Affidavit # 16

Michael Kapoustin
April 4, 2001

No. S004040
VANCOUVER REGISTRY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:
TRACY KAPOUSTIN, NICHOLAS KAPOUSTIN BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM
TRACY KAPOUSTIN AND MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN
PLAINTIFFS
AND:
HE HONOURABLE MURAVEI RADEV
MINISTER OF FINANCE
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
FOR
REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA,
DEFENDANT
and
STEFCHO GEORGIEV, MARIO STOYANOV, EMILIA MITKOVA, KINA DIMITROVA,
IVETA ANADOLSKA, DIMITAR SHACKLE and
DEREK A. DOORNBOS,
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS

AND:
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA

RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN, a citizen of Canada and resident of British Columbia, at present

an inmate at the penitentiary facility of the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, 21,
"Stoletov" St., 1309 Sofia, DO HEREBY MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. That I have read the February 23rd 2001 affidavit of Ms. MAYA DOBREVA as filed
by her on behalf of the Defendant Republic of Bulgaria, MURAVEI RADEV, Minister
of Finance, hereinafter referred to by me as the “DEFENDANT BULGARIA.”
2. Upon my best information and belief Ms. MAYA DOBREVA, hereinafter referred to
by me as “DOBREVA”, undertook to answer complaints against the DEFENDANT
BULGARIA as setout by Plaintiffs on July 25th 2000 in their Statement of Claim.
3. My review of court records in the Republic of Bulgaria, the correspondences of
Government of Canada and other facts known to me, lead me to believe Ms.
DOBREVA has made materially false representations in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 5 of
her affidavit.
4. Upon my best information the ensuing material facts and circumstances as known to
me do convincingly suggest that Ms. DOBREVA knowingly or upon the
representations or at the direction of others, did willingly perjure herself before this
Honorable Court.

1
5. I make this Affidavit in support of applications to this Honorable Court by the
Plaintiffs for Orders pursuant to subrules 26(1.1)(10) and 29(2) Rules of the Court. The
Honorable Court requested to by the Plaintiffs to adjourn generally the hearing of any
motion by the DEFENDANT BULGARIA in seeking State immunity from civil
prosecution. This Honorable Court to so order until such time as:
5.1. Ms. DOBREVA has assisted in or secured the discovery and inspection of the
documents referenced directly or alluded to in her Affidavit of February 23rd
2001.
5.2. Ms. DOBREVA submits to discovery and deliver an answer on affidavit to the
written interrogatories served on her on or about April 9th 2001 pursuant to
subrule 29(8) Rules of the Court.
5.3. Minister MURAVEI RADEV as the party of record assists in or secures the
discovery and inspection of the documents demanded from him and the
DEFENDANT BULGARIA on or about December 19th 2000.
5.4. Minister MURAVEI RADEV as the party of record submit to discovery and
deliver an answer on affidavit to the written interrogatories served to him on or
about September 26th 2000 and as again served, mutatis mutandis, on April 9th
2001 pursuant to subrule 29(8) Rules of the Court.
6. I do verily believe upon my best information that the documents demanded and
answers required from Ms. DOBREVA and Minister MURAVEI RADEV shall
incontrovertibly support Plaintiffs claims against the DEFENDANT BULGARIA and
others, thereby establishing the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court to be proper as
pursuant to, inter alia, the Charter rights of the Plaintiffs; the Rules of the Court;
various enactments of Canada; applicable principles of natural law; the practice
inherent in common law; the international treaties which Canada and the
DEFENDANT BULGARIA are contracting parties.
7. I believe the relevant facts and documents in support of my Affidavit and the Plaintiffs
requests to this Honorable Court are as follows.
8. That on September 7th 2000 Ms. Marianna Radulova, an English translator employed
by the Plaintiffs and appointed by the Sofia City Court, did serve the DEFENDANT
BULGARIA, office of the Minister, Ministry of Justice, Republic of Bulgaria,
hereinafter to be referred to by me as the “RESPONDENT”, English and Bulgaria
language transcripts of the Endorsement for Service Ex Juris, Writ of Summons, and
Statement of Claim in the above entitled proceeding.
9. The RESPONDENT, did voluntarily accept the documents for the DEFENDANT
BULGARIA, as delivered by Ms. Marianna Radulova on the date I have setout in §8
above.
10. In support of my claim in §§8 and 9 above I incorporate herein, by reference and make
a part of this, my Affidavit, the April 4th 2001 Affidavit No. XX of Ms. Marianna
Radulova as filed with this Honorable Court.
11. In serving the RESPONDENT for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA I first relied on the
provisions, mutatis mutandis, of subrule 11(2)(b) Rules of the Court, having obtained
an endorsement of this Honorable Court for service outside of the province.
12. I did further rely on subrule 13(12) Rules of the Court when serving the
RESPONDENT for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA. RESPONDENT having
voluntarily accepted delivery of the originating process pursuant to the provisions of
Article 5 paragraph 2 of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and

