The respondents requested a stay of the applicant's proceeding under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the applicant was seeking to intervene in a related mortgage enforcement action where the same issues would be resolved.
The court dismissed the request, holding that Rule 2.1 is intended for proceedings that are abusive on their face, not to stay one proceeding pending developments in another.
The court noted that any concerns about redundancy should be raised in the related action or through an ordinary motion for abuse of process or res judicata.
