Court of Appeal File No.

___________ 
Court of Appeal Registry Vancouver
Supreme Court File No. S004040
Supreme Court Registry Vancouver 
Affidavit No. 17 MK
Michael Kapoustin
In the British Columbia Appeal Court
(The Supreme Court of British Columbia)
Between
MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN TRACY KAPOUSTIN, NICHOLAS KAPOUSTIN by his guardian Ad Litem
TRACY KAPOUSTIN
Appellants
(Plaintiffs)
And
REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA ET AL
Respondents
(Defendants)

AFFIDAVIT
TO: The Defendant Republic of Bulgaria
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Honourable Minister
Mr. Salmon Passé

AND TO: Their Counsel
Mr. Patrick Lewis
Sugden, McFee & Roos
Barristers and Solicitors
Vancouver, British Columbia

I, Michael Kapoustin, am a Canadian citizen presently incarcerated by the Defendant Government of the Republic of
Bulgaria at the Federal penal institution of the Sofia Central Penitentiary, 21, "Stoletov" St., 1309 Sofia, Bulgaria. My
mailing address in the province is c/o Tracy Coburn Kapoustin 298 South Beach Drive, Penticton British Columbia V2A

Generally

3W3 Canada. I MAKE OATH UNDER THE LAWS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am the Applicant herein.

2. I am a Russian Jew.

3. I was born on November 6 1952.

4. I was naturalized a Canadian citizen in December of 1956.

 5. I am married, my wife and co-plaintiff Tracy Coburn Kapoustin is a Canadian citizen born in the City
of Trail, British Columbia, Canada.

6. My wife and I are the natural parents of co-plaintiff Nicholas Kapoustin, our nine-year-old son is a
Canadian citizen born in the City of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

7. My wife, son and I, at all relevant times have been permanent residents of the province of British
Columbia, Canada. My wife and son presently resident in the City of Penticton, British Columbia,
Canada at the home of her parents Delores and Patrick Coburn.

Nature of Affiant Lawsuit and Applications before this Court

8. I have not seen my wife and son in more than 6 years.

9. I make this Affidavit in support of my application for an Order to extend the time to file and serve
notice of application for leave to appeal.

10. I have no reason to believe that the Respondents/Defendants in the above captioned lawsuit are in any
way disadvantaged by the extension of time that my application requests.

11. I am requesting the British Columbia Appeal Court extend the time in which I may appeal a Chamber’s
Order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Order I seek to appeal directly affects certain
rights I believe guaranteed by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) and found in
natural law.

12. The need for me to seek an extension of time is solely the result of my disadvantaged status as an
indigent Canadian citizen incarcerated by a foreign State. The intrinsic harshness of my imprisonment
aggravated by the severe treatment and difficult circumstances I have experienced during the course of
my incarceration at penitentiary facilities of the Defendant/Respondent Republic of Bulgaria.

13. I know it to be true and can prove if called upon, that officials and agencies of the
Respondent/Defendant Government of the Republic of Bulgaria have acted to obstruct me in filing my
application to this Court. The actions of the Respondent/Defendant Republic of Bulgaria provide the
primary causus to the delay in filing this and my other applications before the British Columbia Court
of Appeal.

14. I have set out below circumstances, and facts, to establish that the delays in bringing my application
before the Appeal Court are not of my owning making but solely due to the actions of the
Respondent/Defendant Republic of Bulgaria.

15. I have further set out below the reasons I believe my intended appeal raises serious questions of
substantive law and natural justice. The intended appeal raises a question of equity; What are the
constitutional rights and freedoms of a Canadian Citizen before a court of Canada when he or
she is disadvantage by imprisonment in a foreign State?

16. My argument turns on those rights I believe are fundamental to equal justice as guaranteed by the
Charter and Canada’s international agreements. It deep-seated in the Canadian conscience that all
citizens pleading before a Court of Canada have an equal right to develop, continue or defend his or her
right to seek judicial remedy for wrongs or injuries they allegedly have suffered. The Court’s always
sensitive and responsive to the particular circumstances and disadvantages of a distinct individual or
groups pleading before them, notwithstanding the he or she is prevented by incarceration from
appearing pro se and made indigent.

