You are on page 1of 6

FORM 61 (RULE 53 (7) )

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:
THE HONORABLE 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

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DUTY MASTER 

WHEREAS on the 18th day of April, 2001, Brent Messenger, Manager Civil Programs Vancouver Law 
Courts, advised the Plaintiff that the Duty Master had made an Order to return all Form 56 applications by 
praecipe and Form 56A orders filed with the court. The Duty Master having ordered that the Plaintiff have 
his applications spoken to. It is further complained here that, among other things, no copy of the Order was 
provided the Plaintiff.

TAKE NOTICE THAT the Plaintiff appeals from that order and relies on provisions of   subrule 59(2)  
Rules of the Court and ss.3. 3(2) Supreme Court Act [RSBC 1996]  to make application directly to Chief 
Judge   Baird   Allen   for   Judicial   Direction   on   the   subject   matter.   Plaintiff   does   so   as   a   result   of   the 
circumstances of his imprisonment, the complex international nature of the case and urgency of the matter.

Judicial direction is sought from His Honor as to the practical matter of how best might the Charter rights 
of the Plaintiff be guaranteed. This requirement is a result of the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, having 
openly rejected the international, sine qua non, civil right of a citizen of Canada to participate in judicial 
proceeding to which he or she isa party. In what manner, other than appearing before the Court, is the 
Plaintiff to obtain judicial relief from an Order that as a practical matter has the dubious distinction of 
procedurally obstructing the Charter rights of one party. Plaintiff appeals on the following grounds: 

/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch3/21517081.doc Page 1 of 6
1. The Order manifests as its practical consequence a violation of the ss.15 (1) Charter rights of 
the Plaintiff. The Duty Master could easily ascertain from the applications and affidavits filed 
that the circumstances of the Plaintiff, inter alia, his imprisonment; its duration of more than 5 
years; the conditions of that imprisonment; the written statement of the Republic of Bulgaria 
to   not   recognize   the   Plaintiff's   civil   rights;   the   health   of   his   family   and   the   personal 
implications   and   impact   on   the   Plaintiff,   including   his   indigence,   provided   elements 
recognizably making it difficult for the Plaintiff to have his Form 56 applications spoken to. 
The Duty Master wrongly ordered the Plaintiff do something that the available facts setout 
before the court demonstrated the Plaintiff could not be reasonably expected to do.

2. The   Order   effectively   discriminates   against   a   class   of   litigant   that,   due   to   circumstances 
beyond his or her control, could not reasonably be expected to attend the court on his or her 
own initiative or free will and in the absence of financial resources to secure legal counsel. 
This state of affairs does unmistakably invoke a legal disability that makes impossible, in the 
absence of a court subpoena,   the Plaintiff to comply with any such Order that requires his 
appearance. A fact sufficiently plain to the Master as to prejudice the equal protection and 
benefit under law rights of the Plaintiff.

3. The Order has a further practical consequence, it obstructs the ss. 24(1) Charter rights of the 
Plaintiffs. In the Master requiring the Plaintiff to do something that it is apparent from the 
facts he can not possibly do without the court to assist, the Master has imposed, as a vicarious 
element of his Order, a procedural obstruction to exercise a Charter guaranteed right. 

4. The   Order   carries   an   undesirable   consequence   for   any   Canadian   citizen   who   has   the 
misfortune to find himself or herself imprisoned and impoverished at the one and the same 
instance.   The   Order   denies   a   citizen   of   this   unfortunate   class   any   possibility   or   hope   to 
effectively pursue his or her lawful interests any farther than has this Plaintiff. The Master, in 
this instance, has gone beyond the reasonable intent to hear the Plaintiff and has proceeded 
toward the paradox of discriminating against one class of citizen who happen to be unfortunate 
enough to be indigent, imprisoned and in litigation against a State. 

5. The Order procedurally denies the possibility to this class of citizens to apply to a competent 
court   for   any   appropriate   remedy   to   their   complaints   and   such   relief   as   might   prove 
appropriate and just in the circumstance. It is repressive and can be seen employed by the 
Defendant to its advantage in the above­entitled cause of action. The deprivation of liberty 
imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff Kapoustin is regrettable, however it is not at issue in 
case presently before the court. Instead deprivation of liberty and civil rights by the Defendant 
are factors that by coincidence work together with the Order to obstruct the Plaintiffs Charter 
rights. 

/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch3/21517081.doc Page 2 of 6
These are governing factors that make impossible for the Plaintiffs to be heard or otherwise 
provide the court with substantive facts and documents. The Order denies the Plaintiff' the 
possibility to provide written evidence essential to prove, among other things, that the Ministry 
of the Attorney General of Canada is vicariously culpable to violations of the Plaintiffs S.7, 
S.8 and S.12  Charter rights when making public untrue investigative conclusions. And that 
apparently the Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada assisted in the violation of Plaintiff 
Kapoustin's   S.9,   S.10,  and   Ss.11(a)(b)(d)  Charter  rights   when   failing   to   disclose   its 
participation in his arrest and prosecution on materials collected in the Province. 

It is immaterial that the Plaintiff is incarcerated in a foreign State or if the Plaintiff was or was 
not in the Province when his Charter rights where breached by agencies of the Government of 
Canada   and   instrumentalities   of   the   Republic   of   Bulgaria.   However,   it   is   of   material 
significance that a defendant in the above­entitled proceeding is that foreign State imprisoning 
the Plaintiff and apparently willing to interfere his international civil rights, the Charter and 
powers of this Honorable Court.

