What is the test for setting aside an order of without notice?

In Baril v. Obelnicki, 2007 MBCA 40, F. M. Steel J.A., writing for the court, clarified that the onus on the respondent is an evidentiary one. 5 . . . A respondent need not show that the without notice order was granted in error. A respondent need only show, on a balance of probabilities, that there is an issue arising from the without notice hearing that entitles them to have the order set aside on the basis of absence of full disclosure or based on the weight of all the evidence adduced at both the without notice and review hearings. . . . 127 [T]he respondent must demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that it is just or equitable that the judge set aside the order. He may show among other possibilities that, on a balance of probabilities, full disclosure was not made or that the restraints on his liberty are unnecessary or too restrictive or that the stalking will not continue or based on the weight of the evidence at the review hearing the order should be set aside. In this way, the legislative regime is preserved while the legislative purpose is accomplished.