that jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, Master Hanebury ordered the Alberta Action to be stayed.