Martin v. Thomas, 2026 ONSC 3072

CITATION: Martin v. Thomas, 2026 ONSC 3072

COURT FILE NO.: FS-25-163-AP

DATE: 2026/05/26

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

ERIC MARTIN

Applicant/Appellant

– and –

AMANDA THOMAS

Respondent

Self-represented, for the Applicant/Appellant

Melissa Young, for the Respondent

HEARD: May 19, 2026

REASONS FOR DECISION ON APPEAL

RICHARD J.

Notice of Appeal

1On November 20, 2025, the Applicant father, Eric Martin (the “Appellant father”), filed a Notice of Appeal, in which he indicates he is appealing the Order of:

October 10, 2025 (date for all decisions on items on temp. order was made on November 10, 2025.

2His Notice of Appeal further indicates that he seeks an order from this court:

To set aside the recent temp. order made by Justice P. Lambert-Bélanger, including costs, and to grant leave for the Applicant father to finally p[u]rsue his side of the questioning four eyewitnesses based on Notice of Motion dated May 29, 2025. Two attempts were made last summer for granting of leave but was unable due to error from Court side.

3The Appellant father listed as his legal grounds for his appeal:

(a) Perjury from Amanda’s eyewitnesses- three was some false statements made and fabrication.

(b) The subject child, namely Madelaine Martin, is validating what the Applicant father was saying all along.

(c) Multiple affidavits were submitted on the family file prior to the update hearing of November 13, 2025 (Nov.3, Nov.5, Nov.6). Unread.

(d) The Temporary order is hurting the child; she does not want this.

(e) Applicant father was waiting since May 29, 2025, to hear if leave to his questioning eyewitnesses is to be granted or not; since fairness should be given to both parties with the opportunity to defend position.

(f) Respondent mother was a past mental health patient. She has had a history of this nature since 2003.

Background and relevant procedural history

4The parties share one child: Madelaine Rose Martin, born July 19, 2014 (“Madelaine”). The Respondent mother has two other children from another relationship, aged 19 and 17. Madelaine is the only child subject to these proceedings.

5Pursuant to Minutes of Settlement filed in the Ontario Court of Justice with the assistance of counsel from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer on June 13, 2022, Justice Mathias made a Final Order, in which both parents would share decision-making responsibility and parenting time for Madelaine (the “Final Order”).

6On June 14, 2024, the Respondent mother brought a Motion to Change seeking a variation of the Final Order such that it would grant her sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of Madelaine.

7Within the Motion to Change proceedings, the Respondent mother then brought a motion seeking an interim order, for which Justice Perron of the Ontario Court of Justice granted leave to proceed in a “threshold hearing” that took place in August 2025.

8The motion for interim relief was eventually argued before Justice Lambert-Bélanger in the Ontario Court of Justice. Thus, on October 10, 2025, Justice Lambert-Bélanger made a temporary parenting time order in favour of the mother, and costs were reserved for a later date.

9On November 10, 2025, Justice Lambert-Bélanger made the following order:

This is my cost endors[e]ment following my reasons on the motion which were delivered on October 10, 2025.

a) The applicant father shall pay the respondent mother costs of the motion fixed at $2500, inclusive of disbursements and HST, forthwith.

b) The respondent father shall not be entitled to bring any further motions until all of the outstanding cost awards are paid.

10Per the transcript produced in his Appeal Book on November 13, 2025, the Appellant father appeared before Justice Lambert-Bélanger in the Ontario Court of Justice, and the following exchange took place:

The Court: Go ahead, Sir.

Eric Martin: I have seven things on my list. Before I start, did you read any of my affidavits that I’ve put in last week?

The Court: No.

Eric Martin: None?

The Court: No.

Eric Martin: Okay.

The Court: Nothing is scheduled.

Eric Martin: Okay. Okay. Just ‘cause some of this stuff will make sense once you read the affidavit.

The Court: Well, there’s a decision. There’s a- there’s an order that you have to comply with. So, I’m not – the court’s not gonna read anything until something gets scheduled and…

Eric Martin: Okay.

The Court: … before that happens you- you have to comply with the most recent order.

Eric Martin: Yeah. For sure, but the motion from April 2025, or it may have been May 2025, the motion that I was asking leave to question four eyewitnesses to- and to allow other counsel to perform cross-examination , I’m still waiting on that.

