The respondent brought a motion to set aside an ex parte custody order granting the applicant temporary sole custody of one child and access to another, and to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.
The court held that the applicant had failed to provide full and fair disclosure when obtaining the ex parte order and that the circumstances required by the Family Law Rules for a motion without notice were not established.
The order was therefore set aside.
The court further considered jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and found insufficient evidence on the motion record to determine the child’s habitual residence due to conflicting affidavit evidence.
The court ordered a trial of the issue of jurisdiction regarding custody and access.
