Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8


August 29, 2009

FORM 60 (RULE 51 (2) AND (6))

No. S004040












I, Robert Kap, resident of 333 Tonti Street, South Bend, Indiana, 46617 United States of
America, in support of my application to this Honorable Court for an Order and as such

1. I have made application for myself and my wife Tatiana for an Order to appoint as
our legal representative before this Honorable Court our natural son, Michael
Kapoustin, (“Kapoustin”) a plaintiff in the above-entitled proceeding. We require
the Order command he be conducted by Defendant, the Republic of Bulgaria
(“Bulgaria”) before this Honorable Court to give evidence and argument on our
behalf at any hearing, the time and date to be set.
2. This affidavit is on behalf of myself and my wife, Tatiana Kap who is unable to
give evidence due to her physical disability
3. My application is further made on behalf of my natural grandson, Nicholas
Kapoustin and his mother and guardian Ad Litem Tracy Kapoustin, Plaintiffs in the
above-entitled proceeding.
4. Due to the age and physical disabilities of my grandson and the legal disability of
his mother Tracy they are unable to give evidence at this time.
5. I do verily believe, after consultations with medical experts and others that my
wife, Tatiana, and my grandson Nicholas have in point of fact suffered or seen their
present physical disabilities worsened by the personal suffering and injuries caused
them vicariously or directly as a result of the tortious and unlawful acts of the
Defendant Bulgaria and those others named.
6. The nature and cause of their personal injuries gives rise to the application made
and relief sought from the court.
7. I and my wife, and my son, his wife and son have each suffered, jointly or severally
as a direct or vicarious result of the Defendant Bulgaria, loss of our property and
money in the province of British Columbia (“Province”) and elsewhere as
connected to us in the Province.
8. We have suffered such losses due to the commercial activities offered to us and as
concluded with us by the Defendant Bulgaria. Whose documented written and oral
representations by its officials, agencies, instrumentalities, departments or political
subdivisions induced us to advance money, goods and provide investments to
9. The written and oral contracts or representations made by the Defendant Bulgaria
having all been breached by it without adequate cause in fact or law.
10. It is the nature and cause of those breaches or misrepresentation that have resulted
in the property and other losses or damages claimed and giving rise to the
complaint made and relief sought.
11. My son, Plaintiff Kapoustin, is a Canadian citizen who has been under pretrial
arrest since 7 February, 1996 awaiting trial and verdict in a penitentiary facility of
the Defendant Bulgaria. This sentence is imposed without benefit of due process
recognized by international law. The Defendant Bulgaria maintains his custody.
12. Prior to the above-entitled proceeding being filed by the Plaintiffs I had personally
claimed injuries and damages against the Defendant Bulgaria.

13. On or about November 1997 I brought a Statement of Claim before the Supreme
Court of British Columbia (“SCBC”).
14. The complaint brought by me sought relief jointly or severally from the Defendant
Bulgaria and the Federal Republic of Germany. It can be found under SCBC,
Vancouver Registry Case File C974299.
15. To date I have been unable to pursue my complaint against the Defendant Bulgaria
as a direct result of the personal injury and suffering caused my wife Tatiana by the
said Defendant. Her health having rapidly deteriorated and the property and
financial losses suffered by us as a result of Defendant Bulgaria denied me the time
and financial resources to pursue the matter further.
16. That I have since forwarded, at the recommendation of my son the Plaintiff
Kapoustin, under separate cover to this Honorable Court a motion requesting
consolidation of my complaint with that of those of my son and his wife and son in
the above-entitled proceeding. Having been advised to rely on subrule 5(8) Rules of
the Court.
17. As a result of the aforesaid as deposed herein, I do verily believe myself and my
wife, Tatiana, to be legitimate parties of interest to this proceeding.
18. In our having a legal interest in the outcome of any hearing in this proceeding we
request that this Honorable Court provide the Order requested by us as setout §
above and in the motion attached. The Honorable Court permitting the Plaintiff
Kapoustin to represent our interests and those of the other Plaintiffs. Our request is
for the following reasons.
19. Upon my best information and belief I and my wife, as parties of interest in the
above-entitled proceeding, are entitled by provisions of the Charter and Rules of
the Court to demand the Defendant Bulgaria produce, at any hearing or trial, the
Plaintiff Kapoustin to provide evidence and represent our interests and those of
other Plaintiffs.
20. My principal rationale for our requirements to this Honorable Court and our
demands to the Defendant Bulgaria are in response to a Notice of Motion and
request for a hearing as brought under this Rule by the Defendant Bulgaria and
served, upon my best information, on March 13th 2001 to the Plaintiff Kapoustin.
21. The Defendant Bulgaria has requested from this Honorable Court relief in the
province or Canada from, generally any civil complaints or alternatively such other
complaints as have been or may be brought and conducted in the nature of criminal
proceedings in the province against the Defendant Bulgaria.
22. In its Outline under Rule 65, Rules of the Court, the Defendant Bulgaria relied on a
third party affidavit of Ms. Maya Dobreva. The contents of which are I know to be
unrelated to the complaints setout in the Statement of Claim brought by the

