Does a domestic court have jurisdiction to consider fraud in the foreign jurisdiction?

As further noted in Sangi, “the domestic court’s jurisdiction to consider fraud in the foreign jurisdiction was modestly expanded” in Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72, to include new or newly discovered material facts that were not before the foreign court when it decided to exercise jurisdiction. Discussion

The Australian court decided to exercise jurisdiction. As Finch C.J.B.C. said in Lang v. Lapp, if the respondent was unhappy with that decision, her recourse was to appeal that decision to the Australian court: “It would not conform to principles of international comity to permit the defendants to re-litigate issues of fact or law which could have been addressed in the foreign jurisdiction.”

There are limited grounds to refuse to recognize the Australian divorce in Canada as a foreign divorce such as denial of natural justice; flimsy residential means; fraud or improper reasons; or injustice in granting recognition of the divorce: Pitre v. Nguyen at para.13.