2
 Extra-judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters. Hereinafter to be referred
to by me as the “CONVENTION.”
13. Furthermore, pursuant to the provisions of ss. 9(1)(b) of the State Immunity Act,
hereinafter referred to by me as the “ACT,” I did rely on the fact of the DEFENDANT
BULGARIA being a contracting party to the CONVENTION as of August 1st 2000.
14. Consistent with the fact setout in §13 above and provisions of the ACT and
CONVENTION, I did have the originating process and other documents delivered to
the RESPONDENT. My doing so was consistent with my understanding that the
RESPONDENT, pursuant to ss 2(b) of the ACT, is an unincorporated department and
part of the legal corpus of the Defendant foreign State Bulgaria.
15. I further in the alternative relied on the fact and did verily believe that the
RESPONDENT as designated Central Authority for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA
pursuant Article 2 of the CONVENTION, and responsible agency of the Government
of the Republic of Bulgaria; would forward the originating process and other
documents served by me to the responsible department or responsible part of the legal
corpus of the Defendant foreign State Bulgaria.
16. At no time has the RESPONDENT, pursuant to Article 4 of the CONVENTION
undertaken to provide, as Central Authority for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA, a
written objection to the service and delivery of documents by the methods I thus far
employed as deposed to in §§8-14 above.
17. On September 26th 2000, on behalf of myself and the other Plaintiffs, I acted to secure
every other reasonable method available to me that the originating process and other
documents under the above entitled proceeding would reach the DEFENDANT
BULGARIA and others.
18. My actions on September 26th 2000 and thereafter were a direct consequence of the
written objections deposited by the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, informing the Minister at the Hague
that the transmission channels for service of documents mentioned in Article 10 of the
CONVENTION were inappropriate on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria.
19. Whereby, pursuant to the fact setout in § 18 above and relying on the provisions of
ss.9(2) of the ACT, I did on September 29th 2000 personally provide Ms. Heather
Brooker, First Secretary and Consul of the Canadian Embassy, a sufficient number of
true and correct copies of the Endorsement for Service Ex Juris, Writ of Summons,
Statement of Claim and Demands for Discovery of Documents.
20. I requested Consul Brooker to forward the said documents to the Central Authority for
Canada, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Treaty Law
Division, designated by the Government of Canada in it declaration on the
CONVENTION as the competent federal authority.
21. Among the documents provided me for transmission to the DEFENDANT
BULGARIA, Minister MURAVEI RADEV, was a demand by the Plaintiffs in Form
92 for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA to produce certain documents pursuant to
subrule 26(1) Rules of the Court.
22. I did furthermore on the same date as setout in §19 above request the consular officer
to deliver to Minister Nadejda Mihailov, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, DEFENDANT
BULGARIA, additional and sufficient copies of the aforesaid documents together with
written interrogatories in Form 22. When formulating the request and written
interrogatories I and the other Plaintiffs relied on subrules 29(2) and (3) Rules of the
Court..
3
23. Upon my best information and belief the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the
DEFENDANT BULGARIA was to transmit the documents provided by me to the
Central Authority identified in §14 above. That, as the responsible agency according to
the provisions of the CONVENTION, the Central Authority was to have forwarded to
the all parties of record resident in the Republic of Bulgaria.
24. Included among the designated recipients of the said documents was the DEFENDANT
BULGARIA, in the person of Minister MURAVEI RADEV.
25. As required by subrule 13(14) Rules of the Court, I did annex to each document
provided by me a Form 104 and Form 105 to be delivered to the DEFENDANT
BULGARIA, Minister MURAVEI RADEV and those others named together with the
originating process and other documents I have mentioned in the above entitled
proceeding.
26. I further provided the RESPONDENT and Central Authority, to later be returned to the
Plaintiffs, a Form 106 for certification by the Sofia District Court after delivery of the
documents to those defendants resident in the Republic of Bulgaria. Including among
them Minister MURAVEI RADEV. When doing so I relied on the written declarations
of the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria to the provisions of Article 6,
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the CONVENTION.
27. As of the date of this, my Affidavit, neither the other Plaintiffs nor I have been returned
a certified original or any copy of the Form 106 as provided by me. At no time has the
RESPONDENT, pursuant to Article 4 of the CONVENTION undertaken to provide, as
Central Authority for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA, a written objection to the
service and delivery of documents by the methods I thus far employed as deposed to in
§§ 18-26 above.
28. In support of my claim in §§ 18-26 above 27 above I incorporate herein, by reference
and make a part of this, my Affidavit, the April 4th 2001 Affidavit No. XX of Ms.
Marianna Radulova as filed with this Honorable Court.
29. On December 11th, 2000 the Central Authority for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA, the
office of the Deputy Minister of Justice, Ms. Zltaka Rousseva, did have served to me at
the Central Penitentiary in City of Sofia, the December 7th, 2000 answer of the
DEFENDANT BULGARIA to the complaint and claims made by Plaintiffs in the
above entitled proceeding.
