What is the test for "public policy" considerations?

Ordinarily, with the great respect I have for Mclntrye, J., and my obligation to try and see some uniformity in decisions within this court, I would follow Oliphant without more and dismiss this application. However, I have a problem. I am already committed. The problem lies in Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Martin Estate, supra, which I decided a short while ago. At p. 69 I held that “public policy” had a limited application as relating to “essential public and moral interests” of the lex fori. Examples of the type of contract to which the rule had been applied were restraintive trade, champerty, interference with criminal prosecutions, fraud, collusion and divorce, certain protections of diplomats and the like. The doctrine of public policy is invoked only where the foreign law offends a principle of morality or justice which commands almost universal recognition. Does the foreign law offend against substantial justice? Is it contrary to natural justice? Is it fundamentally unfair? Public policy considerations seem of no help to the respondent in this application.