23. I know and do verily believe veracity and completeness of Ms. Maya Dobreva’s
sworn statement is questionable at best.
24. Putting it gently, Ms. Dobreva has grossly misrepresented and oversimplified the
complex factual matrix of this proceedings cause of action. She has omitted
substantive facts, whose nature and particulars are sufficient and necessary to
establish the controversy of fact and issues of law to be for trial in the province.
25. It is unclear what the relationship there is, if any exits, of the deponent Ms.
Dobreva, to the Plaintiffs.
26. The evidence of Ms. Dobreva is incongruous and irrelevant to this proceedings
cause of action.
27. It is unclear why Ms. Dobreva was permitted to submit evidence on affidavit when
having no knowledge of the facts. But what is adequately clear is that Defendant
Bulgaria, seeks to rely on her evidence and ss. 3(1) of the State Immunity Act,
R.S.C. 1985 c. S-18, the “Act.”
28. To put it gingerly Defendant Bulgaria, is sufficiently brazen to ask this Honorable
court to deny or abandon its natural jurisdiction in a case of property loss and
personal injury in the province. The Defendant Bulgaria further contemplating to
have its state immunity extended to actions brought in Canadian courts that are in
personam or in rem.
29. The Plaintiff Kapoustin, on behalf of himself and other Respondents to Defendant
Bulgaria, did not consent to the relief requested. Having relied on alternative
provisions of the Act as found in ss. 4(1)(2)(a), S. 5, S. 6, S. 7, S. 17 and S. 18.
30. I do verily believe, that the facts of this case will nonetheless show that after this
Honorable Court having given due consideration to the principle of de jure imperii
and applicable enactments of Canada, it should find this principle, as relied on by
Defendant Bulgaria is in the above-entitled instance, is one which is in this case
31. This becomes apparent to be after my having read the February 23rd 2001 sworn
statement of Ms. Dobreva and my reading the March 16th 2001 affidavit No. 1 of
Attorney Anatol Lukanov.
32. It is apparent that Ms. Dobreva, in order to support the Defendant Bulgaria in its
application under this Rule has misrepresented the Plaintiffs cause of action in an
effort to gain the relief sought.
33. The misrepresentations or omissions or errors of Ms. Dobreva are conspicuous in
that the Defendant Bulgaria has been aware, since on or about January 1998, of
those claims as previously made by me in SCBC Case No. C974299 [see § above].
Defendant Bulgaria having maintained at all times physical possession or control
over the documents and assets material to my separate claim.

34. The Defendant Bulgaria continues to control all original corporate or personal
documents and assets, including the liberty of the key person and witness to the
causes of action for the claims made and relief sought by the Applicants and other
35. The Defendant Bulgaria and others, despite repeated written demands have
repeatedly refused to produce particulars of assets or documents held by it or other
facts relevant to this proceeding. Or to take such actions under law as consistent
with such requests.
36. This convincingly suggests that Ms. Dobreva, has or had available to her the
particulars of assets, contracts or documents. But knowingly made
misrepresentations, omissions or errors effectively excluding these facts for the
same reasons flowing from similar conduct of other officials of the Defendant
37. Certain of the complaints made against the Defendant Bulgaria and others are in the
nature of fraudulent representation and documents as made by officials of the said
38. The veracity of Ms. Dobreva’s exegesis, as a result of the foregoing, is in question.
Making a full disclosure of the material facts and circumstances and attendance of
all litigants necessary before this Honorable Court. The fullness of the facts to be
secured through an appropriate discovery in Chambers of the Plaintiff Kapoustin
and other such witnesses as may be caused to appear.
39. I do verily believe Ms. Dobreva has concealed the material facts known to her so
that she might aid the Defendant Bulgaria in obscuring the commercial activities of
its officials, agencies or instrumentalities. This includes its political subdivisions
that had acted behind a pretense of government action.
40. I do verily believe, upon best information that Ms. Dobreva and others have
misrepresented the facts and their nature in the hope to avoid a trial process in the
Province or Canada that will prove personally embarrassing for certain government
officials and costly for the Defendant Bulgaria.
41. Upon my best information and belief the Defendant Bulgaria seeks to divert this
Honorable Court from the substantive facts and issues of the loss of property and
personal injury as suffered.
42. The facts if setout fully will conclusively show that the damages or injury caused
has resulted from contract breaches, fraudulent representations or tortious acts of
the Defendant Bulgaria and not, as wrongly claimed by Ms. Dobreva the pending
criminal proceeding of the Plaintiff Kapoustin in the Republic of Bulgaria.
43. I do further believe that Ms. Dobreva’s misrepresentations, errors or omissions are
undertaken so as to rely on the principle of state immunity only to shelter the
Defendant Bulgaria and certain of its officials from their inherent civil or criminal
liability in the Province.
44. As a result Ms. Dobreva and Defendant Bulgaria have made it difficult for others to
draw a coherent distinction between the facts as they are and her statements of
opinion asserted by her as if fact.
45. It is only through discovery and a hearing of all the facts that it will become readily
and clearly apparent to this Honorable Court that the claims of State immunity are
manifestly ill founded. Ms. Dobreva and others, I do verily believe, seek only to
deny or alternatively to refuse this Honorable Court its lawful possibility and right
to consider vital questions of fact and law that require conducting a full
investigation of the factual matrix out of which the Plaintiffs’ claims arise.
46. What is apparent from the facts and documents available to me, and my personal
knowledge is the objective of the Defendant Bulgaria. From 1991 up to and
including early 1995 said Defendant sought to induce the Plaintiffs and other
foreign nationals to provide their financial resources, and other assets, including
property located in the province or elsewhere. The Plaintiffs required to place in
trust and subject to the control or oversight of officials, an agency or
instrumentality of the Defendant Bulgaria.
47. I do further believe Ms. Dobreva has under oath, as an official on behalf of the
defendant foreign State, made knowingly misleading statements, materially false
representations and substantial omissions of facts in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 5 of her
sworn statement.
48. Among the facts under this proceeding Ms. Dobreva fails to consider are that on
January 11th, 2001, relying on the provisions of subrule 31(1) Rules of the Court
and on behalf of the Plaintiffs, I did serve the Defendant Bulgaria with a Notice to
Admit in Form 23 requiring it to admit or deny the following:
48.1. That the Statement of Claim had been provided to it on September 7th 2000.
48.2. That an answer and response to the complaint was made by the Deputy
Minister of Justice Z. Rousseva as RESPONDENT for the defendant
foreign State.
48.3. That the Defendant Bulgaria had voluntarily waived any defense of
sovereign immunity in the above entitled proceeding. In so doing the
agreeing to submit to the jurisdiction of a provincial court of British
Columbia and to proceed only on the merits of those contracts or facts in
dispute and the personal injuries claimed.
48.4. That it admit Exhibits as attached which where the statement of defense in
Bulgarian and English transcripts as filed with the courts Registrar.
49. 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
Honorable Court..