30. As RESPONDENT, Deputy Minister Rouseeva specifically, by reference in paragraph
2 of her statement of defense, did make answer to the Plaintiffs claims in the above
entitled proceeding.
31. The RESPONDENT having formally set forth the grounds for the defense of the
Republic of Bulgaria, after first claiming to have conducted a complete investigation of
the allegation, that the DEFENDANT BULGARIA finds the complaint against the
State as generally without merit.
32. On or about January 2nd 2001 Mr. Robert Kap, a party of interest and the father of this
Deponent, did file with this Honorable Court a true and correct copy of English and
Bulgarian language transcripts of the answer by the RESPONDENT as deposed in §§
29-31 above.
33. On January 11th, 2001 the aforesaid Mr. Robert Kap, relying on the provisions of
subrule 31(1) Rules of the Court and on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Deponent, did
serve on the RESPONDENT for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA a Notice to Admit in
Form 23. Plaintiffs required DEFENDANT BULGARIA admit or deny that:
33.1. Service had been provided on September 7th 2000.
4
 33.2. The answer and response to the complaint had been made by the Deputy
Minister of Justice Z. Rousseva as RESPONDENT for the defendant foreign
State.
33.3. The Republic of Bulgaria had waived voluntarily the defense of sovereign
immunity in the above entitled proceeding, by so doing the DEFENDANT
BULGARIA agreeing to submit to the jurisdiction of a provincial court of
British Columbia and to proceed only on the merits of those contracts and facts
in dispute.
33.4. Provided with the Notice to Admit as Exhibits were copies of the statement of
defense in Bulgarian and English transcripts as filed with the Registrar of this
Honorable.
34. In support of my claim in §§ 29-33 above I incorporate herein, by reference and make a
part of this, my Affidavit, the January 2nd 2001 Affidavit No.2 of Mr. Robert Kap and
the Notice to Admit as filed by him with this Honorable Court on or about January 11th
2001.
35. On January 11th 2001, relying on the provisions of subrule 31(2) Rules of the Court and
believing the truth of the facts to be admitted by the RESPONDENT, I did then serve
on the DEFENDANT BULGARIA, pursuant to subrule 23(1) Rules of the Court, a
Reply in Form 23.
36. In support of my claim in § 35 above I incorporate herein, by reference and make a part
of this, my Affidavit, the April 4th 2001 Affidavit No. XX of Ms. Marianna Radulova
as filed with this Honorable Court.
37. On or about January 16th 2001 I was advised by registered mail from the Department of
Foreign Affairs, Director Treaty Law Division, Government of Canada, that my request
of September 26th 2000 [see §§ 17-26 above] was realized on December 19th 2000 by
transmission of documents in the above entitled proceeding to the Government of the
Republic of Bulgaria.
38. In support of my claim in § 37 above I incorporate herein, by reference and make a part
of this my Affidavit, the January 3rd 2001 letter of Mr. John T. Holmes, Director Treaty
Law Division, Government Canada as filed with this Honorable Court by Government
Canada .
39. Upon my best information based on the material facts deposed to in §§ 8-38 above, it
becomes apparent that:
39.1. The RESPONDENT for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA has been aware, since
September 7th 2000, of the nature and details of the Plaintiffs claims before this
Honorable Court and the relief as sought.
39.2. DEFENDANT BULGARIA admitted on December 7th 2000 in the statement
of Deputy Minister of Justice Z. Rouseeva [ see § 30 above] to having
conducted “an official verification” of all the Plaintiffs and this deponents
complaints.
40. Upon my best information and belief, the “official verification” by the RESPONDENT
would have required the DEFENDANT BULGARIA to review, as this Deponent has,
inter alia, court records in various jurisdictions, including Canada and the United
States; all available official correspondences between agencies or instrumentalities of
the governments of Germany, Canada and the Republic of Bulgaria; civil case records
and the private complaints and appeals of the Deponent and others as enumerated by
me in the Plaintiffs Reply [ see § 35 above ]; all civil contracts, whether written or
implied, as existed between the DEFENDANT BULGARIA and the Plaintiffs from on
5
 or about January 1st 1991 forward; the public and private statements and material
representations of State official of the DEFENDANT BULGARIA to the mass media
and in written documents.
41. I do verily know it to be true that the DEFENDANT BULGARIA prior to and after the
official investigation of the RESPONDENT knew at all material times of the following
material representation and contracts, commercial and other activities of its officials,
agencies or instrumentalities. Including various ministries, departments or institutions
of the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria or its political subdivisions as follows.
42. would have rev It is apparent to me from paragraph 2 of the Affidavit of Ms.
DOBREVA that she did rely, in part or in whole, upon the representations of an official
of the RESPONDENT for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA, Mr. Dimitar Tonchev,
Deputy Minister of Justice and the colleague of Deputy Minister of Justice Ms. Z.
Rouseeva, author of the statement of defense for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA. And
official responsible for having conducted a verification of the Plaintiffs claims.
43. I do verily believe Ms DOBREVA has perjured herself, if the written statement made
by the RESPONDENT for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA on December 7th 2000 is
true.
44. It is further apparent that the RESPONDENT for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA
45. I have been in pre-trial arrest at the order of the Republic of Bulgaria since February 7,
1996 and I am presently without a conviction or sentence.

