[1]               There are two motions before me. The applicant brings a motion seeking summary judgment to enforce her Florida judgment against the respondent.

[2]               The respondent was granted leave to proceed with his motion dated August 4, 2007. This Notice of Motion seeks an order dismissing this application, setting aside all of the orders that have been made against the respondent and directing the return of his passport.

[3]               This court has made numerous orders against the respondent. A review of the background follows.

[4]               The parties were married on June 2, 2005 in Toronto. They moved to Florida where the applicant has lived since 1995. At the time of her marriage, the applicant owned property located in Sunny Isles in Florida. She sold the property on November 14, 2005. The sale proceeds (US$260,000) were deposited into a Royal Bank of Canada account in Florida (the Florida account).

[5]               The applicant deposited the proceeds into this account because the respondent assured her that the account was linked to their joint account at the same bank and that she would have access to the proceeds. The applicant also deposited US$57,000 of her own money in the same account.

[6]               On April 28, 2006, the applicant and respondent had an argument. The respondent left the matrimonial home and moved back to Toronto. This was the end of the marriage and the parties were divorced on April 25, 2007.

[7]               Around May 12, 2006, the applicant discovered that the respondent had withdrawn approximately US$406,000 from the Florida account without the applicant's knowledge or consent.

[8]               On May 17, 2006, in a Florida Court, the applicant commenced a Petition for the Dissolution of the Marriage against the respondent. On the same day, she obtained a temporary emergency ex parte order from the Florida court, freezing the respondent’s bank accounts and ordering him to account for all funds withdrawn or transferred in the previous 60 days. The respondent did not comply.

[9]               On April 25, 2007, Justice Jennifer Bailey granted final judgment to the applicant in the Florida action.

[10]           In her judgment, Justice Bailey states that the husband appeared by telephone on January 17, 2007, at a Case Management Conference and told the court that he would not be appearing at the trial set for February 20, 2007, or on any other date that the Court scheduled the trial. On the morning of the trial, the court received a telephone call from the respondent stating that he would not be attending the trial. Despite this call the court waited 20 minutes before proceeding with the final hearing.

[11]           Paragraphs G, H and I of the Florida judgment set out the court’s findings concerning the money that the respondent took from the Florida account:

[12]           The Florida court granted the applicant judgment against the respondent. Among the items of relief granted, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant US$317,533.51 plus pre-judgment interest of US$23,704.23.

[13]           On June 28 2006, the applicant commenced this application seeking various orders all aimed at the return of her money. This court has issued numerous orders against the respondent, but he has never returned the money to the applicant. A summary of the  orders made follows:

[14]           The respondent filed an affidavit dated August 4, 2007, and as well testified in court. In his affidavit he states his belief that the applicant has abandoned the Ontario proceedings because of her absence at the case conference on July 25 and 27, 2007.

[15]           Clearly she has not abandoned her application. While she did not appear in July, this was during a time that she did not have counsel. As she states in her affidavit she does not remember being contacted about the court dates. I question whether the respondent notified her of the July 27 date. Regardless, the applicant’s absence in July is no basis for granting the relief the respondent requests. The applicant has new counsel and is serious about seeking enforcement of the Florida judgment.

[16]           The respondent continues to have no justification for why he has not returned the money to the applicant. In his affidavit he states that he is unable to pay the money, although he does not explain the basis for this inability. He complains that he was not able to travel to Florida to defend the action because his passport was taken away by order of this court. However, the passport was not taken from the respondent until November 16, 2006, six months after the ex parte injunction issued in Florida. During these six months, the respondent was free to travel to Florida to defend the action and he chose not to do so.

[17]           The respondent states that “I was at all material times incapable of paying any sum remotely close to $317,000 into court”.

[18]           In the respondent's affidavit dated August 4, 2007, he described his relationship with the applicant :

[19]           During his oral testimony, the respondent testified that the money he withdrew was his own. This conflicts with his affidavit in which he said he had no savings. More than once he said it was his money and he was free to do with it what ever he wants.

[20]           The respondent repeatedly refused to answer questions about where the money is now. He said: It is “my personal business”. He also said, "There is no proof that I was given the money. I have never transferred any money to my daughter." When asked where the money is now he said: It is “not in the country.”

[21]           There is no basis for granting the relief that the respondent requests. He continues to provide conflicting evidence about the whereabouts of the money. His evidence ranges from a denial that he took the money to having gambled it away. He denies that he ever gave the money to his daughter and yet when the money was traced, the records confirmed that he gave it to his daughter and she returned the money to him when he left jail.

[22]           The respondent has had the benefit of more than one counsel. Further, this court has explained to him that at a minimum he must to pay the money into court and then attempt to defend his position. He has ignored all the warnings.

[23]           There is no evidence to justify setting aside any of the orders of this court. His passport will continue to be held as ordered.

[24]           The respondent’s motion is dismissed

[25]           The applicant seeks a summary judgment order enforcing the Florida judgment. For the following reasons, I find that there is no genuine issue for trial and summary judgment is granted enforcing the April 25, 2007 judgment of Justice Jennifer D. Bailey of the Circuit Court of the 11^th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County in Florida.

[26]           The relief granted by the Florida Court is the basis of the applicant’s claim in this court and the Florida judgment is a final one (see Monteiro v. Toronto Dominion Bank, 2006 CanLII 124 (ON SCDC), [2005] 206 O.A.C. 281).

[27]           There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Florida judgment was obtained by fraud.

[28]           The facts of this case meet the real and substantial connection test set out in Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72 (CanLII), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416. There is a real and substantial connection between the Florida jurisdiction, the subject matter of that action and the respondent. The applicant and respondent resided in Florida after being married. Although the respondent is a Canadian citizen, the Florida court found him to be a resident of the Miami-Dade County and the matrimonial domicile (before the breakdown of the marriage) was in Florida. The money that the respondent took was in a bank account in Florida.

[29]           The respondent was fully informed about the Florida action and he did have an opportunity to defend. The respondent never objected to the jurisdiction of the Florida Court. He was properly served with the applicant’s pleadings in the Florida action and he filed an Answer on July 11, 2006. He informed the Florida court that he would not appear on any date they set for the trial.

[30]           On the morning of the trial, the respondent called the Florida court to say once again that he would not be attending. Even so the Court waited 20 minutes before starting the final hearing. Neither the respondent nor a counsel on his behalf attended.

[31]            It is clear that the procedure and process of the Florida Court was in accordance with our jurisdiction’s concept of natural justice.

[32]           The applicant’s motion for summary judgment is granted enforcing the judgment of the Florida court. Specifically, the respondent is ordered to pay the applicant US$317,533.51 plus pre-judgment interest of US$23,704.23 as well as additional pre-judgment interest that has accumulated since April 25, 2007 when the Florida judgment was issued.

[33]           The applicant is awarded costs payable by the respondent fixed at $10,000.

[34]           I am advised by the scheduling office that the respondent has been trying to schedule yet another motion. In view of my decision granting judgment to the applicant, I can see no basis for another motion being brought by the respondent, unless of course he decides to purge his contempt and then seeks the return of his passport.

[35]           There is a pending motion relating to the respondent’s request to have access to the contents of his safety deposit box at the Bank of Nova Scotia. Justice Backhouse has agreed to case manage this motion and any other related motions that the respondent is now able to bring in light of my decision. A copy of this decision is to be sent to S. Carmine, Counsel for the Bank of Nova Scotia.