Key Issues

1. Whether Midland BVI had standing as a “judgment creditor” under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act (REJA).
2. Whether Shtaif established defenses under REJA:
   • Fraud (s. 2(6)(d))
   • Good defense if an action were brought on the judgment (s. 2(6)(g))

Background

• In 2014, Midland Guernsey obtained a judgment against Shtaif in Ontario for ~$46M, later reduced to ~$8.37M by the Ontario Court of Appeal (2017).
• In 2019, Midland Guernsey assigned the judgment to Midland BVI.
• Midland BVI registered the judgment in Alberta under REJA; Shtaif contested, alleging lack of standing and fraud.

Court’s Findings

1. Midland BVI’s Standing:

   • The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Second Certificate’s validity.
   • Alberta courts cannot re-evaluate certificates from reciprocating jurisdictions.
   • Shtaif received express written notice of assignment before registration, satisfying Alberta’s Judicature Act.

2. Defenses Under REJA:

   • Fraud: No new fraud evidence meeting the Beals v Saldanha test was presented.
   • Good Defense: No basis, as Ontario courts had upheld the judgment.

3. Fresh Evidence:

   • Rejected; Ontario’s 2023 decision (Midland 2023) deemed it lacking credibility.

4. Stay of Enforcement:

   • Denied, as Shtaif had not pursued his Ontario motion to set aside the judgment.

Outcome

• Appeal Dismissed; Costs Awarded to Midland BVI. No amount was specified int his decision.