17. I believe I can express my intended appeal best with the legal maxim Ad officium justiciariorum
spectat unicuique coram eis placitanti justitiam exhibere. My intended appeal turns on the issue of
a Canadian citizen’s right to rely on Charter protection in Canada when the subject of the controversy
is within the in personam jurisdiction and competence of a Canadian court, notwithstanding that the
person may be temporary beyond the physical boundaries of Canada. I believe that such rights must
continue to exist by virtue of a citizens legal, social and property interests as they exist in Canada, and

Notice of Motion To Extend Time To File Sec. 10(1) Court of App Created on 16/04/2002 02:21:00 by Michael Kapoustin
 there can be no derogation of such rights solely due to he or she having a disadvantaged status in
society.

18. My lawsuit, this application and my intended appeal are each delayed by the actions of a
Respondent/Defendant who continues to obstruct me from having access to the Court, my property and
assets. The Respondent/Defendant threatening and intimidating me with the prospects of physical and
psychological injury for so long as I pursue my claims in Canada against it. I believe this to be wrong
according to the laws of Canada as well as international law, notwithstanding the fact the
Respondent/Defendant Republic of Bulgaria claims it a sovereign right to imprison me sine die and to
seize the Plaintiffs’ property without due process and in violation of international law.

19. I pleaded in writing before a Master and Chambers Judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia
that the Respondent/Defendant Republic of Bulgaria, acted with malice and forethought to
intentionally cause me extreme physical and mental duress. The intend of the Respondent/Defendant to
dissuade and obstruct me from continuing or defending my family and my legal and property interests
in Canada in our suit at law against the Government of Bulgaria. The severity of our circumstances is
due solely to the Respondent/Defendant Republic of Bulgaria.

20. I have not made any claim before the Supreme Court of British Columbia for relief from the wrongful
person injury and suffering I have for myself experienced outside of Canada in Bulgaria. My physical
pain and emotional anguish are the direct result of my wrongful imprisonment and brutal physical and
psychological treatment by the Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria. I have reserved the
right to raise such a claim before a Canadian court when I am able to establish the breaches of my
fundamental human and civil rights, as well as to demonstrate my innocence, before an impartial
judicial tribunal outside of Bulgaria.

21. My claims and those of my family before the British Columbia Supreme Court against the
Respondent/Defendant Republic of Bulgaria in Canada are commercial in nature and having to do with
joint commercial activities and contracts with officials, agencies, instrumentalities and institutions of
the Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria. The British Columbia Courts having competent
jurisdiction to determine the facts and apply the law, the foreign State of Bulgaria not immune from the
nature of my cause of action and controversies I raise.

22. Furthermore, my wife, son and I have brought personal injury claims framed in tort, the claims allege
inter alia prima facie tort; tortuous interferences with contractual relations and prospective advantage;
and personal tort resulting in physical and emotional injuries suffered in the province of British
Columbia, this solely due to the tortuous conducts of the Respondent/Defendant Government of
Bulgaria.

23. My intended appeal does not seek to raise questions on the application of Canadian law and the Charter
beyond the boundaries of Canada or the lawful or unlawful nature of the Respondent/Defendant having
me remanded to arrest for more than 6 years as I await a final sentence.

24. My intended appeal considers only the right of all members of Canada’s democratic society to access
justice and develop a judicial remedy for the wrongs he or she alleges having suffered. Also relevant,
but only insofar as they exist in aggravation of the circumstances, are the negative restrictions as well
as positive obligations of the Defendant/Respondent Republic of Bulgaria to its international
commitments and treaties with Canada. I believe Canadian enactments and international law show the
duties and obligations of a foreign State in a suit at law in Canada to be no different from that of any
other person finding him or herself party to judicial proceeding before a Court of Canada.

25. My appeal intends is to consider the question of equality of rights only as these rights operate solely
within the jurisdiction of a Court of Canada, and that any unreasonable obstruction or limitation of
those rights in Canada is unlawful and notwithstanding the act of unlawful obstruction or interference
with due process having taken place outside of Canada.