6. The Order is inconsistent with Charter principles and the inherent jurisdiction of the court for 
fair and efficient compensation for wrong and deterrence. The Master made no meaningful 
effort in identifying or considering the controlling factors that might provide adequate causus, 
ex proprio motu, for him to rely on provisions of subrule 53(5)  Rules of the Court. 

7. The Order denies the Plaintiff an opportunity to have the court exercise its residual fund of 
procedural powers and tools necessary and at its disposal to ensure that the principles of the 
Charter and natural justice are protected and sedulously fostered. This to be done at all stages 
of every proceeding and manifestly must be seen to be done in a case of such complexity and 
in the presence of one condition precedent of subrule 40(4) Rules of the Court. The Master, on 
making the Order, failed to recognize the consequences to the Plaintiff's rights or to act to 
protect those rights.

8. The Order failed to consider the imprisonment of the Plaintiff outside the district of the court 
as   a   controlling   factor   on   the   Plaintiff.   This   despite   it   being   apparent   from   the   facts   as 
providing the cause for the Plaintiffs reliance on subrule 41(16.3) and subrule 41(13) Rules of 
the Court. The situation before the Master was a conspicuous and sufficiently unique one  to 
have the court consider as appropriate one or more of the provisions of subrules 59(3) or (4) 
Rules of the Court. 

9. The Order failed to take reasonable and necessary steps to foster the Plaintiffs Charter rights 
in one of the prescribed methods provided for by Rules of the Court. The Master failed to take 
into account the residual fund of procedural powers of the Court to subpoena as provided for 
by subrule 40(40)  Rules of the Court and to employ provisions,  mutatis mutandis,  of  ss.79 
(1)(a)  of   the  Extradition   Act  [1999   c.18].  This   Honorable   Court   reasonably   could   have 
required the cooperation of the foreign State Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria as a contracting 
state party with Canada to the International Covenant On Civil and Political Rights, U.N.T.S.  
No. 14668, Vol. 999 (1976), p.171. 

/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch3/21517081.doc Page 3 of 6
Applicable principles of international law consider it, sine qua non, a right of a litigant to be 
heard and allowed to give evidence at any hearing or trial in which their lawful interests are at 
risk.   This   procedural   possibilty,   as   a   practical   consideration   for   imprisoned   litigants,   is 
provided   for   in   provisions   of   the   Defendant   foreign   State's   national  Criminal   Code   of  
Procedure   Articles   463(2),   464,  465  and   466  and   the   principle   of   reciprocity   among 
democratic States and free societies. The Honorable Court, as a practical matter,is asked to 
recall provisions of ss. 81(1) and S.82  of the Extradition Act as conditions that are consistent 
with the Defendant's national law for temporary extradition.

THIS HONORABLE COURT IS REQUESTED TO:

1. Grant the Plaintiff leave and time sufficient to file a statement of facts in support of this appeal.

2. Contact the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria counsel of record and obtain agreement of the Defendant 
to not obstruct the Plaintiff's access to needed facilities and resources in pursuit of his lawful rights as 
a litigant.

3. Accept into evidence Attachment No. 1, an English language transcripts of relevant provision of the 
Criminal Code of Procedure, for the Republic of Bulgaria.

4. Accept   into   evidence   Attachment   No.   2,   a   true   and   correct   copy   of   Defendant's   correspondence 
announcing to the Plaintiff that his civil rights have been restricted.

5. Accept into evidence Attachment No. 3, a true and correct copy of the April 18 th 2001 correspondence 
of Mr. Brent Messenger, Manager Civil Programs Vancouver Law Courts.

This appeal to be heard in manner and in a place convenient to the Honorable Chief Judge at a time and on 
a date to be set by him for an order or judicial direction.

Dated ....................................................... ...................................................................................
Plaintiff
Michael Kapoustin

/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch3/21517081.doc Page 4 of 6
Attachment No. 1
Extracts Articles 462, 463(2), 464, 465, and 466 of the Criminal Code of Procedure Republic of Bulgaria.
Those provisions of law read as follows:

Chapter 22

Section VI Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (new S.G.


64/1997) (relevant Articles)

Appearance of Witness and Expert before a Foreign Court.

Article 463
(1) …[Sic]
(2) Extradition of persons detained in custody to be interrogated
as witnesses or experts shall be allowed only in exceptional
cases by discretion of composition of the respective district
court, on the grounds of papers submitted by the other
country, provided the person gives his consent for
extradition, and the stay in the other country shall not
exceed the term of his detention in custody.
Procedure for Submission of Request to Another Country
Article 464
(1) The request for legal assistance shall contain data about:
the body filing the request; the subject and motive of the
request; full name and citizenship to whom the request
refers; name and address of person to whom papers are to
be submitted; where necessary the indictment and brief
description of the relevant facts.
(2) The request for legal assistance shall be forwarded to the
Ministry of Justice and Legal Euro-Integration, unless
another procedure is provided by international treaty to
which the Republic of Bulgaria is a party.
Execution of Request by Another Country
Article 465
Requests for legal assistance shall be executed pursuant to the
procedure provided by Bulgaria law. A procedure may also be
executed pursuant to procedure provided by the law of the other
country, should that requested and if it is not contradictory to the
Bulgarian law. The other country shall be notified of the time and
place of the execution of the request, should that be requested.

/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch3/21517081.doc Page 5 of 6
Costs for Execution of Request
Article 466
The costs for execution of the request shall be distributed
between the countries in compliance with international treaties
to which the Republic of Bulgaria is a party, or on the basis of
the principle of reciprocity.

/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch3/21517081.doc Page 6 of 6

You might also like