In a family law proceeding, the applicant brought an ex parte motion alleging that the respondent had engaged in unauthorized surveillance and intercepted communications, seeking relief related to disclosure and preservation of evidence.
The court found that the motion did not meet the urgency threshold for a motion without notice under Rule 14(12) of the Family Law Rules because there was no evidence of ongoing surveillance and an investigation had already found no unauthorized devices.
However, the court determined that repeated unanswered requests for disclosure justified procedural intervention.
Leave was granted to bring the motion prior to a case conference, and the respondent was ordered to provide an affidavit of documents and preserve any electronic devices containing potential surveillance material.