26. I believe any act affecting due process in Canada must be subject to review under Canadian law and the
Court seized by the fact of the acts affect on its processes and the legal and property rights of persons in
or strongly connected to Canada. This notwithstanding the offence itself occurred outside the
jurisdiction of the Court, what matters is the effect that occurred within the jurisdiction of the Court and
the good Judge acting on the effect. Boni judicis est ampliare justitiam et Bonus judex secundum
aequum et bonum judicat, et aequitatem stricto juri praefert .

Notice of Motion To Extend Time To File Sec. 10(1) Court of App Created on 16/04/2002 02:21:00 by Michael Kapoustin
 27. In principle, I find that my rights appear to be no less in law than the rights of any other Canadian
citizen seeking a judicial remedy to his or her grievances before a Canadian court, notwithstanding
circumstances where he or she proves to be indigent and incarcerated in a foreign State.

28. However, in practice, I find my rights, and I am sure the rights of other Canadian citizens similarly
situated, are indirectly limited beyond those limits as prescribed by law. The practices and procedures
of the Supreme Court of British Columbia acting to indirectly discriminate and exceptionally prejudice
the legal and property rights of the disadvantaged class of Canadian citizens to which I belong.

29. I believe, and my intended appeal will assert, that the discrimination I allege is solely due to the
generality of the application of certain court practices and procedures to me, to others similarly
situated, and equally as disadvantaged.

30. My intended appeal raises questions of equity in the practices and procedures of the Supreme Court of
British Columbia, this best expressed in the maxim Aequitas est correctio legis generaliter latae qua
parte deficit ,

31. I believe my application to extend time is grounded in the circumstances and facts that follow.
Respondent/Defendant Aware of My Intention to Appeal
32. I have made every possible effort to insure that at all material times the Respondent/Defendant
Republic of Bulgaria and its legal counsel in Vancouver, British Columbia are informed of my
intention and progress towards an appeal. The facts are as follows.

33. On May 2nd 2001, I first advised the Registrar of the British Columbia Supreme Court, Mr. B.
Messenger, of my intent to appeal the decision of a Duty Master. Before making my application, I
decided to follow the Registrar’s suggestion and approach several legal aid agencies about providing
me counsel. I provided copies of this letter to the Respondent/Defendant in care of the agency of the
Ministry of Justice Republic of Bulgaria.

34. On May 9th 2001, I posted to my interpreter, Ms. M. Radulova, a letter to be e-mailed to counsel in
Vancouver for the Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria, Mr. Patrick Lewis. I provided a
copy of my letter to counsel Lewis to the Respondent/Defendant in care of the agency of the Ministry
of Justice Republic of Bulgaria. My letter advised counsel Lewis about my concerns over his client’s
obstruction and interference with my preparation for the lawsuits filed in the British Columbia
Supreme Court. In particular the fact that his client on April 28th, 2001 ordered Sofia Penitentiary
officials to withdraw my access to my interpreter Ms. M. Radulova. I further expressed to Vancouver
counsel my fears that his client intended to withdraw the facilities necessary for me to continue or
defendant in the lawsuit in British Columbia. I wrote Vancouver counsel that the conduct of his client
had made it impossible for me to affect any procedural actions before the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, or anywhere else for that matter.

35. I also wrote counsel for the Respondent/Defendant that my Bulgarian attorney, Mr. A. Lukanov, and
others who reviewed the conduct of the Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria and found the
acts I complained of to be breaches of Bulgarian national law. The conduct of the
Respondent/Defendant violated the negative restrictions imposed on the State of Bulgaria’s by its
international human and civil rights agreements. I have obtained the affidavit of my Bulgarian attorney
Mr. A. Lukanov as evidence and have filed his affidavit with the British Columbia Supreme Court.

36. On May 10th 2001, I managed to mail a letter out of prison to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of
British Columbia, Mr. Messenger.

37. My letter to Registrar Messenger, dated April 7th 2001, described my fears that the
Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria would close all possibilities for me to maintain my
contact with the Court.

