Portnov v. ICBC and Stepputat, 2003 BCSC 458

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Portnov v. ICBC and Stepputat, 2003 BCSC 458 Date: 20030326 Docket: L023903 Registry: Vancouver Between: Abraham Portnov Appellant And Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and Randolph Stepputat Respondents Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harvey Reasons for Judgment The Appellant, appearing in person: A.

Portnov Counsel for Respondents: B. von Krosigk Date and Place of Hearing: March 24, 2003 Vancouver, B.C. [ 1 ] The appellant appeals from the judgment of Auxier, P.C.J. delivered on May 30, 2002 at North Vancouver, British Columbia, in which she dismissed the appellant's claim attributing fault to the respondent Randolph Stepputat for a motor vehicle accident which occurred on January 16, 2001 in Delta, said accident involving their respective vehicles. [ 2 ] On December 20, 2002, a Notice of Appeal was filed. [ 3 ] On February 4, 2003, the appellant's Statement of Argument was filed. [ 4 ] The appellant, assisted by his daughter, Galina Sapozhnikov, as a translator in the Russian language, advances grounds of appeal, most of which are not tenable, because of a misconception on his part that the appeal process was to result in the ordering of a new trial.

Further, he submitted during the course of the appeal on more than one occasion the following: "I am not saying the judge made a mistake. I say she was misled by the other party [Stepputat] in making the decision she did." He added to this statement that there was a mistrust of him and personal discrimination directed to him by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia ("ICBC") in the course of the investigation of the matter. [ 5 ] The respondents submit that: (

a) The Notice of Appeal was not filed within the time permitted by the Act and the Appeal should therefore be dismissed with costs. (

b) Further, the Statement of Argument, Form B, was not filed within the time permitted and the Appeal should therefore be dismissed with costs. (

c) In the alternative, the Appeal is without merit and should therefore be dismissed with costs.

[ 6 ] With regard to (a), it is not disputed the Notice of Appeal was not filed until almost eight months after the trial, grossly out of time, an appeal having to be started within 40 days. [ 7 ] The appellant's response or explanation for the delay in advancing the appeal is that he says it took him seven months "to collect documents" from the police and ICBC and that it was not until he felt he had sufficient information that he could appeal. [ 8 ] In my view, the appeal can be dismissed on this ground. [ 9 ] In keeping, however, with the inordinate amount of time and expense which has been taken with this appeal, I will briefly deal with the appeal on its merits. [ 10 ] The appellant appears obsessed with the view that he has been the victim of injustice because his testimony at trial and submissions made at that time were, related to fault for the motor vehicle accident, not accepted by the learned trial judge.

As I have stated supra , he continued to maintain throughout the hearing of the appeal that she, referring to the trial judge, was misled in some way by the other party and as assisted by ICBC. [ 11 ] The circumstances of the motor vehicle accident are relatively simple and straightforward. At trial, the two drivers and a passenger in the Stepputat vehicle were called as witnesses and gave testimony.

The respondent Stepputat and the passenger in his vehicle were cross-examined by the appellant. [ 12 ] At the end of the day, the learned trial judge had this to say regarding the real issue before her – the credibility of the participating drivers and the one witness to the manner in which the motor vehicle accident occurred: As I say, you would have to prove that your version of what took place was more probable than what Mr. Stepputat's was. Having said that, I can go much further in this case. I have absolutely no doubt that the events occurred the way Mr.

Stepputat relayed them and wherever your evidence conflicts with that of Mr. Stepputat or with his witness, the passenger who was with him conflicts, it is Mr. Stepputat's evidence that I prefer. . . . You agreed with counsel for Mr. Stepputat that your car was at about a 45 degree angle as you were in that lane. That is the same description that Mr. Stepputat made. I think it is clear from that angle alone, Mr.

Portnov, that this was a very sudden movement trying to get into that left-hand lane and I think that the damage that was done to the vehicles is further corroboration of how this accident occurred. [ 13 ] I consider much of the appellant's criticisms (loosely categorized as grounds of appeal) of what occurred below to be spurious. Again, a study of the reasons for judgment indicates the following: (

a) There was a certified court interpreter available throughout the trial who was used on those occasions when the trial judge considered it was necessary so to do. (

b) The trial judge saw, heard, and evaluated the testimony of all witnesses to the motor vehicle accident. (

c) The trial judge made a point of not considering documents completed by a Constable Black, who was not called as a witness at trial. Constable Black did not witness the accident and it was the trial judge's considered view that it would not be necessary to review documents completed by him made in the course of the investigation. (

d) The appellant had the opportunity and did cross-examine all witnesses he chose to so examine. These witnesses included the other driver and the passenger in his vehicle. (

e) In no way was he constrained from so examining witnesses and delaying his submissions until the end of the trial. [ 14 ] For these reasons, I find the trial judge had ample evidence and grounds to support the decision to dismiss the appellant's case. In the particular circumstances here, the issue of credibility appears to have been paramount and resolved against the position of the appellant. [ 15 ] I consider this appeal to be without merit and bordering on being frivolous and vexatious. [ 16 ] I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

“R.B. Harvey, J.” The Honourable Mr. Justice R.B. Harvey