Both the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Family Law Rules provide circumstances where a litigant may bring a motion “without notice” to the other party (or parties) involved. This usually happens when there’s imminent harm to personal safety or a child’s well-being in family law cases or when notice to the other parties is impractical or impossible. In legalese, we call these ex parte motions.
While an ex parte motion may seem a convenient way to get what you want without the hassle of facing the opposing party, it’s generally seen as means of the last resort.
The principles of fundamental justice require that parties have meaningful participation in proceedings where their rights may be affected. Motions brought without notice clearly violate this cardinal rule. As such, both the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Family Law Rules allow a party not given notice to bring another motion to set aside the previous ex parte ruling.
At the latter motion, the party (or parties) not given notice to the previous hearing will have an opportunity to make submissions and address their concerns over the decision made without their involvement. The court will then decide whether the ex parte ruling should be set aside.
Therefore, bringing an ex parte motion to the court often results in two or more hearings involving the same matter, adding extra costs to all parties. As such, I generally don’t recommend ex parte motions except under rare and compelling circumstances.