46. I have complied with Rules 11 and 13 of the Court.

47. Defendants of the above entitled action Emilia Mitkova, Mario Stoyanov, Kina
Dimitrova, Dimitar Shackle, Iveta Anadolska and Stefcho Georgiev are, upon my best
information and belief, and according to the records of the Court in default of
appearance as required by the provisions of Rule 17 of the Court.

48. Attached as Exhibit "D" is my intended Form 56 Praecipe for Default Judgement, the
Affidavit in support thereof and separate pleadings and a Draft Order in Form 56-A as
required in order for the Court to enter a Default Judgement made in the terms of
Praecipe.

49. My parents are pensioners, having no income and living on a Canadian Government
pension and social assistance.
50. _____________________________________
51. Affidavit #2 - Michael Kapoustin - page 2 of 3

52. Attached as Exhibit "E" is the Affidavit #1 dated January 2, 2001 of my father Robert
Kap in support of the relief sought I make reference to paragraphs 3, 7 and 8.

53. My mother is a victim of advanced Alzheimer's, as a result this imposes an additional

financial burden upon my family and I cannot seek loans or other financial assistance
from my parents.
6
54. Attached as Exhibit "F" is the medical certificate of my mother evidencing her illness.

55. The above-entitled action contains reasonable claims that are neither scandalous,
frivolous nor vexatious, it is not otherwise an abuse of the process of this Honourable
Court. It is as a result of the acts alleged therein and claimed by me, as Plaintiff, and
my family, as other Plaintiffs, that I and my family have been left indigent and in ill
health and I seek relief for this with the attached hereto Petition.

January 29, 2001 Pro se Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin

_____________________________________
Affidavit #2 - Michael Kapoustin - page 3 of 3