38. I sent another letter to Registrar Messenger on May 11, 2001, again by e-mail from my Bulgaria
interpreter Ms. Radulova. I wrote Mr. Messenger that I was preparing important documents but there
was no way to get them out of the prison or to send them to Canada, the Respondent/Defendant
Government Bulgaria having withdrawn my right to have contact with my interpreter Ms. Radulova.

Notice of Motion To Extend Time To File Sec. 10(1) Court of App Created on 16/04/2002 02:21:00 by Michael Kapoustin
39. I managed by June 5th 2001 to sent Ms. Radulova my Notice of Appeal from the decision of the Duty
Master. Ms. Radulova immediately couriered my appeal to the Registrar of the Court for the attention
of the Presiding Judge.

40. I complained in my appeal that the decision of the Duty Master to not file my written and documental
evidence or to determine my ex parte motions was unreasonable, the Master having ordered the return
of all my Form 56 applications made in terms of praecipe.

41. My appeal from the Master’s Order was in the nature of an s. 24(1) Charter application to the Court.

42. On June 20th 2001, my father Mr. Robert Kap of South Bend, Indiana, USA, wrote me about a letter he
received from the Registrar of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Mr. Messenger. The Registrar
wrote me, care of my father, that my Notice of Appeal from the Duty Master arrived, and the Registrar
referred the matter to the Honourable Mr. Justice E.R.A. Edwards. His Lordship reviewed it and
directed that I take no further steps as the Plaintiff until my legal representative can speak to the matter
in Court. Mr. Messenger again advised me of the following agencies that might be willing to assist me
in this matter: (1) Neighbourhood Law Clinic - (604) 878 - 7400; (2) The Salvation Army - (604) 871-
7681, fax (604) 299-7463; (3) Legal Aid - (604) 6300, fax (604) 681-6942 (usually acting in criminal
matters only); (4) Lawyer referral service - 1-800-663-1919.

43. I wrote the Registrar. Messenger on June 25 th 2001 that after receiving his June 23rd 2001 letter I
intended to appeal the Order of His Lordship Mr. Justice Edwards to the British Columbia Court of
Appeal. First I needed clarification of the following.

a. On what date the Registrar had entered the Appeal from the Master;

b. On what date His Lordship Mr. Justice E.R.A. Edwards had ruled on that Appeal;

c. On what grounds had His Lordship refused my requests for judicial direction and to the Court to
employ sub-rules 40(4) or 59(3) or (4) Rules of the Court;

d. On what grounds had His Lordship refused to examine the balance of my motion framed in terms
of praecipe, I had enumerated these in my appeal.

e. Whether or not the Defendant R.C.M.P. Staff Sgt. Derek A. Doornbos or the Ministry of the
Attorney General of Canada as intervener had entered an appearance

f. Although immaterial I did nonetheless advised Registrar Messenger that I had developed a notion
that incarcerated indigent Canadian citizens are without the right of legal remedy or recourse
before a court of law. My reason for believing this to be true was my frustration at securing from
the Court any of the procedural remedies available and necessary for me to realise my ss. 24(1)
Charter rights.

g. Again, although immaterial, I did further advised the Registrar of my impression that my right to
equality at arms and judicial relief as a lawful litigant appear determined not by law but rather the
financial resources and physical freedoms other Canadians' enjoy and take for granted. The
Respondent/Defendant foreign State being more “equal” than an indigent and incarcerated
Canadian citizen unable to retain an attorney and prevented by the Respondent/Defendant from
speaking to the matter pro se before the Court.

h. I advised wrote the Registrar that I would be happy for the Master or Chambers Judge to fix a
date for me to speak to my outstanding applications, the Court allowing sufficient time for to
notify agencies of the Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria that the Court required my
presence.

44. My letter to Registrar Messenger again traveled the circuitous route of first going to my interpreter Ms.
Radulova who then sent my letter by e-mail on June 25 th 2001 to the Registrar messenger. I also proved
copies of my letters to the Salvation Army Legal Aid Clinic and to Legal Aid British Columbia where I
announced my desire to make an application before the British Columbia Court of Appeal. I later had
interpreter Radulova send the originals of my letter to the respective parties, including Registrar
Messenger, by registered mail.

