FORM 125 (RULE 65)

No. S005440
VANCOUVER REGISTRY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:

"LIFECHOICE INTERNATIONAL - AD",

DIMITAR HRISTOV, BORISLAV MARINOV, RADKA PETROVA,
LIFECHOICE BANQ1 CORPORATION
On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

PLAINTIFFS
AND:

THE NATIONAL SPECIALIZED INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE

OF THE GOVERNMENT OF BULGARIA,

THE MAIN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE

OF THE GOVERNMENT OF BULGARIA,

THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA

Represented by
The HONOURABLE MURAVEI RADEV
Minister of Finance
In his official capacity
For
THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA,

THE NATIONAL CENTRE FOR INFECTIOUS AND PARASITIC DISEASES

And
EMILIA MITKOVA AND MARIO STOYANOV
DEFENDANTS
AND:
REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA
PETITIONER
AND:
MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN
RESPONDENT

OUTLINE
PART II
1. Position of Respondent:
1.1. The outline is provided this Honorable Court is to the best of limited time and
abilities of the Respondents as pro se Plaintiff . As a result of his indigent status it
is required Respondent represent himself in the above entitled proceeding. It is
pleaded to this Honorable Court and the presiding Judge to be patient with the
awkwardness inherent when a lay person, by his or her circumstances, is required
to rely on self representation. The relies upon the following.
1.2. That there exists at this time no objective possibility for fair or full hearing on the
subject matter of the relief applied for by the Petitioner. The Respondent and other
parties of record are presently under a legal disability.

/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch8/21517098.doc08/29/09Created by M. Kapoustin 1
 1.3. It is submitted to this Honorable Court’s consideration that the granting, at this
time, of Petitioner’s motion for a hearing would deny the Respondents, as lawful
resource users, their right to due process and the exercise of their legal rights as
litigants in the province. The rendering of justice becomes doubtful as a result.
1.4. Petitioner’s dependence on Rule 65, Rules of the Court, is inappropriate in the
case of a class action proceeding with hundreds of named parties and potentially
thousands more whose interest and legitimate rights as litigants would be as a
result jeopardized.
1.5. Rule 65 contributes further to placing the Respondent and other parties of record
or interest under a legal disability. Reliance on this chambers pilot project is not
proper as it does not provide all the Plaintiffs or interested party as intervener an
adequate forum for a full display of the facts necessary for a fair and
comprehensive hearing of the controversy at issue or those required to proceed on
hearing on a complex point of international and national law.
1.6. Further the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance,
is responsible for placing all parties of record and members of a subclass of
Plaintiffs residing on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria under a legal
disability. This arises from a written direction to officials of the Defendant’s
Central Authority, the Ministry of Justice, that in matters pertaining only to the
Plaintiffs, its officials are not to observe their national law or the relevant
enactment for service of foreign judicial or extrajudicial documents on the
territory of the Republic of Bulgaria.
1.7. This Honorable Court should not grant any relief sought by the Petitioner while
the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance,
knowingly persists in violating provisions of the Defendant’s national law and
relevant international treaties. Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev
Minister Of Finance should first remove any cause and end whatever conduct of
those officials of its agencies or instrumentalities who are responsible for
obstructing the Plaintiffs as a class and the Respondent from the full and adequate
exercise of their legal rights as litigants. The Petitioner thereby satisfying the
requirement of relevant Canadian and international law.
1.8. That it is impossible, in the time fixed by provisions of subrule 65(13), Rules of
the Court, as relied upon by the Petitioner, to fully and fairly lay before this
Honorable Court all the information necessary to enable it a proper assessment of
Plaintiffs claims as a class that this Honorable Courts’ jurisdiction is proper and
just over the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev, Minister Of
Finance in the above entitled proceeding.
1.9. That further, the time fixed and relied upon by the Petitioner does not provide
Respondents sufficient opportunity to submit adequate evidence to this Honorable
Court to permit it an objective assessment of why the request for immunity by
Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance, is without
legal merit.
1.10. That the alternative relief requested by the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria,
Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance, to have this Honorable Court decline its
jurisdiction is further without legal cause or factual merit. The material facts and
documents available overwhelmingly support both the principle of original or
alternatively supplemental jurisdiction of this Honorable Court over the
controversy in that the above entitled class action.

/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch8/21517098.doc08/29/09Created by M. Kapoustin 2
 1.11. That, given adequate time by this Honorable Court, the Respondent together with
other members of the class or subclasses will be able to assemble sufficient
evidence of property loss, breeches of contract, personal injury and other tortious
acts suffered by the class or a respective subclass in the province or outside of the
province as a direct or vicarious result of the acts effected by the Defendant,
Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance and other.
1.12. Are that the material facts document a clear connection observably flowing from
acts of the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria. Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance,
into and demonstrably in connection with the class or a subclass having property
rights in the province. Such facts are consistent and sufficient for jurisdictional
requirements as to permit a claim for relief, in personam, with respect to which a
foreign state is not entitled to immunity.
1.13. That the Petitioner is required to provide proper notice and adequate time this,
sine quo non, a right of all parties of record and those known to have a legal
interest in the above entitled proceeding. This would represent providing notice of
motion to all known and some form of effective notice to unknown members of
the class or a subclass resident in the province, the United States and on the
territory of the Republic of Bulgaria. Petitioner allowing a period that should have
been, but is observably at this time not, sufficient to permit an opportunity for all
the parties of record or those interested in the outcome of any hearing to have an
opportunity to respond and marshal their relevant facts to oppose or to alternative
consent to the application of the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria. Muravei Radev
Minister Of Finance, for the relief sought. In so doing the Petitioner would permit
organizing the attendance of all the litigants at the hearing.
1.14. The observable fact is that the Respondents’ representative and numerous other
parties of record are presently outside of Canada. His or Her Honor mindful of the
geographic distances, languages as well as the physical and legal constraints
obstructing the Respondents ability to comply with the time fixed by Rule 65,
Rules of the Court..
1.15. Is to respectfully submit that the application for the relief sought by the Petitioner
be set aside for a period of time to be determined by this Honorable Court.
Mindful that there is no obvious question of urgency which represents a relevant
factor in the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev Minister Of
Finance refusing to consent to extending the time under Rule 65 or for directing
officials of its Central Authority to violate international treaties and local rules for
service of foreign judicial or extrajudicial documents on the territory of the
Republic of Bulgaria.
1.16. Respectfully this Honorable Court is asked to recall that the observable
international character of this proceeding and significant number of Plaintiffs as a
class imposed certain responsibilities upon all the parties of record to exercise a
special due diligence and care in insuring that the rights of all litigants or
interested parties in and outside the province or Canada are clearly observed. Each
party of record responsible to making best efforts in preserving the principle of
equality at arms before this Honorable Court.
1.17. As a result of the aforestated it is respectfully submitted as just and convenient for
this Honorable Court to dispense with Rule 65, this rules application inappropriate
for the above entitled proceeding in that there exist numerous parties of record and
complex factual and legal matrixes that are best resolved through a process of
discovery and finally trial.
/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch8/21517098.doc08/29/09Created by M. Kapoustin 3
 1.18. Alternatively should the Honorable Court proceed to a hearing despite the
Respondents previous observations and objections the relief sought by the
Defendant, Muravei Radev, Minister Of Finance should still not be granted on the
grounds set out as follows.
1.19. The Petitioner’s application has erred with respect to advancing the argument that
this Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria,
Muravei Radev, Minister Of Finance.
1.20. Petitioner is forgetful of Charter principles and the inherent jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court to modify of extend common law in order to comply with
prevailing social conditions and values. Recent developments in common law and
new principles of international law are regularly witnessing sovereign right
subordinated to the individual right of private claimants to seek relief in
personam in a jurisdiction other than the courts of a defendant state.
1.21. Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court is proper as it will be able to provide an
equitable venue for review of the Plaintiffs complaint as a class or as separate
subclasses. Allowing the facts as they are to fall where they will when assessing
the materials brought before it.
1.22. The relief sought by the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev
Minister Of Finance is made more unreasonable since it requires that this
Honorable Court overlook provisions of an enactment of Canada which provide
for jurisdiction of a Canadian court over a foreign state when the act or conduct of
that foreign state are reasonably alleged as conforming to the principle that they
are activities which are more appropriately termed “de jure gestionis” and not
legitimate governmental actions immune from civil or criminal prosecution, “de
jure imperii”.
1.23. Plaintiffs have claimed as a class and will prove at trial, given sufficient time, that
the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance, was
involved with residents of the province or property in or connected to the
province. The activities of which are the subject of the controversy are of a kind as
carried on by private persons and therefore the Defendant, Muravei Radev,
Minister Of Finance, not entitled to seek immunity.
1.24. Original jurisdiction of this Honorable Courts is proper since the immunity
claimed is without merit.
1.25. A further requirement of the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev
Minister Of Finance, that this Honorable Court decline jurisdiction over a
controversy that is documented to have occurred in or is alternatively directly or
vicariously connected to property rights in the province and its residents is to deny
this Honorable Courts obligations and responsibilities to individual and corporate
citizens of the province and Canada to provide a judicial forum in which to voice
their grievances and seek a hearing of their claims as a class group as to why the
relief they seek from the Defendants is just.

/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch8/21517098.doc08/29/09Created by M. Kapoustin 4
 1.26. The Petitioner has failed to recall that the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity
is ceded when the foreign state directly engages in commercial activities in or
connected to the province. This is documented to be the present case of the
Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance. The
subject of the controversy at issue are breeches of contract and torts that flow
directly into the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and Canada. The Defendant,
Muravei Radev, Minister Of Finance, having acted directly or through Canadian
resident agents or officials to effect acts in the province or elsewhere in and
outside of Canada,. The acts in question effected in the province, inter alia, its
residents; their property rights and those of others; contractual rights and
commercial activities in the province.
2. Basis For Opposing Relief:
2.1. The Petitioner’s conclusion does not flow as clearly as the application for the
relief sought would have this Honorable Court believe.
2.2. It is apparent that the reasoning of the Petitioner is narrow and highly selective
when engaging this Honorable Court to consider the matter of its jurisdiction over
a foreign state. The Petitioner’s reasoning fails to recall Section 4(1)(2)(a) of the
State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18 (the “Act”), the Defendant, Republic of
Bulgaria, Respondent Ministry of Justice, having already admitted as fact before
this Honorable Court to having waived the immunity conferred by ss 3(1) of the
Act.
2.3. In the alternative the Petitioners reliance on the Act requires that this Honorable
Court find in favor of the Plaintiffs conclusion, being that for claims in personam
and in rem jurisdiction of a provincial court is proper. Plaintiffs claims clearly
flow, independently, from ss 5, ss 6 and ss 7 of the Act, subrules 13(1)(g) and (h),
Rules of the Court.
2.4. Further and in the alternative the Petitioner’s conclusion falls short, it fails to
setout before this Honorable Court that ss 17 and ss 18 of the Act clearly identifies
that the Act is not to be construed as negating the original or alternatively
supplemental jurisdiction of a provincial court or its rules.
2.5. Furthermore the Act does not apply to civil proceeding conducted in the nature of
a criminal proceedings. The Plaintiffs seek, in part of their claim, to obtain relief
for personal injury and losses suffered as a result of tortious acts of the Defendant,
Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev, Minister Of Finance and others. It is
claimed by the Plaintiffs that the conduct alleged has the genus of S. 188, S.
346.1(1) , S. 426(1)(a)(ii) and (1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
2.6. The Petitioner has further failed to consider that provisions of s. 6(2) of the Class
Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.50, subrule 5(3) Rules of the Court together
with s. 40 and s. 27(4) , s. 11(2), s. 12 and s. 27(2) of the Act.
2.7. The Petitioner having overlooked the obvious requirements under the Class
Proceedings Act imposed upon the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei
Radev, Minister Of Finance, requiring that it notify not only the Respondent and
those parties of record appearing on the originating process, but also all those
members of the class who are part of a subclass or alternatively citizens of British
Columbia residing outside of Canada and are all collectively lawful resource
users.

/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch8/21517098.doc08/29/09Created by M. Kapoustin 5
 2.8. The Petitioner’s motion for relief is being sought without first having providing
proper and sufficient notice and adequate time to all members of the class or
subclasses. The Petitioner denies these litigants their right to due process and the
exercise of their legal rights as litigants; in that neither the individual plaintiffs
identified or those class members still to be ascertained are able to respond, attend
or otherwise comply with the Rules of the Court within the times fixed therein.
His or her Honor mindful that there are constraints imposed by the number of
known individual plaintiffs and those not yet established who are members of the
class and the realities of service to and from a foreign state.
2.9. Furthermore the 90 day period for Plaintiffs to file a request for certification of the
above entitled proceeding as a class proceeding has not yet expired. It effectively
having commenced upon the filing with this Honorable Court of an appearance
on February 28th 2001 by the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev,
Minister Of Finance.
2.10. Respondent respectively submits that it is unreasonable to consider the relief
requested prior to this Honorable Court first considering if the above entitled
proceeding is to be qualified under the Class Proceedings Act. If so then
determining which of the Plaintiffs is entitled to proceed on behalf of all members
of the class or subclasses. This Honorable Court required to appoint a member of
the class or subclasses to represent the interests of each respective member.
2.11. The Honorable Court is requested to consider that the limitations of time imposed
upon the Respondents has made impossible for all the material facts and
circumstances in existence under the instance to be set out here.
2.12. The above entitled proceeding before this Honorable Court supports a number of
alternative hypothesizes embodied in relevant provisions of applicable Canadian
and international law, with enactments and treaties to which the Defendant,
Republic of Bulgaria Muravei Radev, Minister Of Finance and Canada are parties.
That further there are issues of relevant national law or enactments of the Republic
of Bulgaria which must be incorporated and relied upon by the Respondents
before this Honorable Court can fairly and fully weight the facts.

3. Materials To Be Relied On:

3.1. Affidavits Of Anatol Lukanov as to be filed
3.2. Affidavits of Ada Gogova as to be filed
3.3. Affidavits of Robert Kap as filed and to be filed.
3.4. Affidavits of Michael Kapoustin as filed and to be filed.
3.5. Affidavits of Robert Stewart as filed and to be filed
3.6. Plaintiffs Statement of Claim as to be filed.
3.7. Statement of Defense as provided on behalf of Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria,
by its Respondent Ministry of Justice
3.8. Notices to Admit as to facts and documents as to be filed
3.9. Such further and other materials as this Honorable Court may permit.

Dated: March 19, 2001 ________________________

/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch8/21517098.doc08/29/09Created by M. Kapoustin 6
 Michael Kapoustin
pro se Plaintiff

/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch8/21517098.doc08/29/09Created by M. Kapoustin 7