The Court: The – the- the- endorsement is clear, sir. There- there’s nothing being scheduled

Eric Martin: Even this…

The Court: You- you have….

Eric Martin: … summer…

The Court: Yes.

Eric Martin: …we…

The Court: Not- nothing…

Eric Martin: secured a day…

The Court: … is being scheduled until you pay the cost- the outstanding cost awards

Eric Martin: Okay.

The Court: And so, once you do that, we’ll- I’m happy to discuss that with you.

11The Appellant brought this appeal on November 20, 2025.

12On December 4, 2025, Justice Perron made another costs order against the Appellant, bringing the total amount of costs ordered to be paid by the Appellant within the mother’s Motion to Change proceedings to $4,100. According to the Respondent mother’s evidence, all remain unpaid today.

13A case conference was held on January 12, 2026, in the Superior Court of Justice, for these appeal proceedings. In his endorsement, Justice Wilcox writes:

3. Ms. Young, for the Respondent, explained that, some months ago, Justice McMorrow made an order about how some evidence would be submitted on behalf of the mother. She had four witnesses, a school principal, two CAS workers and a counsellor who were prevented by their employment from producing affidavits for use in court. Justice McMorrow ordered that all four be questioned in front of a reporter and that transcripts of their evidence be used in the hearing of this matter. The father was represented at the time. Counsel for both sides agreed that those four witnesses would be both examined and cross-examined, and transcripts of their evidence used. The father alleges that he has tried repeatedly for months to have the Provincial Court grant him the same right to do with his witnesses, but has not been successful in getting this issue heard. He refers to this as a "bar" on him.

4. The Motion to Change procedure is ongoing on the issues of parenting time and child support. However, it is currently stayed due to the father's appeal.

5. In the conference, it was eventually clarified that the father is not appealing Justice Lambert-Belanger's parenting order of October 10, 2025. Rather, he is appealing the "bar" on him and the costs award of November 10, 2025. Having said that, he sought a variation order by the Superior Court of the parenting time order, claiming that his daughter did not like the parenting time schedule. It was pointed out to him that this is a Provincial Court matter, and is in the Superior Court only for appeal purposes. Moreover, when one seeks interim relief from the court, it is appropriate to file a Notice of Motion with supporting affidavit materials and a Confirmation indicating the relief sought and the materials the presiding judge should read in preparation. The father indicated that he was relying on affidavits that had been filed.

6. As for the "bar", it was explained to the father that evidence normally goes into trials by oral examination in chief and cross-examination, or by affidavit evidence in chief subject to cross-examination in court. The procedure that he was seeking of having examinations and cross-examinations done outside of court and transcripts of that filed in court appears to have been ordered because the wife's witnesses were not able to file affidavit evidence and Justice McMorrow was looking to save court time. It was pointed out to the father that his proposed procedure was not necessary for all witnesses and would increase his costs. Ms. Young indicated that the wife’s witnesses cost $3,000.

7. It was also pointed out to the father that, prior to the matter going to trial, it would be conferenced and the matter of how to enter witnesses' evidence, whether orally or by affidavit, dealt with.

8. The impediment to having the father's motion seeking to have his witnesses examined and cross-examined out of court heard was Justice Lambert-Belanger's costs order of November 10, 2025, in which the Justice added that the Appellant father shall not be entitled to bring any further motions until all of his outstanding costs awards are paid. So, it was pointed out to the father that he could have his evidentiary request dealt with if only he paid his costs. The father was informed that the appeal process did not seem to be the appropriate process for achieving his goal here.

9. Regarding costs, the father was informed that costs awards are in the discretion of the hearing judge and that the awards against him were not very large. Also, he could not explain any legal basis that he had for wanting them reduced. Consequently, his chance of success on appeal of the costs did not seem great.

10. Having discussed the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the appeal with respect to the bar and the costs, the father was informed that he had an option of withdrawing his appeal. As he was not prepared to do so at the time, the matter was scheduled for an assignment court to set a date for a hearing of the appeal. [My emphasis]

14In that same endorsement, Wilcox, J. orders:

2. the Appellant father shall not file any further motion materials until the appeal is heard.