Notice of Motion To Extend Time To File Sec. 10(1) Court of App Created on 16/04/2002 02:21:00 by Michael Kapoustin
 45.

46. Again on June 25th 2001, at 6:40 P.M. 6:33 P.M. I had Ms. Radulova sent a fax of my letter to Legal
Aid British Columbia and the Salvation Army Legal Aid Clinic advising them both about the above
captioned lawsuit, my personal circumstances and my need for legal counsel in order to make my
application for leave to appeal.

47. On June 26th 2001, I received a letter from Mr. Messenger that he had received my letter notifying
him of the my intention to appeal, and in response to my letter dated June 25th 2001 he answered my
questions as follows.

a. My appeal from the Master’s order was set before His Lordship on June 8th;

b. His Lordship informed Mr. Messenger of his decision on June 8th;

c. Mr. Messenger wrote his letter advising of me of his Lordship's decision on June 11th;

d. The Republic of Bulgaria was the only party that having filed an appearance.

48. On June 27th 2001, in response to my letter to Legal Services Society of British Columbia I received a
letter from one Mr. Tony Davies, managing lawyer of the Vancouver intake clinic. Mr. Davies wrote
me that the LSS of BC would not provide legal aid counsel for me to pursue my civil actions since they
do not provide counsel fees to any persons pursuing civil legal actions as plaintiffs, such fees are not
part of the mandate of the Society.

49. On July 4th 2001, I managed to obtain a court order from the Court of Appeal of Bulgarian
reinstating my contacts with Ms. Radulova at least until only July 16, 2001. This gave me a limited
time and opportunity to organise and prepare a Charter application and pleading to file with the
British Columbia Court of Appeal.

50. On July 5th 2001, at 10:52 A.M. Bulgarian time my interpreter Ms. Radulova forwarded by fax a letter
I had written to the Registrar of the British Columbia Appeal Court about my intention to appeal the
Order of His Lordship Edwards J. and the nature of my appeal. I also wrote of my circumstance
and the practical consequences of my incarceration and indigence. I provided the Registrar, Ms.
Jennifer Jordan, a set of documents consisting of 12 pages that among other things:

a. Advised Registrar Jordan who I am and about my circumstances here.

b. Explained to Registrar Jordan that as a lay litigant I needed some direction on what applications
the Court of Appeal required.

c. Asked what steps I needed to take in order to obtain leave to proceed in forma pauperis before
the Court of Appeal.

d. I asked Registrar Jordan to address the Court’s correspondence to my interpreter Ms. Radulova.

51. On July 6th 2001 at 10:37 P.M. my interpreter, Ms. Radulova, sent a letter for me by fax to the offices of
Vancouver counsel Lewis. I wrote Mr. Lewis that on June 25th 2001 I received a response from his
client to my complaints and the absurd as well as bewildering notification from his client that the law
firm of Sugden, McFee and Roos would be representing my interests before the provincial courts.

HERE ALREADY I NEED TO DO MORE CURRENT LETTERS TO LEWIS AND BG.

It can be seen from the correspondence with the Registrar of the Appeal Court and the Speaker's notice of motion that he
is at this present time petitioning the Appeal Court for orders; (1) extending the time for him to appeal; (2) accepting his
indigence application and granting him the appropriate relief, and; (3) giving leave to appeal the order of the Duty
Master.

52.

Notice of Motion To Extend Time To File Sec. 10(1) Court of App Created on 16/04/2002 02:21:00 by Michael Kapoustin
Circumstances of the Affiant
53. I provide the circumstances of my arrest and my treatment in arrest by the Respondent/Defendant
Government of Bulgaria as material facts existing in aggravation of the hardships and difficulties
normally inherent to any imprisonment. I make averment to the following circumstances and facts
since my detention and treatment by the Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria are
conditions material to my need for the extension of time I am requesting from the Court of Appeal.