50. In conclusion I believe that my Charter rights and those of my wife as co-applicant
will be infringed if the relief I seek for myself and my wife, with the other Plaintiffs
is not granted by the Court.
51. Upon my belief, should the Court not grant the relief requested, and Michael
Kapoustin, pro se Plaintiff, is not permitted or otherwise unable to exercise his
rights under the Charter and international treaties to appear, then I and the Plaintiffs
of record or other parties of interest shall be at a legal disability.
52. The facts to be established provide sufficiently novel issues and difficult questions
as to cause me to believe that there is an issue fit to be tried by this Honorable
Court and the testimony of Plaintiff Kapoustin necessary.
53. This Application has been brought on by the physical or legal disabilities of the
Applicants and Plaintiffs of record who seek to be represented and evidence to be
presented at hearing or trial.
54. The details of material contracts, the particulars of debt, expenses or damages,
property loss and personal injury and other facts and matters on which the claims of
Plaintiffs rely are factually complex. At present the foregoing is primarily familiar,
in its full matrix, to the Plaintiff Kapoustin and can only be fairly and fully
represented by him to the Court. A fact known to the Defendant Bulgaria.
55. It is due to our indigence that I and the Plaintiffs are able to retain an attorney and
must rely on the appearance and testimony pro se of the Plaintiff Kapoustin..
56. The age and medical requirements of Plaintiff, the minor Nicholas Kapoustin, and
the emotional anxiety and distress of Plaintiff Tracy Kapoustin are disabilities that
make their appearance, pro se, at the hearing required by Defendant Bulgaria,
Republic of Bulgaria medically inadvisable and potentially injurious to their
physical and emotional state.
57. My age and medical requirements of my wife, the emotional anxiety and distress
experienced by us are disabilities which make our appearance, medically
inadvisable and potentially injurious to our physical health and emotional state.
58. Defendant Bulgaria has at all material times known of my and the Plaintiffs'
reliance on Plaintiff Kapoustin as their representative and the key witness in the
above-entitled proceeding.
59. The Defendant Bulgaria, in knowing the foregoing and to gain the relief it seeks,
chooses to rely on its custody of the Plaintiff Kapoustin and the ill health and
poverty of his family to gain by default the relief sought.
60. Upon my best information and belief the Defendant Bulgaria is and will continue to
hinder or obstruct the Plaintiff Kapoustin from attending hearings or providing
evidence against the Defendant Bulgaria.
61. My grandson, Plaintiff Nicholas Kapoustin by his guardian Ad Litem, Tracy
Kapoustin and my son's wife, Tracy Kapoustin, are unable, on account of my
grandson's diabetic condition and their personal poverty, to retain legal counsel or
to undertake those acts required by my son as pro se Plaintiff before the Court;


Date April 17th 2001 _________________________

Applicant Robert Kap