C. Cohen

The plaintiff moved to vary a timetable order and extend the date to set the action down for trial, while the defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The action had previously been dismissed for delay and restored with a strict timetable, which the plaintiff breached.

The court found the plaintiff's delay in producing an expert report on damages was intentional, contumelious, and largely unexplained, exacerbated by the undisclosed destruction of their financial records prior to commencing the action.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the action for delay was granted.

The plaintiffs, stepchildren of the deceased, challenged the deceased's 2010 will, arguing that she and her late husband (the plaintiffs' father) had executed mutual wills in 1998.

The 1998 wills left their respective estates to each other, with the remainder divided equally among their four children.

After her husband's death, the deceased executed a new will leaving her entire estate to her own two daughters.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court found clear and convincing evidence of a verbal contract between the spouses that neither could change the effect of their 1998 wills without the other's consent.

The court declared the 1998 wills to be mutual wills and ordered the estate to be held in trust and divided equally among the four children.

A franchisor sought an interlocutory injunction restraining former franchisees from breaching post‑termination obligations and effectively continuing operations, while the franchisees sought an injunction preventing termination of their businesses.

Applying the interlocutory injunction test, the court found a serious issue to be tried and concluded the franchisor had a strong prima facie case that the franchisees breached contractual prohibitions against common ownership and multiple franchise interests.

Both parties demonstrated potential irreparable harm, but the court held the franchisor’s harm to goodwill, reputation, and system integrity—combined with the franchisees’ inability to satisfy damages—tipped the balance of convenience.

The court emphasized the franchisor’s duty to maintain the integrity of its system under franchise legislation and the risk posed by a rogue franchisee operating contrary to contractual obligations.