The applicant sought to continue an ex parte order granting her a restraining order, sole decision-making, primary residence for children, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.
The respondent moved to set aside the ex parte order, alleging the applicant made material omissions in her initial motion materials.
The court found that the applicant failed to fully and frankly disclose material facts, including details about the respondent's mental health treatment, her own mental health, police involvement, financial access, and the circumstances of the respondent's job termination.
Crucially, the applicant left the children in the respondent's sole care despite claiming he posed a significant risk of harm.
The court dismissed the applicant's motion and set aside the ex parte order, emphasizing the strict duty of full disclosure in ex parte proceedings and the lack of sufficient evidence to justify continuing the order.