54. The problem of my arrest and my conditions as well as my treatment in arrest by the
Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria cannot be dealt with legally by this Court but only
in foro conscientiae

My Present Legal Status

55. My arrested occurred on the 7th of February 1996 while lawfully sojourning in Germany and in
transit to Canada.

56. On September 2nd 1996, the Government of Germany extradited me to the Republic of Bulgaria,
notwithstanding the written concerns of the Government of Canada.

57. By order of a Bulgarian police officer and a Sofia, Bulgaria, district prosecutor my detention in
Bulgaria began on September 2nd 1996. This detention continued without benefit of any judicial
review until on or about August 1998. The Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria having
denied me any possibility to have my arrest and detention reviewed by a court of law.

58. My first success in obtaining a judicial review of my arrest and detention occurred sometime in
August of 1998. The Sofia District Court determined to remand me in arrest sine die until
sentenced, the decision not subject to any appeal.

59. I have had, since August of 1998, periodic reviews of my arrest and detention. In all instances, the
Bulgarian courts have ruled that in order to secure my appearance at trial my remand in arrest is
obligatory solely due to my Canadian citizenship and the fact I of my arrested abroad and not in
Bulgaria. When pressed the Bulgaria courts have consistently ruled, in writing, that the
presumption of innocence and right to liberty are second to the right of the State of Bulgaria to
remand me in arrest until it can prosecute and sentence me.

60. I at no previous time have been arrested in Bulgaria.

61. I at no time unlawfully departed Bulgaria.

62. I have never absconded from Bulgaria or attempted to avoid an order for my arrest.

63. I have never refused any written summons to appear before a Bulgarian police officer, magistrate or
court conducting a criminal investigation.

64. I have never been convicted of a crime.

65. My more than 6 years of detention remain without final sentence.

66. I sincerely believe that the 6 years and 5 months I have spent in arrest awaiting trial is an
unreasonable period of remand as measure to secure my attendance at trial.

67. My legal status in Bulgaria as a person under detention is significant to this application and the
proceedings before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

68. On or about April 2001 I enquired with the Ministry of Justice of the Respondent/Defendant
Government Republic of Bulgaria as to the legal status of foreign person incarcerated while
awaiting trial or final sentence in Bulgaria. My letter addressed to Mr. Dimitar Tonchev, the then
Deputy Minister of Justice and a witness in the above captioned lawsuit complained.

69. I advised the Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria that I was being unlawfully
obstructed from continuing or defending the legal and property interests of my family and myself

Notice of Motion To Extend Time To File Sec. 10(1) Court of App Created on 16/04/2002 02:21:00 by Michael Kapoustin
 in a suit at law against the Government to which he belonged. I further advised Mr. Tonchev that in
an effort to hinder me from prosecuting or defending my claims in Canada against the State of
Bulgaria I am being unlawfully threatened with physical and psychologically coercive measures by
prison employees as well as obstructed from or denied the facilities and resources necessary to
pursue my claims.

70. On May 9th 2002, Mr. Tonchev wrote me in response to my enquiry and complaints.

71. In writing, Mr. Tonchev did not attempt to deny my complaints of unlawful obstruction and
interference, including physical and psychological coercions having as their sole intent to deny me
timely access to the British Columbia Supreme Court and to hinder the due processes of the Court.

72. Instead, Mr. Tonchev wrote me that the Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria considers
my legal status as a person deprived of liberty by the State such that it is fully within its sovereign
right to restrict my other civil rights beyond my right to liberty.

73. The Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria did not identify to me what other civil rights
are denied to person already deprived of liberty. However, in my complaint to the
Respondent/Defendant I identified that the Government of Bulgaria was unlawfully restricting
inter alia, my right to seek and develop a judicial remedy against it; my right to appear before a
Court to continue or defend my legal and property interests in a suit at law. The
Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria maintains that these fundamental rights are limited
by virtue of my legal status as a person the State of Bulgaria has remanded to arrest.

