COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation:

Vetrici v. Vetrici,

 

2017 BCCA 244

                                                                                                     Date: 20170627

Docket: CA43480; CA43481

Between:

Raluca Vetrici

Respondent

(Claimant)

And

Grigore Vetrici

Appellant

(Respondent)

 

Before:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Donald

The Honourable Madam Justice Bennett

The Honourable Mr. Justice Fitch

Supplementary Reasons to:  Vetrici v. Vetrici, 2017 BCCA 121.

Appellant appearing in Person

 

Counsel for the Respondent:

M. Brandon

Place and Date of Hearing:

Vancouver, British Columbia

March 6, 2017

Place and Date of Judgment:

Vancouver, British Columbia

March 8, 2017

Written Submissions Received:

May 12, 18 and 24, 2017

Date of Supplementary Judgment:

Vancouver, British Columbia

June 27, 2017

 

Supplementary Reasons of the Court


 

Summary:

Supplemental reasons as to costs and requests for recusal, reconsideration and clarification in two appeals. The award of costs in the court below is entitled to deference and it is not the role of the courts to assess bills of costs. The respondent is entitled to costs of the appeals. The appellant’s further arguments are dismissed as baseless.

Supplementary Reasons for Judgment of the Court:

[1]             On 8 March 2017, we gave oral reasons for judgment dismissing Mr. Vetrici’s appeals except to vary the wording of a provision in one of the orders.  We have received written submissions on the issue of costs in this Court and in the court below, together with additional arguments from the appellant seeking recusal, reconsideration and clarification.

[2]             We would dismiss the appellant’s arguments and award costs of the appeals to the respondent.

Costs

[3]             In CA43481, Mr. Vetrici contends the judge erred by awarding the respondent costs in the amount of $2,000 plus disbursements, representing $1,000 for each half day under Appendix B of the Supreme Court Family Rules, B.C. Reg. 4/2016.  He says the award was in error because the proceeding did not exceed one half day.  Ms. Vetrici responds by pointing out that the parties attended chambers for a 9:45 a.m. hearing and did not complete the hearing until after the court lunch break.

[4]             We would not give effect to this submission.  It is not the court’s function to assess bills of costs.  Costs awards are discretionary and the chambers judge was in the best position to determine the appropriate order based on the length of the hearing.

[5]             As to costs of the appeals, Mr. Vetrici raises a number of points in support of his contention that Ms. Vetrici should not be awarded costs.  Many of these seek to continue arguing the merits of the appeals; none of them provides a basis for departing from the usual rule under s. 23 of the Court of Appeal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 77.  Ms. Vetrici was the successful party and is entitled to her costs.

Additional Arguments

[6]             The appellant submits that this division should recuse itself on grounds of bias.  He also seeks that this Court convene a three- or five-justice division to address the dismissal of his previous appeal in CA40942 on the basis of what he asserts is an inconsistent application of the law, and reconsideration of the within appeals in light of Supreme Court of Canada authority that he says affects the decision.  Finally, he requests clarification of this Court’s reasons.

[7]             The appellant persists in challenging the jurisdiction of this Court and in attempting to relitigate decided issues.  We would dismiss these arguments as baseless and without merit.

Conclusion

[8]             We would not give effect to Mr. Vetrici’s submissions.  Ms. Vetrici is entitled to costs of the appeals.

“The Honourable Mr. Justice Donald”

“The Honourable Madam Justice Bennett”

“The Honourable Mr. Justice Fitch”