3. Costs are reserved to the appeal judge.

15Despite the above order of Justice Wilcox, after the case conference of January 12, 2026, the Appellant father served and filed:

a) Form 14A Affidavit of his sworn evidence dated January 15, 2026;

b) Form 14A Affidavit of his sworn evidence dated February 5, 2026;

c) Form 14A Affidavit of his sworn evidence dated March 23, 2026;

d) Form 14A Affidavit of his sworn evidence dated March 31, 2026; and

e) Form 14A Affidavit of his sworn evidence dated May 13, 2026.

16According to the Respondent mother and court services information, the Appellant father then served two additional affidavits that he was unable to file as he was outside the filing timelines for this appeal hearing scheduled to be heard on May 19, 2026: one on May 14, 2026, and another on May 15, 2026.

17At the outset of this appeal hearing on May 19, 2026, the father confirmed that he is indeed appealing the order of November 10, 2025. Specifically, he objects to his inability to bring a motion seeking out-of-court questioning for his witnesses (or any other motion), as well as the costs order itself. In submissions, the father did make comments about Madelaine’s best interest with respect to parenting time but confirmed that he is not appealing the decision of October 10, 2025, varying the parenting time, though he wishes he could.

Issues

18Should the Ontario Court of Justice order of November 10, 2025, be set aside?

The Law

Timelines to appeal

19It is trite law that appeal timelines must be enforced strictly, and that time may only be extended with leave from the court.

20Pursuant to Rule 38(6) of the Family Law Rules (the “Rules”), an appeal from a temporary order of the Ontario Court of Justice must be filed within seven days after the date of the temporary order.

21Rule 3 then specifies that:

3. (1) In these rules or an order, the number of days between two events is counted as follows:

4. The first day is the day after the first event.

5. The last day is the day of the second event.

(2) If a rule or order provides a period of less than seven days for something to be done, Saturdays, Sundays and other days when all court offices are closed do not count as part of the period. [My emphasis]

22Thus, if Justice Lambert Bélanger’s order was made on Monday, November 10, 2025, then the Appellant father needed to file his Notice to Appeal by no later than November 17, 2025. He filed it on November 20, 2025.

23On that basis alone, his appeal must fail, as the Appellant did not bring a motion to extend the time to file his Notice of Appeal.

24Since it is clear to the court that the Appellant father feels aggrieved by his perceived lack of procedural fairness in the Ontario Court of Justice family law proceedings, I nonetheless address the merits of his appeal to help him understand that even if he had not missed the timeline set by the Rules, his appeal would have nonetheless been dismissed for the following reasons.

Merits of the Appeal

a) Order preventing further motions

25As is well-established in law, a court is not entitled to intervene and set aside a temporary order in family law proceedings unless the motion judge made an error in law or made a material error in the appreciation of the facts.

26The Ontario Court of Appeal reiterated this principle recently in Kohli v. Thom, 2025 ONCA 200, at paras. 80-81:

Decisions in family law cases are subject to a narrow scope of appellate review due to the highly fact-specific and discretionary determinations made by trial courts (…) Since the trial judge has the intangible benefit of hearing from the parties directly, the trial court is best positioned to determine a parenting arrangement (…)

As this court has confirmed, our task is not to impose the decision we would have made after engaging in a fresh analysis or balancing the various factors differently. We can intervene only if the motion judge erred in law or made a material error in the appreciation of the facts (…)

27In his order of November 10, 2025, the motion judge exercised his discretion pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, which states:

1(8) If a person fails to obey an order in a case or a related case, the court may deal with the failure by making any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including:

(a) an order for costs;

(a.1) an order to pay an amount to a party or into court as a penalty or fine;

(b) an order dismissing a claim;

(c) an order striking out any application, answer, notice of motion, motion to change, financial statement, affidavit, or any other document filed by a party;

(d) an order that all or part of a document that was required to be provided but was not may be used in the case;

(e) if the failure to obey was by a party, an order that the party is not entitled to any further order from the court unless the court orders otherwise;

(f) an order postponing the trial or any other step in the case; and

(g) a contempt order, if sought under rule 31.

28The purpose of an order under Rule 1(8) is to achieve immediate compliance and to discourage future non-compliance (Brazeau v. Lejambe, 2020 ONSC 3117).

29Sanctions under Rule 1(8) must have significance, be restorative to the victim of the breach, punitive to the noncompliant party and proportionate to the conduct that produced the failure to follow the court order (Martorelli v. Martorelli, 2019 ONSC 6165; Mullin v Sherlock, 2018 ONCA 1063.

