The trial over ownership of the home where Larry Lee and Angela De Cruz once resided as husband and wife was supposed to be a rather quick one- to two-day affair.

Instead, it turned into a nine-day event, with De Cruz representing herself and testifying that her child was essentially the result of an immaculate conception, attempting to file a letter to the Queen as evidence, and alleging that her ex-husband drugged her, raped her and kidnapped her from Malaysia.

Brampton Superior Court Justice Toni Skarica was having none of it. In a scathing ruling last month, he found her allegations baseless and chastised her for prolonging the trial.

He ruled in her ex-husband’s favour by declaring that he was entitled to the full $53,000 realized from the sale of the home. Furthermore, in an effort to deter similar conduct by others who represent themselves in court, Skarica ordered De Cruz to pay her ex, Larry Lee, nearly $35,000 in costs.

“In our resource-strapped court system, there must be deterrence against such conduct that not only penalizes the opposing party, but also penalizes those litigants who have genuine claims to bring before a court but must have their justice delayed due to court time being spent on this type of litigation,” he wrote in his decision on awarding costs.

Skarica’s ruling comes as the senior judge in Brampton, Francine Van Melle, is urging the Ministry of the Attorney General to find ways immediately to address chronic courtroom shortages that have forced some trials to be moved as far away as Kitchener.

Legal experts describe De Cruz’s case as “bizarre,” “straight out of a novel,” and not at all typical of self-represented litigants, who are becoming more numerous in Canadian courts.

At least one observer, Osgoode Hall Law School professor Allan Hutchinson, expressed concern that the ruling regarding costs might scare off other more well-meaning self-represented individuals, who may worry about facing a hefty bill if they make mistakes in court.

In a lengthy email to the Star, De Cruz, 50, lashed out at Skarica’s decision, said she was tried in a “kangaroo court,” and alleged that various members of the legal community were conspiring against her. She stated that she plans to appeal.

“I have been trying to get justice,” she wrote. “I have sent all I can to Revenue Canada, as they are my last hope.”

She goes on to write: “The judge hurt me and said I will never amount to anything. I was saving myself from more harm. I am a musician and singer songwriter who was trying to also save my only last thing in life — my music rights and my money that will be earned from it.”

Lee’s lawyer, Rupa Murthi, said in an email: “It is a tragedy that this matter took so long and had to go to such a lengthy trial, but we are happy with Justice Skarica’s decision and the strong message it sends to litigants in family law matters.”

Skarica’s ruling on the proceeds from the sale of the house spans an astonishing 220 pages. His decision on costs is far shorter, with plenty of passages where the judge’s frustration shines through.

“This is a costs order that is essentially meaningless,” he writes at the beginning of the decision.

“Ms. De Cruz Lee is on a disability pension. Despite having a university education from twenty years ago, she has never held a job and has never earned an income. She has no assets and no prospects. She is judgment proof and there is no real possibility of that changing unless she wins the lottery.”

Larry Lee, now 73, and Angela De Cruz met in Malaysia in 1982, and he brought her back to Canada, marrying her three years later, Skarica wrote. They had a child and Lee bought a house in Brampton in 1996 for which he paid all the expenses, while she never held a job, according to the ruling.

“Mr. Lee’s reward for his part in this so-called marriage was to be abused and used,” Skarica wrote. “He took it; he was submissive and weak. Shortly after the house was purchased in 1996, she took the master bedroom; he was relegated to a downstairs bedroom.”

The trial took plenty of twists and turns, with even the judge admitting it was difficult to catch up. De Cruz “submitted that there was a large conspiracy of fraud launched against her for many years,” and accused her former lawyer of being part of the conspiracy. The judge disagreed.

Then, as the trial was winding down, she alleged that she had been the victim of human trafficking, which appears to have particularly irked Skarica.

“I told Ms. De Cruz Lee not to talk to anybody about her case. She was glad; she needed a rest,” Skarica wrote. “Her idea of a rest was to speak to an MP about human trafficking. I had prosecuted human trafficking before my call to the bench. Ms. De Cruz Lee had googled me and discovered this.”

Skarica ruled there had been no human trafficking.

There is also the matter of Skarica feeling the need to bold-face the pronoun “her” in some sentences dealing with the Lees’ daughter. Why?

“The reason I am emphasizing ‘her’ daughter, is that previously, Ms. De Cruz Lee testified the daughter was not his — she had not had sex with anyone when she got pregnant,” wrote Skarica. “It was, basically, an immaculate conception — only the second one in history. The child is indeed a blessing.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

It’s a case that has members of the legal community shaking their heads with bemusement, while insisting such conduct by a self-represented litigant is rare.

“The message I think (Skarica) is trying to send is not so much to self-represented litigants, but I would argue applies to all litigants, and that is: Don’t use the court system as a weapon,” said Steve Rastin, president of the Ontario Trial Lawyers’ Association. “The court system is meant to resolve legitimate disputes between parties.”

Hutchinson at Osgoode Hall said he found the judge’s tone “patronizing and smug,” disagreeing that it was necessary to order De Cruz to pay full costs. He argued it was within Skarica’s power to shorten the trial if he felt it was dragging on.

Read more about: