Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments from Ukraine and the British Virgin Islands (BVI) in Ontario.

• The Ukrainian judgments, although final and binding, were ruled to be statute-barred under Ontario’s Limitations Act.

• Applicant's attempt to enforce a 2022 BVI judgment was found to be a derivative or “ricochet” judgment, which Canadian law prohibits.

• The BVI judgment was held to simply reaffirm and set off existing obligations, not create new enforceable rights.

• No violation of natural justice was found in the Ukrainian proceedings; the respondent had sufficient notice and representation.

• The court awarded costs of $70,000 to the respondent, finding the applicant's enforcement attempt legally untenable and out of time.

Background and dispute between the parties

The applicant, Andrey Adamovsky, and the respondent, Igor Filipenko, were former business associates involved in various ventures in Ukraine, including the oil distribution company Vik Oil. Ownership of Vik Oil was held through offshore structures. After the sale of Vik Oil, Filipenko and a third partner sued Adamovsky in the BVI, claiming a share of the sale proceeds. The BVI courts ultimately ruled against Adamovsky in 2017.

In parallel, Adamovsky initiated proceedings in Ukraine, which resulted in two judgments in his favour—awarded in 2014 and 2017—for claims related to rescission and consequential damages arising from Filipenko’s conduct. These Ukrainian judgments totaled hundreds of millions of Hryvnia. Adamovsky then returned to the BVI courts in 2020 to have the Ukrainian judgments recognized and set off against the BVI judgment, and the BVI court granted a default judgment to that effect in 2022.

In 2022, Adamovsky filed an application in Ontario seeking to have the Ukrainian judgments recognized and enforced, adjusted by the amount he owed under the earlier BVI judgment. In 2025, he sought to amend the application to also enforce the 2022 BVI judgment.

Issues before the court

The Ontario Superior Court considered three core issues: whether the amendment to include the 2022 BVI judgment was legally permissible; whether the Ukrainian judgments were enforceable or statute-barred; and whether the BVI 2022 judgment was a prohibited derivative judgment.

Enforcement of Ukrainian judgments found to be statute-barred

The court concluded that the Ukrainian judgments, which became final in 2015 and 2018 respectively, were discoverable and enforceable as early as those dates. Under Ontario’s Limitations Act, a party must initiate recognition and enforcement proceedings within two years of discoverability. Adamovsky argued that it wasn’t legally appropriate to seek enforcement until the BVI court finalized the net amount in 2022, but the court rejected this reasoning. It held that all relevant amounts were certain by 2018, and the application in Ontario, filed in 2022, was well outside the limitation period.

No breach of natural justice in Ukrainian litigation

Filipenko also claimed that the Ukrainian judgments should be refused recognition on natural justice grounds. He argued that the Ukrainian courts lacked independence and had acted inconsistently with the BVI decision. The court rejected this argument, finding there was sufficient notice and involvement by Filipenko and his co-litigant. It held that Canadian courts do not second-guess the merits of foreign decisions, and no evidence of procedural unfairness existed.

2022 BVI judgment considered a prohibited ricochet judgment

Adamovsky’s amended application sought enforcement of the 2022 BVI judgment, which had recognized and set off the Ukrainian judgments against the BVI judgment. The Ontario court found that this judgment merely enforced the Ukrainian decisions and calculated a net amount owed. It did not create any new rights or obligations. Relying on the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in H.M.B. Holdings Ltd. v. Antigua and Barbuda, the court held that enforcing such a recognition-of-recognition judgment—referred to as a derivative or ricochet judgment—is impermissible in Ontario. The purpose of such prohibition is to prevent parties from circumventing local limitation periods by enforcing judgments already recognized elsewhere.

Final result and cost consequences

As a result, the application was dismissed in its entirety. The court ordered Adamovsky to pay $70,000 in costs to Filipenko. It found that while the matter was moderately complex and involved multiple jurisdictions, the amount sought by Filipenko was disproportionate, and a reduced but substantial award was appropriate.