The applicant father brought an "emergency" motion seeking to proceed before a case conference to obtain decision-making responsibility and parenting time for a five-year-old child.
The respondent mother was served by email approximately one hour before the motion materials were submitted to the judge in chambers, providing no meaningful opportunity to respond.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the matter did not meet the threshold for urgency under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules and that the new "Emergency Motion Request Form" procedure was fundamentally flawed as it allowed judicial determinations affecting parties' rights based solely on one-sided evidence without opportunity for the responding party to be heard.
