In Strassle, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment before O’Connell, J. of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for an Order permitting the plaintiff to enforce in Ontario, a judgment and cost orders obtained in the Federal Republic of Germany against the Defendant Helmut J. Sieber.
The Agreement stipulated jurisdiction and place of performance as Stuttgart, Germany, with German law as the applicable law.
“In my view, the fraud the Defendant alleges is one that may relate to the merits of his claim, and is not an extrinsic fraud which would have deprived him of an adequate opportunity to present his case. Likewise, in my view, there are no new facts which could not have been discovered by due diligence prior to the initial hearing which gave rise to the default judgment. Here he was given the opportunity in the appeal. Likewise, his allegations that Bankruptcy process was used to perpetrate a fraud, has no merit. as that process was approved by the German court and dismissed, and as the bankruptcy proceedings are irrelevant to the claim against Sieber.”
In a per curiam endorsement, MacPherson, Gillese and MacFarland JJ.A.note that:
“ We agree with the motion judge’s decision. The language of the release in question does not support the argument that it was intended to extinguish the respondent’s enforcement claim as it extends only to the parties to a separate piece of litigation commenced in 1998 to which the respondent was never a party.
 The appellant attempts to overcome this result by tendering as fresh evidence a settlement agreement concluded alongside the release on which he relies.
In declining to admit the appellant’s fresh evidence, the Court of Appeal writes,
“ We would not admit this agreement as fresh evidence. The simple fact is that the respondent asked the appellant to include this agreement in its motion material that was before Spence J. and the appellant refused on the basis that, as expressed in an e-mail from the appellant’s previous counsel, “my client has determined that the settlement agreement is not relevant, nor germane to the release”. It would be unfair to permit the appellant, with new counsel, to advance precisely the opposite position on this appeal.
 Moreover, we observe that the tendered material does not meet at least two of the four Palmer criteria – the material was available to the appellant at the time of the hearing before the motion judge and the wording in the Settlement Agreement would not reasonably be expected to have affected the result on the motion below.
 We do not accept that a proper interpretation of the words “amongst”, “affiliates” and “releasing all obligations” would have affected the motion judge’s interpretation of the release because the respondent was not a party to the relevant actions and, in the circumstances, would not be encompassed by the word “affiliates”.
 In light of this conclusion, the other issues raised by the appellant need not be addressed.
 The appeal is dismissed.”
While there is no explicit discussion of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Beals v. Saldanha, the Strassle decision is helpful authority in respect of alternative attempts to impeach a foreign judgment; namely, on the grounds of release, waiver, accord and satisfaction, none of which apply ex post facto and are properly within the jurisdiction of the court granting the original judgment.