Equitable remedy

General Motors of Canada Limited v. Canadian Auto Workers Union, Local 222, 2008 CanLII 28750 (ON SC)

The “Clean Hands” Issue

[7] A party who requests equitable relief should come to court with “clean hands.” The oft-used maxim states, “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands.” This means that the court may exercise its discretion not to grant an equitable remedy where the plaintiff has participated in a dishonest or fraudulent act, leading to the necessity of the remedy. As I.C.F. Spry states in The Principles of Equitable Remedies,

The discretionary considerations that are taken into account by courts with equitable jurisdiction include not only matters touching the nature of the right to be enforced and the general effects of the grant or refusal of relief, […] but also matters that touch the propriety of the plaintiff, in view of his prior conduct, in approaching the court for the particular relief that he seeks.  These later considerations are sometimes said to be personal to the plaintiff.  So, for example, when the special intervention of the court is sought in the enforcement of contractual rights it is necessary to consider such matters as misrepresentation and non-disclosure, […] and fraud and the need for clean hands.[1]