74. I am advised by the Respondent/Defendant that the restriction of my fundamental legal and
property rights exists notwithstanding the international and national law providing both negative
restrictions as well as positive obligations for the Government of Bulgaria to guarantee the rights
identified by me as inalienable to all persons in Canada and Bulgaria, including those deprived of
liberty. Each person having the right to sue, or be sued, to continue or to defend legal and property
interests in a suit at law, notwithstanding he or she having the legal status of a detainee of the State
subject to the lawsuit.

75. The Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria further advised me that my civil rights before
a Canadian or any court of law would continue to be limited for so long as the State of Bulgaria
determines it has the right to incarcerate me to await trial and a final verdict. The consequence to
me of this practice of the Respondent/Defendant may be summarised as follows. On incarceration
of an accused or defendant to await trial, he or she has little to no legal right to pursue any claim
against the State of Bulgaria beyond the territory and influence of the Respondent/Defendant
Government of Bulgaria. The practice makes it difficult, if not impossible, for me to comply in the
regular way with the practices and procedures of a Canadian Court. I am also unable to file
documents or to provide service to the Respondent/Defendant by any of the regular means fixed in
the Rules of Court, regular practices and procedures are closed to me solely due to the actions and
conduct of the Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria.

My Circumstances in Arrest and Treatment by the Respondent/Defendant in Bulgaria

76. I have experienced at different times throughout my arrest unreasonable and unjustified isolation
and beatings at the hands of guards and on order of officials at the National Investigative Service
facilities in Sofia and the Sofia Central Penitentiary of the Respondent/Defendant Government of
Bulgaria. The least invasive instance of physical and psychological torment is for the
Respondent/Defendant to withdraw my right to personal belongings and contact with my official
interpreter, my only contact to this Court, my family and the outside world.

77. I have suffered, and continue to suffer physical and psychological humiliation, malicious public
slander, and anti-semitism as well as other insults to my person. My degrading circumstances and
treatment are a means for the Respondent/Defendant Government of Bulgaria to deter and punish
me for my attempts at continuing my lawsuit against it and for defending my legal and property
interests before the British Columbia Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights before
which I have an outstanding complaint.

78.

Notice of Motion To Extend Time To File Sec. 10(1) Court of App Created on 16/04/2002 02:21:00 by Michael Kapoustin
 79. After having said the foregoing I do wish to provide to my statement one caveat. There are individual
officials in administrative and political positions within the Defendant Government of Bulgaria whose
concerns on issues of fundamental human and civil rights are equal to those of my own. It is only, as a
result of their help and the intervention of the Government of Canada, together with the vicarious
affects of the proceedings brought by my family and investors in Canada before Canadian courts, that I
have been afforded even the smallest opportunity to plead and give evidence, for the time being and at
present only in writing. This will continue if there is a consensus among the parties that the comity of
democratic nations requires mutual respect for the rights of litigants in the reality of today mobile
society and economics.

80. I rely on the Justice of the Court of Appeal to understand and accept the circumstances as they are and
to exercise the formidable powers of the Court in allowing for the time and allow me the use of
facilities, such as electronic filings, to present my case before it and the court before. The latter instance
causing me to bring my appeal in the nature of certiorari or mandamus to secure me such equal rights
as are possible due to my poverty and circumstances.

81. I plead for an extension of time on account of the above.

82. In closing I ask the Court of Appeal to insure that service or notice will be provided directly to me in
the Republic of Bulgaria at the address for service, fax and E-mail I have provided and with allowances
for sufficient time when considering the possible obstructions or other interference by the
Respondent/Defendant that I may be forced to overcome.

83. I provide, in Part II, a chronology of material facts relevant to my appeal should this Court grant me
leave. The difficulty of securing Canadian Consular Affairs attendance to certify my signature gives me
cause to provide these facts now rather than later, I therefore provide attached hereto Part II, A
Statement of Facts

Sworn the day of , 2001.

Dated this August 23rd July 2nd 2001 at the Central Penitentiary of the City of Sofia, the Republic of Bulgaria.
Applicant
Michael Kapoustin

Notice of Motion To Extend Time To File Sec. 10(1) Court of App Created on 16/04/2002 02:21:00 by Michael Kapoustin