30Costs orders are court orders. The Appellant father does not deny that he has not paid them.

31As clearly illustrated by the voluminous materials filed, and multiple motions brought, by the Appellant father in both the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice, to which the Respondent mother has had to respond, an order disentitling the Appellant father to any further order from the court under Rule 1(8)(e) was restorative to the Respondent mother who was entitled to the costs orders awarded to her by the court. It would also serve to “stop the bleeding” in terms of the valuable time and legal fees spent by the Respondent mother in having to respond. Finally, as was highlighted by Justice Wilcox in his endorsement of January 12, 2026, these outstanding costs orders are not large and, therefore, are proportionate to the Appellant father.

32In his submissions, the Appellant father put much emphasis on procedural fairness, or rather the lack thereof, which he feels he has been experiencing, relying on the principles of Baker v. Canada, [1999] 2 SCR 817. What the Appellant father fails to recognize, however, is that he is not “barred” from bringing further motions. In fact, per the transcript he produced in evidence, Justice Lambert-Bélanger clearly states that once the Appellant father complies with the costs orders, the court will be “happy to discuss” options for further motions.

33The court therefore concludes that there was no breach of procedural fairness as the father is not prevented from bringing motions. He is, however, required to comply with the court orders first, which is entirely reasonable and consistent with the law.

b) Costs order of $2,500

34As was highlighted in the endorsement of Justice Wilcox of January 12, 2026, the Appellant has not put forward any legal basis on which he relies to have the costs award of November 10, 2025, set aside, or even reduced. The court suspects that this is because none exist that could assist him with this argument.

35Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act places the determination of the costs of a motion in the discretion of the Court:

131(1) Subject to the provisions of an Act or rules of court, the costs of and incidental to a proceeding or a step in a proceeding are in the discretion of the court, and the court may determine by whom and to what extent the costs shall be paid.

36Guided by Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court must consider the following:

Entitlement to costs, presumption

24(3) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, there is a presumption that a successful party is entitled to the costs of a step in a case.

37In Cuthbert v. Nolis, 2024 ONCA 21, at para. 21, the Ontario Court of Appeal reminded us of the broad discretion judges have in making costs awards:

An award of costs by a trial judge is an exercise in discretion that will only be set aside when the trial judge has made an error in principle or if the costs award is plainly wrong; Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd, 2004 SCC 9 (…) at para. 27. While the appellant is granted leave to appeal the trial judge’s costs award, it is reasonable and owed deference.

38The Respondent mother was successful on the motion that resulted in the $2,500 costs award against the father on November 10, 2025, and the Appellant father was unable to show that the motion judge made an error in law in making that costs award. The only argument he presented to the court was that he is simply unable to pay it.

39Thus, had the Appellant father sought leave to extend the time for filing his Notice of Appeal and been successful, his appeal of Justice Lambert-Bélanger’s costs award, and Rule 1(8) order preventing him from bringing further motions, would have still been dismissed.

c) Appellant Madelaine’s best interest and parenting order of October 10, 2025

40Again, solely for the benefit of the Appellant father’s information, as the parenting order of October 10, 2025, falls outside the scope of this appeal, which he acknowledged and accepted during the hearing of this appeal, to help him better understand the jurisdictional issues in play, I reiterate the words of Justice Wilcox in his endorsement of January 12, 2026:

5. In the conference, it was eventually clarified that the father is not appealing Justice Lambert-Belanger's parenting order of October 10, 2025. Rather, he is appealing the "bar" on him and the costs award of November 10, 2025. Having said that, he sought a variation order by the Superior Court of the parenting time order, claiming that his daughter did not like the parenting time schedule. It was pointed out to him that this is a Provincial Court matter and is in the Superior Court only for appeal purposes.

