My Interpretation of the "Ex Parte" Notice of Motion

Based upon some research regarding Canadian law, here is how I interpret the “Notice of Motion made ex parte on behalf of Plaintiff” based upon the Canadian law’s Sections, subsections, and Rules:

1. The defendant (HC) failed to serve and file a statement of defence within the time set out in rule 204

• The plaintiff (CEN) brought a motion for judgment against the defendant on the statement of claim

2. Subject to section 25 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, a motion under subsection (1) may be brought ex parte and in accordance with rule 369

section 25 states that any proceedings against the Crown (HC in my interpretation), judgment shall not be entered against the Crown in default of appearance or pleading without leave of the court obtained on an application at least fourteen clear days notice of which has been given to the Deputy Attorney General of Canada.

(2) Rule 369. (1) A party may, in a notice of motion, request that the motion be decided on the basis of written representations (i.e. the documents and affidavits being entered as recorded entries on the Federal Court of Appeals site)

(3) A motion under subsection (1) shall be supported by affidavit evidence.

(4) On a motion under subsection (1), the Court may
(a) grant judgment;
(b) dismiss the action; or
(c) order that the action proceed to trial and that the plaintiff prove its case in such a manner as the Court may direct.

IMO, this "Ex Parte" approach is being used to attempt to secure a quick decision from the court because the company (i.e. CEN) would be further damaged financially if the entire "judicial review process played out (Ex parte judicial proceedings are usually reserved for urgent matters where requiring notice would subject one party to irreparable harm)
Again this is my opinion for I am not a lawyer….However, I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night!