The self-represented plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order staying their civil action pending the final disposition of related criminal proceedings against one of the plaintiffs.
The civil action alleged various torts and Charter breaches arising from wiretap authorizations that led to the criminal charges.
The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.
The court noted that the fundamental issue in the civil claim—the lawfulness of the wiretap authorization—was identical to a key issue in the criminal case, making the circumstances exceptional enough to warrant a stay.