41In other words, as was explained to the Appellant father during the case conference and again during the hearing of this appeal, the Superior Court of Justice does not have the jurisdiction to intervene in an Ontario Court of Justice matter for a decision that is not being appealed. Only the Ontario Court of Justice may set aside or vary its own order.

d) father’s motion to question witnesses

42Again, on the issue of the motion to question witnesses, I echo the information provided to the Appellant father at paragraphs 6 and 7 of Justice Wilcox’s January 12, 2026, case conference endorsement:

6. As for the "bar", it was explained to the father that evidence normally goes into trials by oral examination in chief and cross-examination, or by affidavit evidence in chief subject to cross-examination in court. The procedure that he was seeking of having examinations and cross-examinations done outside of court and transcripts of that filed in court appears to have been ordered because the wife's witnesses were not able to file affidavit evidence and Justice McMorrow was looking to save court time. It was pointed out to the father that his proposed procedure was not necessary for all witnesses and would increase his costs. Ms. Young indicated that the wife’s witnesses cost $3,000.

7. It was also pointed out to the father that, prior to the matter going to trial, it would be conferenced and the matter of how to enter witnesses' evidence, whether orally or by affidavit, dealt with.

43Similarly, it would be an error in law for the Superior Court to intervene in the management of a case in the Ontario Court of Justice. In any event, as already mentioned, the Appellant father is not “barred” from bringing that motion as the motion judge explained to him on the record on November 13, 2025.

Costs of this Appeal

44To borrow the expression from Gordon v. Starr, [2007] O.J. No. 2062, the parties are involved in a hornet’s nest of litigation. According to the evidence of the Respondent mother, since filing this appeal, the Appellant father also commenced two civil suits against some of the witnesses involved in the Ontario Court of Justice Motion to Change proceedings.

45The Respondent mother’s draft order filed for this appeal hearing included an order for costs in the amount of $20,000, as well as an order preventing the Appellant father from bringing anything further in both the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice.

46On the issue of costs, I disagree with the Respondent mother that such a large costs order would be effective. First, a costs order may only deal with this appeal. It cannot be used to intervene in civil actions that are apparently before the court involving other parties, nor can it be used to impede the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice in managing its own proceedings. To do so would be an error in law.

47Second, the record is quite clear in showing that costs orders have not been an effective way to help the father to better understand the court process. They have also not helped him understand that costs orders are court orders, and not mere suggestions. If the Appellant father continues to disrespect orders from the Ontario Court of Justice, the Respondent mother may have to resort to other tools from the Rule 1(8) toolbox, such as striking of pleadings, or disentitlement to participate in further steps, but that is not for this court to decide.

48Costs of the case conference of January 12, 2026, were reserved for the appeal hearing. Despite being warned at paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the case conference endorsement that his appeal “did not seem appropriate for achieving his goal”, the Appellant still chose to proceed- even filing five additional affidavits (and attempting to file two more that were rejected by court services):

8. So, it was pointed out to the father that he could have his evidentiary request dealt with if only he paid his costs. The father was informed that the appeal process did not seem to be the appropriate process for achieving his goal here.

9. Regarding costs, the father was informed that costs awards are in the discretion of the hearing judge and that the awards against him were not very large. Also, he could not explain any legal basis that he had for wanting them reduced. Consequently, his chance of success on appeal of the costs did not seem great.

10. Having discussed the appropriateness or otherwise of the appeal with respect to the bar and the costs, the father was informed that he had an option of withdrawing his appeal. As he was not prepared to do so at the time, the matter was scheduled for an assignment court to set a date for a hearing of the appeal.

49Pursuant to Rule 24(14), I take into consideration the Appellant father’s complete disregard of the endorsement of Justice Wilcox, as well as the order that followed, in addition to the fact that this appeal was statute-barred to begin with. In the end, the Respondent mother was entirely successful and she should not have had to respond to this appeal. Accordingly, I set costs for this appeal against the father in the amount of $5,000.00, all-inclusive.

Conclusion

50The court understands that the Appellant father is not a lawyer and that he does not have representation. In fact, a case conference was held to assist in this regard. Being unrepresented does not excuse a party from following the law and the Rules, however. More importantly and emphatically, represented or not, the Appellant father must learn to obey court orders, and there is simply no excuse for not doing so.

51For reasons outlined above:

a) This Appeal is dismissed with costs;

b) The Appellant father shall not bring any further appeals to the Superior Court of Justice without leave;

c) The Appellant father shall not file any materials in this Superior Court of Justice matter without leave; and

d) The Appellant father shall pay the Respondent mother $5,000.00 in costs, all-inclusive, within 60 days.

Justice J.S. Richard May 26, 2026

CITATION: Martin v. Thomas, 2026 ONSC 3072